>> any other comments president mccarthy or commissioners? >> i think we are good, sonia. >> there was nopublic comment andour next item is the adjournment . is there a motion to adjourn ? >> so moved. >> second. >> all commissioners in favor. thank you, we are now adjourned. and it is 12:00 pm exactly thank you everyone . >>

>> 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 under your discretionary review calendar, item 11, 877 carolina street, discretionary review has been withdrawn.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 some home to

displacement. we would need to see that integrated and brought together in a policy preferably under a better mapping system that captures the needs of those communities. second, i'll say quickly an example of other larger scale policies that significantly impact housing and equitable development that are maybe not as directly related but part of the major cultural eco system is for example the significant ongoing loss of blue collar space on the east side. coupling with the huge influx of high-income earners we can see those are clearly a cause and effect we can intervene on. seems like even potentially low-hanging fruit to intervene. thank you.

i appreciate it. >> hi, my name is ira chaplain. i live in north beach. i'm excited about this element. the goals and policies are postally pretty good a couple concerns. primarily related to climate change and the impact. the board of supervisors has declared a climate emergency and we have a climate action plan. one of the best things we can do in order to address the climate emergency i didn't see mentioned here at all is just get as many people as possible living in san francisco because in san francisco you can walk places and take transit places and bike

places and you don't need to use air-conditioning. you don't need to use very much heat and so for all those reasons, san francisco's one of the most environmentally friendly places for people to live and any housing unit that doesn't get built in san francisco gets built in suburban sprawl or another state with a less favorable climate. they those people don't go away they just have a higher carbon footprint so the 82,000 new homes is a floor not a target or goal. in order to address climate change we should go beyond the 82,000 and get millions of people living in san francisco not just another 150,000 or so. thank you.

>> district 5 housing advocate. it's difficult to consider in a week but here's some observations. the first is whatever draft 2 is trying to say, much is lost in an ocean of contradictions, conflicts, cries for help. unanswered questions, impossibilities and aspirations. without a clear means of fulfillment. the only clarity is the laudable intention of racial and social equity. the report is truly unprecedented gathering of community input. so there's much eye-opening truth in the community input section.

you hear over and over there's the proposed 80,000. vulnerable communities have repeated zieshz to lead on development question but there's no real means of achievement. and i ask the commissioners to examine all input and every one of the 200 actions before giving a blanket approval. it's not part of general plan and commissioners, you're our safeguards. please do not commit the city to this document blindly by default. >> i'm bruce wolfe with care

community land trust. this is to update the next housing element draft so it truly centers equity for bipoc and low-income communities. the coalition envisions and woshz for new complil and social systems that prioritize the stability and aspirations of our bipoc and low income communities and place the needs of the people over developers' desire for profit. this housing element draft you are discussing works directly against this vision. during the last element cycle the san francisco park exceeding the production mandate based on the needs of production and mandates for prior housing element, san francisco produced far less affordable housing than required and produced an excess of market rate housing.

based on the failure the housing element for 2020 can promote in housing before market race housing. this would need to be coupled with an aggressive resource development plan associated from the production of market rate housing since these two types of development compete for the same scarce land. the eight-year housing element cycle over producing market-rate housing only makes housing more expensive. the city's response to those who are without homes is not based in equity when the essence of what the city is responding to is homelessness and we'll never achieve equity but clearing sidewalks is the goal of dignified options.

we urge you all to update the next draft so it truly centers -- [chime] >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm speaking on behalf of myself as an individual and as a board member in action. i'm calling today because i think there's work to do but i like the draft and want to thank you for the time in looking at the critical issue here and the fact we need to build more homes. we're just talking about one cycle but we can look back for decades how san francisco has shirked its responsibility and it impacts people up and down the peninsula and deep in the east bay as we push people out. and i read an article that read

like it could have been written yesterday about how people were being moved or moving further and further out to find affordable housing and priced in the longer commutes. we have an obligation as others have noted to build more homes for the people who are here now and the people who will be coming like me, a trans woman who moved to san francisco because it's a place that has a lot of opportunity for me to be myself. i see so many young we're queer people and can't find housing and opportunity like people were able to decades ago. we can create that city. it's in our hands. the opportunity to be an lgbtq mecca we know we are and doesn't displace people or makt impossible to move here. -- make it impossible to move here. that's one of the benefits of building the number of homes we need to in the next cycle.

thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with united to save the mission a member of the race and equity and all planning coalition. this housing element draft you're discussing works directly against any vision of equity for low-income and bipoc community. all it incorporates aspirational equity and historical harms done to bipoc communities and the draft does nothing to address the structural issues and political action that continue to prioritize profit-driven development and continue to allow low-income bipoc communities to be devastate gentrification. draft 2 is just a blueprint to

streamline profit-driven market rate housing development and does not make compensation for the egregious deficit we have been living through since the adoption of the previous housing element. we'll continue to see the same inequitable outcomes and residents into overcrowded communal housing and residents forced into houselessness. until we change course and work to right structural inequities. this draft is nothing to be excited about unless you want to continue to eradicate bipoc opportunities. make today the day that this

course is changed. update next housing element draft significantly and allow at least three weeks for our communities to review the next draft sow our communities can participate in a meaningful way. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is robert huffman. i live in district 5. i'm calling because the department has been working and complying with state law but it's not there yet. i'd like to point out the plan department has not detailed plans to comply with that streamlining act. the city's own website for the last 20 years has said the city does not comply with the permanent streamlining act and has no plans to do so. the city is in violation of state law and the city should

not need to fix this before it submits a housing element to california h.c.d. it was only november when the city has a meeting on the housing imbalance well north of 100,000 units. the last decade it was around 200,000 we were short and needs to be mentioned en our housing needs assessment. i'd like to note we're not on track to meet the obligations for the next cycle under the income categories. there are significant government constraints to be addressed including discretionary review from the u.c. berkeley report shows from 2014 to 2017, san francisco that'd highest median housing in the state in 26

months. this represents a significant constraint to housing production and must be addressed. further, the draft does not mention social housing. san francisco has the resource to implement a well-funded, well planned social housing regime and san francisco there's no mention in that in this draft. we need social housing and have the authorization from voters in prop k. we need to get this done. everyone is talking about needing more affordable housing and cost and subsidized social housing is a plan that works. it works in many communities and we need that here. thank you. >> good afternoon. this plan needs to be updated. there's a lot of policy

statement. these are policy statements that are supposed to benefit communities of color and this is a sheet. i remember it was created with a latinx community and became a policy statement to develop funding for policy statements and sat on the shelves of the planning department and planning commissioners never went back to look at the policy statements and since that time we lost 11,000 latinx community members in the commission. if it's not in code or zoning it seems like it's happening all over again. and we experienced this in the past and seems to be happening again. the priority to benefit

low-income communities is to benefit low-income communities and has to be code and zoned. thank you. >> i'm an attorney interest costa county. h.c.d. knows san francisco can act on development. we must describe and analyze the process and application to approvals conclusiving the time frame for each in the process. have fun doing that. the current draft doesn't do any of that and a little bit from the board of supervisors website talking about stream lining it. the planning department is not in compliance with the project of applications and the

department doesn't have a time line in place. i encourage you to make sure the next draft complies and otherwise i look forward to the housing element. thank you for your time. >> hi, any name is laura. the executive director of action and we're following housing elements across the state. and so from that perspective i think one thing that i want to commend the san francisco planning department on really actually trying to look into the spirit of the law and ask what does this men for san francisco and try to get a lot of the values because planning is a political argument. and trying to get as many of those big picture values embedded in the document is a

great ambition. i think people are ready for next level of technicality in it and a hear that whether you like the framework or not, people are ready for the next level of technicality and i think that's exactly on schedule so congratulations for that. in that level of technicality i want to add more people are worried about development that causes displacement and the technicality we're going need to assuage some of those fears is strong objective tenant protections especially to make sure we're building on the parking lots and allowing a home owner to be building housing. we're allowing low industrial buildings to become multi-industrial housing and as a renter in a rent-controlled apartment we want it see controls and see tenants protected so we can pursue development without displacement and that's a lot of specificity.

i think when it comes map people are worried because we may have a high-income community with low-income people in it and that's where the standards need to be clear. thank you so much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the race and equity planning coalition. we urge you to update the next housing element draft so it truly centers equity for bipoc and low-income communities. it envisions a san francisco that empowers historically marginalized communities to determine our future and solve issues of displacement on inaffordability and inequality. and we've been track the housing 2022 element to make sure it influences the shape of housing in our city. and reviewing the draft has been challenging due to the limited

time frame for reviewing the 100 page document make it difficult for our community to read and digest and engage in the process and draft. for the housing element set to be released in april, our communities request at least three weeks to review the draft before it comes to the planning commission for discussion. this incorporates language around equity and historical harms but doesn't address the changing the underlying structural issues, bureaucratic and political action that continue to prioritize profit and exclude the voice of bipoc and low inform income communities. the strategies have been insufficient. we're concern the draft as an overelicense -- reliance on policies and not give the solutions we need. we urge to you update the daft

so it materially centers why the for bipoc and low-income communities. thank you. >> hi. last year i co-authored a research paper and found s.f. is on track to develop 7% of the cycle inventory and look at the likelihood of on site development and that informs the zoning capacity you can claim from the site and inventory. at an outreach staff said they had done modelling and my question is whether they plan on using the modelling. i think it would be helpful to

have a realistic plan to hit targets and avoid further displacement from increased rents. thank you. >> hi, there. i'm a west side tenant living in rent controlled housing in the city. in addition to being a local residents i also wrote and negotiated senate bills 828 and 835 during the years i worked for scott weiner. i'll stay away from the technical details and focus on reminding the commissioners the comments de crying the housing requirements are the base that closed once the state laws were written and negotiated and adopted by democratically elected officials with significant community input. should the city not adopt an adequate housing plan on time to

makes room for over 80,000 housing units, the consequences to disadvantaged communities in san francisco and all communities in the city are enormous. the state of california will take control of the significant share of san francisco's permitting and zoning. the state will open the city up to significant litigation risk from the attorney general and remove funding. this does not get us closer to racial and economic equity in san francisco and beyond. it would be valuable for those who oppose the draft propose a compliant approach in lieu of what was presented. absent that, we're en route to losing public funding for services and losing power for permitting in the city. i hope the board and advocates remain focussed on these

critical feedback to the planning department as community debate and discussion proceeds this year and i want to thank everyone for their time particularly the planning department staff that i know has been spending a lot of time working on this as well as the commissioners entertain ing a long and colorful debate. >> i want to comment the planning department and i like policy 20 and policy 25. the most important part is the list of sites that are zoned for housing and the probability of development giving the housing cost. housing element without the list

of sites is not complete and i'm not sure whether four units per lot are enough. maybe we need eight to meet our goals. maybe based on the building code requirements it may be most feasible to build more than four. we should think through the interaction of the building and planning code to see whether this is actually feasible. i agree with laura foote we should have objective demolition control to protect tenants and add we should reform planning code 373 to make it easier to renovate or rebuild housing that does not replace tenants. thank you. please continue with the process. >> last call for public comment

on the item. press star 3. >> is this adam from district 6. i wanted to encourage moving this forward in the process. i think it's a great start. san francisco desperately needs new housing. we've needed new housing for decades. this is not something that should be a surprise. you can go back to the '50s and '70s and see it. harvey milk was famously quoted as saying we've got to do something to build more housing. until you build more housing this ordinance and anything else you talk about is meaningless. we have to do more. that was harvey milk in an interview in 1976. we're in 2022 and harvey milk's comments could apply today.

the more we delay the worse it will get and the more we need to dig in. we need strong protections for renters. we need to have demolition controls and make sure the spectrum across the board from affordable housing to moderate is all taken care of. ultimately though what let's all this happen is having the housing in the first place. if we don't build the housing, all we're doing is protecting the value of home owners and land owners. the people who own homes now and own buildings now are going to benefit at the expense of everyone else. we should listen to harvey milk and move forward. thank you. >> my name is steve marzo. i'm a home owner in the

ingleside neighborhood. i have seen housing affordability getting worse every year. we hear we need to only build 100% affordable housing and nothing else. we tried that and look where it's gotten us. i'm asking you today to change the status quo. don't be satisfied with the way we've tried things through the decades. this is our chance to change the direction of the city and we can do that by certifying a housing element that will realistically build 80,000 homes and i believe you folks can have the courage to pass that. the city is, i believe,

changing. [please stand by]. it's hard to think of a single contemporary of mine who is

thinking of staying in this city long term and the reasoning is the same and it's become so obvious that it hardly needs to be stated anymore. the cost of housing in this city is intenable and that's not a good thing and i suggest fundamentally -- it's suggested fundamentally we as a city need to change course. the city is legally required to have a plan to build roughly 80,000 new homes, frankly, we should be viewing that as a floor, not a ceiling. i want to thank their planning staff for their work so far and encourage them to draft strategies including for more housing and parts of the cities that haven't been getting their fair share like the west side. considering where we are, the city should be working to craft a housing element that has held up as a standard throughout the state for focusing on one

fundamental goal, realistic actionable plans for more new housing and more new neighbors. >> caller: hello. [ indiscernible ] >> commissioner: we cannot hear her. >> secretary: ma'am, can you speak up a bit. >> caller: can you mere me now? >> commissioner: no. >> caller: can you hear me now. >> secretary: yes, that's much better. >> caller: okay. thank you. there's a lot of lovely policies in this plan and it's promising, but where are the dollars? it's all very well to tell the city of san francisco to produce 80,000 new homes, but,

a, who's going to pay for it. we're not going to achieve the housing that the city has called for. why has the city fought the state about the e debris jous amount of housing that's being proposed for san francisco. that's something that i appreciate and want to make sure that we have equity in our housing that just telling san francisco and the planning department to wave their magic wander and produce housing is not going to do it.

where's the money? sacramento, if you want to tell us to do it, give us the money and then we will build the stuff ourselves or our affordable housing partners. thank you. >> caller: hello. i live in oakland and as you know, sf is apart of the bay area economy. many people are commuting far for jobs and contributing to green house gases and causing adverse effects to climate change. i implore you to up zone san francisco so that we can do something about this climate catastrophe that we're headed on. thank you so much for your time. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mike chen, i'm a resident of san francisco in

district two and i'm a renter. i'm not a native. i moved here to san francisco about seven years ago and, you know, i am very fortunate to have that opportunity and san francisco's been a great place and if you've grown up here and friends and families are here, it's communities that you find and that's something that's really special to me as a gay man, as someone of chinese descent and as an american, there aren't that many places that have a community of folks of queer asian people and so that's one thing that made san francisco really special to me and what's really frustrating is that that window of opportunity is closing for more and more people. it's harder and harder for folks to find their communities. folks who feel they're the outsiders in places where i grew up like in ohio or in the midwest to be able to find their community of place in san francisco where we have so many great things. so i implore you and i congratulate the staff for

doing this and i hope to be as aggressive as possible to the -- to really make sure we incorporate realistic probability of development to make sure we distribute our housing equitably and across opportunity and across our neighborhoods. thank you very much. >> secretary: okay. final last call for public comment. again, you need to press star three to be added to the queue. >> caller: hello. my name is emily crow. i'm an architect working primarily on 100% affordable housing projects in sf and i'm also working on market rates in sf and i just want to say the policy goals for 142619 are

spot on. really fantastic. as mentioned, 80,000 units are required to be built and i think you've done an excellent job listening to the desires of the community as well as the need of the community. there's never going to be a solution that every single individual of what you've put together is an enormous step in the right direction. we can't continue to do what we've been doing and affordable housing being built on the west side has helped us get to the state that we're in today. those policies proposals are a complete breath of fresh air and hope that maybe my family some day will have a place of our own and on a personal note, i know several couples that have nearly or actually fallen apart because of the lack of housing in san francisco. one person can't imagine leaving ever and the other person says, look, this other

place is going to be more welcoming to us. this place is going to let us come in so that we can have our lives and our families without immense personal struggle and personal compromise. so it's best to answer that question for yourself, but the policy that you're proposing here give me hope that that type of struggle will be less and less common for san franciscans in the future. so 100% in agreement and please continue moving forward with the 80,000 units as a baseline that we can only go forward from. thanks. >> caller: hello. i'm a resident of district two and i'm calling in to encourage

everyone involved to up zone as radically as possible in san francisco. i'm personally on a quest to get to know every single street having moveded here two and a half years ago. and what i see is that 70% of the city looks like they're the suburbs. and my hope would be that by creating more density, more walkable neighborhoods, not only can we address our climate crisis, and also just make san francisco a much more livable place for everyone, where you can walk one block down to get all the needs in your life and be a true city. thank you. >> secretary: okay, commissioners. that concludes public comment. and it is now open for your deliberation. i take it back. there is another person

requesting to speak. >> last person. >> caller: hi. my name is kevin burke. sorry, i couldn't figure out the public comment system. i'm a volunteer in east bay. transit tenant rights and long-term planning in the east bay. san francisco is planning zoned for 80,000 additional homes. we're concerned about the impacts of focusing too much on inequality within san francisco and too little on inequality between san francisco to the less counties of the bay. and san francisco is about twice as rich as west oakland. there are very wide disparities between san francisco and the east bay. additional investments in hunter's point is not going to do much for renters in oakland if san francisco fails to meet its housing goals.

we're glad that the planning department is concerneded about racial disparities and land use, but the planning department is not going to be able to do much about disparities in the east bay. i think that's the most important thing is is to try to meet the housing target to avoid displacement in the east bay. i'm working to try to prevent new housing from being built and an additional sprawl, there's incredible demand for new housing in all those places even though they're not healthy places to live and san francisco's not meeting its housing target. thanks very much. have a good day. >> secretary: okay. commissioners. public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. >> commissioner: thank you. thank you to all the public

commentors who called in. i want to call on commissioner imperial to get it started. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, president tanner. i agree with some of the public comments that this is a pretty expansive document, but i still would like to, of course, thank this class for gathering all the effort and putting it in this documents. there definitely needs to be more updates and i'm looking for the third track. since we're talking about affordable housing here and a big part of this document is investment in affordable housing, i would like to call on director shaw and i do have just a couple of questions in terms of what is currently

m.o.c.d. doing right now in terms of identifying barriers in getting to affordable housing? or are there any things robbery formulated right now? >> commissioner, i don't think director shaw is on. >> secretary: i was going to mention. i don't see him. >> i know he had an obligation afterward. >> commissioner: they just need to be added. they can add them and then they can respond to the question. >> secretary: it's going to

take a minute to add them. i don't even have their e-mail addresses. >> president: maybe if you have other questions or a question for kimia. >> commissioner imperial: i guess if the staff with mocd aren't able to, you know, i'm hoping in the third hearing that, you know, we would like to know or at least i am, the commissioner would like to know what are the efforts of mocd as well as identifying barriers in terms of getting into affordable housing since a big portion of this housing element is talking about investments in affordable housing. what are the structures we have right now. so if they cannot make it today, you know, i would like to hear those things. i do have a lot of comments and

hope that the other commissioners would be patient with me, but one of the big -- one of the comments i would start is on policy planning on page 63 in term officer the review inclusionary rates including financial ability. i know there's been a discussion in terms of the financial feasibility in order to achieve affordability in the city, but i would like to critique that part because you know, we just go in terms of always emphasizing on the financial feasibility of the project. i don't think we'll ever even achieve affordability that we're talking about because that means we'll always have it at the mercy of developers and also in terms of disability of their project. so that's one comment that i would like. another thing is that in terms

of the investment of affordable housing, we need to identify the amount of investments the city needs to commit to. first, we need to identify the amount of investment whether it be building affordable housing or we have co-op, co-ownership, land acquisition, land banking that's identifying the strategy. i would like to know what it would take. and second, identify how to get there. what are the resources to get there? i would like to see more measurable goals in order to achieve it and, you know, and also that is what also makes us more accountable as a city too. in terms of the accountability process, for me as a commissioner, i would like to see a big infer from the community on what the process would look like.

let's make sure that this process is transparent. another thing too is that a lot -- there has been a lot of discussions on the middle income or as far as i remember, there's always these wars between the definition of what is low income or middle income, but i think we need to center on what the data that we have as to who are the most rent burdened. so it also got lost in translation when we tried to define low income or middle income. so we always need to center it on those needs. one thing too that i would like to also mention in this housing is the in lieu fees and i feel like they need to be calculated

and perhaps they could be one of the identifying goals in terms of how are we going to get there to increase affordable housing. another thing to and also leads to confusion and information and there needs to have a reform in this process whether it be advocacy in the federal level, using accurate map and using preferences and i think that's also one of the issues here too in the housing element is how do we make sure that we are actually using the correct map or portrayed the accuracy of the map of, you know, whether it be well resourced or, you know, ongoing risks or at risk of gentrification. i see in the map that you

provided on major 51 that there is this map, but i think this is something being contested by other community members and also from my previous experience in terms of using the placement preference map, it didn't really portray accurately, the displacement of going on city wide. so i believe there is some references on the federal, but there are but i think we want to make sure that the map that we're using is actually accurate or portraying in terms of at risk of displacement. another thing in terms for the planning definitely is an objective 2.cwe need to create [ indiscernible ] as far as i know, there hasn't really been a way to monitor the community benefits whether

they are being materialized. under the objectives 3.bunder transportation, you know in identifying the small to mid rise multifamily types, a lot of the time line on that is under the medium time line which means seven years or more. but what are we -- what is the short time line or what is being presented right now in the community? i think there needs to have some sort of presentation now in terms of the transportation plan for that. i think that's what where all this anxiety is coming from when one street is closed because of the transportation plan has been probably not vetted yet in the community.

another thing too and this is a general question for everyone in regards to a.d.u. programs, can a.d.u. be really family friendly. you know, we just don't want to commit to the number of units. that's just kind of like what director shaw is saying. we also want to make sure that these are habitable for a number of households. so something to think about when we're talking about a.d.u. programs. i know that the a.d.u. program because it's a rent controlled program, but at the same time, i think this is something that's going to be discussed in the sb90 information is, you know building it and, again, that's another funding issue as well that i think needs to be identified in terms of the funding that the city needs to commit to. one thing too in regards to up

zoning, i feel like there needs to have findings that identify describe the correlation of the height and value causing cost, effects on rest and possible effects on displacement before proposing for high increase. page 66, objective 4.b, what is community plan exemption? i think that correlates with the housing sustainability district, but i would like to see as to what are the criteria for community plan exemptions? page 72, in terms of identified to eliminate definition of group housing and modifying dwelling units of housing, let me ensure there's a community involvement or any change or modification of such definition. i think we have heard this in the planning commission in terms of the group housing for assisted dwelling units, but i

would like to ensure that these definitions are in reality are grounded or what's happening on the ground. page 78, policies, when allowing to participate in community benefit use program, my question here is this not just -- is it just around cultural districts or does it apply around m.c.d.s? you know, we need to have measurable steps of structure on how to ensure that and what is a developer doesn't adhere. so something to think about in these kind of measurables. policies, there are four objectives. support streamline and retro fit. also, we need to avoid and even identify rent evictions. i know there has been discussion about rent eviction

and i think that also goes along with the demolition and controls. i think that's something we need to identify as well. page 85, when it comes to sf landscaping ordinance, aside from that, i feel like we also need to incentivize integration of community garden and community design or add community garden for community benefit use. so those are kind of like a lot of my comments. i want -- there are two things that i highlight from here is the advocate to continue to reform ellis act that i think is really important that the city keeps doing this and leading on this. and the extent of rent control to multi-family housing that is at least 25 years old. i do have concerns though especially on page 66, policy

25 later a-h and also in terms of the reducing or eliminating planning commission hearings on state density bonus when not required. i believe us in the planning commission, we have contributed in the input when it comes to design aspects to make sure it's actually habitable. one concern me is also page eight, demolishing rent control for affordable units which i think goes against our city's general plan in terms of preserving the rent control stocks. and things to think about for the staff in terms of i think we also lack knowledge that there's a lot of vacant units in this city. there's i believe about 48,000 vacant units, in terms of funding source, how can we take opportunity of this 48,000 vacant units.

and lastly, one thing that i would like for the department to think about for the third draft is to have a time for the community to review it properly so they can properly digest this. because you need to have more eyes on this and also more time. it took me two weeks to read this. so i'm assuming that a lot of community members don't have that much time either. so those are my comments and again, thank you, and i'm looking forward to the draft of the third policy. >> president: thank you, commissioner imperial. commissioner diamond.

>> commissioner diamond: thank you to all of the staff and their hard work in terms of community outreach and the writing of the draft. all your hard work really shows. so i have two or three areas of comment. if i understand this correctly, if we don't meet the goals, then we do lose local control over the projects and we lose access to affordable housing funds potentially. is that accurate? >> yes. so if we don't have our housing elements update and adapted in time we will lose access to affordable housing and if we don't meet our reeushgszna goals in different category goals, yes, sb35 could apply to that specific income category.

>> commissioner diamond: okay. so from my perspective, we need to make sure that we have concrete measures in here to actually achieve the r.e.n.a. goals so we don't face those results. i'm all in favor of, you know really ambitious goals. i'm in favor of really audacious goals and that's what we're facing if we look at tripling of what we -- it's been said in the past, you know, we are setting our targets -- we have had our targets set for us to be extremely high and it strikes me that we need to see, we're going to have really audacious goals that we have really looked hard at what is getting in the way of achieving those and on the affordable side, i believe my primary concern has to do with where the funding

for all the affordable housing is going to come. i'm particularly concerned because figure 227 indicates that not only are we not increasing the amount of funds that are available for affordable housing over the next ten years, it's actually a significant decrease in the amount of funds and the plan does identify certain measures, but they're all in the name all sort of in the name of advocacy. advocate for affordable housing bond. advocate for a change to problem 13. advocate for a regional tax. advocate for the regional percentages that are applicable to past affordable housing bonds and so my question and desire is that we get very concrete on what advocacy actually means in each of those areas, what are the steps that

we're going to take to generate funds from those advocacy efforts and how realistic is it? some like the affordable housing bond may be way more possible than changing prop 13 and i think we should be really clear in the plan about what we as a city are actually going to undertake in order to get the plans to build this affordable housing. otherwise, you know, our expectations are not aligned with what the reality is. and so i would really appreciate it in the next draft if we saw more concrete information about what it takes to actually get the funds that are necessary to build the affordable housing that is called for under the r.e.n.a. goals. we met our r.e.n.a. goals in the past. what i'm very concerneded about is the pattern we've seen in the past two years which is two

things. one is market rate housing projects have been approved by this commission thousands of units, but they're not being built. they're in a holding pattern. no doubt, probably primarily attribute to extremely high construction costs over which we have little control. and the second problem we're seeing is a significant droppoff in the number of applications for large market rate projects. that i think is a bigger concern and something we need to be diving deeper into is we can't meet housing goals for market rate projects if we don't get applications and if the projects are approved if they're not built. so what is standing in the way at the construction of approved projects and what is standing in the way the developers choosing to submit more applications. you know, one of those -- one of the answers to that is

probably something around our process and the complexity of our process, the time frame, and the uncertainty. the plan does address that because it calls for streamlining. but i think we need to be more specific about what we mean by streamlining. i mean, on one hand, i think we care deeply as a city that if we're going to have all of this new development on the west side that's much denser than the neighbors have previously been accustomed to that we need to make sure that it's shaped as best we can to fit into the neighborhood but quiry on whether that needs to be accompanied by discretionary review hearings. i am encouraged by the fact we are starting later today to start to set objective standards or how to have these buildings fit into the west side. and i would like to see how buildings fit in generally to

the city where we're increasing density. i would like to see the next draft get more specific on what we mean by streamlining and how that would be implemented with the various kinds of approvals that we're seeing. i also think it would be really important to have conversations with the developers of projects that have been approved, but not yet built. you know, what is it that needs to happen before those projects can be built. i mean, i don't want us to be passive about this. we need to really understand what is getting in the way and to see if there's anything that we have the ability to control. there may not be, but we ought to be diving deep into this so we understand that. we don't get credit under approved projects. i believe we have to have or they need to be somewhere in the process and we for sure can't get anymore housing if

people aren't submitting applications and so we need to understand what's getting in the way of project applicants submitting their applications. and the third thing, it has been mentioned. it was mentioned by commissioner imperial and some of the speakers and that is it's not enough to increase the amount of housing. we need to make sure we're providing the services that make for livable neighborhoods at the same time. and on the west side, my concern is that we need to make sure that our policies are addressing short term, median term, and long term how we are increasing transportation. in particular, i want to talk about the geary corridor and the 19th avenue corridor that for decades we have been talking about building light rail and still so far off in the future and if we increase density in the near term, we're going to have all these people

there probably without parking because we are encouraging approval of projects without cars. so how are they going to get around and i believe that we need to be more explicit in the plan about what we're doing to encourage transportation on the west side so that it comes in a time frame that's consistent with the time frame in which we expect to see the densification of housing. and as we increase density all over the city, we limit block space. we need to make sure that we're looking very carefully at everything we can do in order to preserve, enhance, even expand access to neighborhood parks. as a denser city, that likely

means reduction of backyards, but it shouldn't mean that we're reducing access to parks and recreational facilities for the families in those areas. that was it. again, i just really want to conclude by thatting you again for all of the hard work in getting us to this. >> president: thank you, commissioner diamond. i'm going to call on commissioner fung now. >> commissioner: i do think that this draft is getting us closer. i have two remaining comments. when i reviewed the details in

the appendix on that, it appeared to me that some highly visible vulnerable communities did not provide input into it and so i would ask the staff to go back through that and ensure that all highly visible vulnerable communities have been approached so that input can be provided and should it be necessary then to add their comments to the next draft the second comment i had was whether the planning team had reviewed other housing elements that have recently been

completed by other municipalities. i don't know whether as an example, has the planning team been able to review los angeles's recently completed housing elements? >> president: did staff want to provide an answer to that question? >> sure. yes. thank you so much for that question, commissioner fung. we have been in communication with l.a. and have been looking at reviewing their plan and also learning about the analysis and we will continue with that. thank you. >> commissioner: okay. i'm finished, president tanner.

>> president: thank you commissioner fung. commissioner chan. >> commissioner: thank you for the extensive work on this, it really does show. i have two comments. i i don't want to repeat the comments of the other commissioners, but one is around policy 4.8, the policy to maximize use of housing staff and vacancies and short term use and retail. i think something that would be really helpful is to be able to quantify and understand the investment of corporate investors who actually are maybe part of the housing distribution of housing and when looking at the housing element and the documents, i think there was one, you know, section that acknowledged investors that san francisco attracts its investors and that housing is a global commodity, but other than that, i couldn't find any other mention of that. so i would encourage to shy away from these conversations

and really acknowledge the elephant in the room that as long as we're still operating in a global economy where land and home ownership and housing as an exchange value is always going to be attention with aspirational goals to housing elements, as much as we want housing and housing as a youth value, so i think it's important to have this conversation, it's important to really look into those trends. i know that some of the corporate investment might be happening in other housing markets nationwide, but we don't necessarily know the current impacts here in san francisco and the bay area and i think it would be helpful to know that. my second comment is around anticipating trends. the variables around how people are playing, shifting with the pandemic and a little bit surprised to see that remote

work. i do understand that there's some occupations for long commute is very much a reality but i also think that that reality could be shifting for different demographics so just understanding that and thinking about how we build some flexibilities so we can anticipate the unanticipated and my last comment is minor in the housing element draft, page 82, figure study 3. the title says percentage of cases or ethnicity i think we can just specify that title about covid cases. those are my comments and thank you so much. >> president: thank you, commissioner chan. i just have a few comments of my own that i'll make. first, i'll start out by thanking staff. it's just really outstanding and really deep community work

and i know it's been challenging as we heard and i just wish you the continued inspiration to keep working and continuing to work on behalf of our city. i also want to thank the many who contributed to this plan who gave their feedback whether it was through a survey or a conversation or a focus group and i hope folks will continue to participate to provide further ceremony. this is part of the process. i want to pick up on something commissioner chan just said and whether we want to believe it or not, san francisco is part of california and the united states and that puts us in a position where privately owned land is the bulk of the land where housing is produced and created and provided. and most housing is in the private market. and so if we're moving forward,

we want so have under moving into that future. most housing is and certainly is proposed. i don't think it challenges that and the city is putting together. so i think this takes leaps and bounds. things that happened in the past continue to further inequity in our city. i wanted to ask a little bit about why we have our goal and

our use of aspirational documents. i do want to ask if you can just help us understand if we have any concerns about compliance of this housing element with state law, are we able to identify the sites that they want us to identify for housing and accommodate the housing, how are we doing with some of the kind of nuts and bolts that h.c.d. is going to be looking for when they review this element and see if they can deem it compliant? >> thank you, president tanner, for that question. we are working closely with h.c.d. to really figure out how some of the new requirements would apply to san francisco. so we are working on our site inventory and how it meets not only the kind of quantitiy but also for fair housing laws. that's a pretty new law, you

know there's not a lot of specific sites. that's what we're working on. san francisco has a lot of capacity, but when you could layer in factors, some of the members of the public mentioned the developbility and trends, then you kind of -- that capacity kind of goes down and we -- our initial analysis as part of the housing strategies shows that we have even factoring in some of the developbility. we have the capacity, but we still are trying to figure out the permanent housing laws and to make sure we meet state laws around inventory. >> president: do we anticipate

our next hearing, we'll have more discussion about the site inventory? >> yes. we will have the set inventory released by the third draft. >> president: great. we'll look forward to diving into another aspect of the housing element. and maybe just kind of on that line in terms of compliance with state law, what i understood is we have several maps that are using to help ground v housing elements, but there are some particular maps and one map can you just share a little bit about that map that we're required to use by state law. >> sure. its fair housing law basically uses this map that was put together as part of the affordable housing funding processes to basically to help local jurisdictions to identify areas that more affordable

housing opportunities need to be directed to. and there are also maps that kind of identify segregated pockets of the state and the region and that we are supposed to have plans and programs so a person still has smaller pockets of sergeant agree gaegs, but we are required. they're high opportunity maps that put together also by if our organization includes others belonging to the institute to kind of guide our goals and especially in affordable housing. >> president: thank you. so i think that's why we see the well resourced map being referenced pretty frequently and then we also see other maps that are helping to fill in some gaps, but we do need to make sure we're incorporating the well resourced maps into

our analysis and policies. you know, can you talk a little bit about the h.s.h. and how collaboration has gone with them? i was really happy to see ending homelessness to be something that we are saying we want to achieve and i know that's not a new phrase, but it continues to be a growing problem sadly and one that i know i think everybody in the city wants to figure out how we can help our unhoused neighbors and make sure nobody falls into homelessness. so if you can give us a little color on how h.s.h. has been involved and what do you see? i know there's a lot of ideas, are there a few colonels that have the most traction or most support? >> sure. so, yes, we are in collaboration with h.s.h. in kind of going over the policy and they are also unfortunately they have not been able to do

their most recent time counts due to the pandemic, but they are conducting the next fund in 2022. and that would also inform their own strategy updating their own strategy. so we also talked with, we have the focus group with providers, care providers for specifically lgbtq homeless populations and we also worked with a group called h.a.s.p.a. which i'm not sure what the acronym stands for but it's a collective of providers for homeless services and we got their input on these policies. you know, i think everyone's in agreement that addressing homelessness is kind of a

collective, needs to be a collective and comprehensive strategy and needs to rely on supportive housing for every single homeless person. so the policies kind of try to reflect that and understand how priorities are given within services and we've always been kind of prioritizing chronic homelessness and how there are kind of concerns around how that leads off certain other vulnerabilities and puts them on the path for chronic homelessness. so we have been in conversations with h.s.h. on that as well and that's been infiltrated into our policies and it's more of a longer term look at how those can be

adjusted. >> okay. thank you so much. i'll just make a few additional comments and certainly that topic is complex and we look forward to give more time to more data. of maybe we will through all of our efforts through the pandemic. i know a lot more families. maybe switching gears or perhaps related two of the topics that stuck out to me, all the work we can do to make sure people have homes to live in and then kind of alongside that to me is protecting our tenants and stabilizing folks and really making sure it's maybe two or three polls that we have the laws in the books that help to protect tenants

and really they are not that prevent someone from saying i'm going to evict all these tenants in order to make more money and renovate this building or turn it into something else. really focus on underutilized parcels. commercial buildings. products where a homeowner owns it and they want to turn their home into let's taking advantage of sb9. that really is our focus and so i think crafting our and then also having the third goal development standards that are away from living but to make

those tenant protection laws while community organizations to make sure we know or not. they won't be received very well if they're dispopulationing folks and like wise if we are moving to a more streamlined approval, planners can know this is a site that can be developed. so there really isn't a back and forth. this isn't really a question on whether it qualifies. so i hope we can continue to see more development of that and the only other thing i'll say is i like commissioner diamond really awe dishs and big goals. there may be too much audacity, but i'm concerned that we're

overpromising to our community. i want to have all these voices here, but i think really important is going to be prioritizing what are we going to put first. where are we going to assign our staffing resources. this is a plan for a lot of our staff would be looking at this strategy. that we have to carry out and i would love to see if there's a way looking towards adoption, what are the foundational things that we want to move forward are there any needs that are so palpable and great that we need to start there and because it is a lot and i would support if we could try to give our community partners and members of the public maybe two

weeks if not more to review it because there's so much wonderful content and i don't want us to rush the next review, i can tell how you're going to accommodate that but i hope we can get at least two reviews to make sure no one feels we have enough time. i don't see any other commissioners raising their hand. did you want to respond to some of the comments? i just saw you pop up on my screen. >> yes, well, you have provided. i wanted to thank you for going through this substantial and detailed documents. what i would like to do is summarize what we heard from you and how we're going to go about addressing your comments.

so there's a big piece about the information, there's information that it was either that we have that was not presented or appearing enough there's some initial analysis that you're asking us to do. you're also asking us to add specificity in policy and action in a wide range of areas related to streamlining, related to ending homelessness and that connects to the last point about let's be ambitious but let's make sure we have complete steps. there is also a request to make things more explicit as it relates to funding what does it

mean when we say we're going to advocate for additional funding and how much it's going to take us to deliver on the numbers that are in front of us. you're also canning us to make sure if there's any vulnerable group that we pay attention to that. we think at this point and my staff align we can commit to a two week review period before coming. if we it add more time, we will work hard to accommodate that. there's also a request to bring information from our implementation agencies. from mocd, from h.s.h. so you can review how the plan is connected to the existing programs and the future programs and we're already working on the housing

implementation team. we already have a team in place ready to go as soon as the housing plan is adopted. we think we got the specifics we've got the details. we just wanted to make sure we have a process to address your comments and deliver a third draft that carry the substance that you're asking us to deliver. >> president: thank you for that great summary. the i will invite any commissioners can comment now or they want to particularly make sure that you heard. i want to just offer, the graphics are beautiful. i particularly liked the table that was at the end that showed how things changed. and so just in terms of again, not kind of go that way, but just to say, that was really

effective. as you're doing more designs, i found that effective. perhaps there's an icon you want to use, that might also help us note. and so it's in progress versus this would be a whole new body of work that the city hasn't tackled yet and so it's going to be a heavier lift. so those are just two kind of communication. i did see commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: yeah. i just want to jump on and thank you in terms are what the department's going to do and in terms of readability of the document i think while i was reading this document i was

thinking it identifies which is the lead agency but i think -- i'm sorry. i don't want to be too specific, but perhaps in terms of what is the summary of what the planning is going to do and then separate from mocd which is what the other departments are going to do. it's just going to help for me as the planning commissioner. so i summarize it as what is the planning department going to do and what president tanner was talking about in terms of is this ongoing and understanding the document. >> now with the tool, it's a lot easier and it will give you some flexibility to sort things out by the priorities.

>> president: i think we're ready to move on from this item. >> secretary: very good commissioner president tanner. the next and final item on today's agenda as item ten has been continued and eleven has been withdrawn. for case numbers 2018-016522cwp and case 2022-000447crv. informational presentation and objective design standards related to sb 9 respectively: we will hear both staff i see bridget and i will ask you or

make you the presenter. >> thank you. all right. good evening commissioners. planning department staff. i'm joined this evening with my colleagues kate connor to discuss the implementation of senate bill 9. as a reminder, sb9 was passed last year to address the state housing crisis. the bill took effect on january 1st of had had year. this bill allows for the ministerial approval and the construction of duplexes. this bill has specific eligibility criteria and only applies in single family homes zoning districts which in san francisco represents 49% of the parcels. to be eligible, the existing

home may not be subject to rent control, may not be tenant occupied in the last three years or had an ellis act eviction in the last three years. to pursue the loss, the new parcel must be at least 1,200 square feet. and the applicant must occupy one of these units for at least three years post construction. there are three paths under this bill, the construction of a duplex, a lock split, or the combination of both a lock split and duplex. projects that qualify will benefit from ministerial approval. means no ceqa review. no historic preservation review for most buildings. no neighborhood notice and no planning commission approval or

discretionary review. as you will recall from our presentation on october 21st of 2021, we conducted a racial and social equity analysis of this bill. and those results have been reviewed and utilized throughout our implementation efforts. this study is included as exhibit c in your packet. in san francisco, we have consulted to analyze the financial feasibility for property owners of adding housing units to existing single family home. the results from this study exhibit d in your packet analyzed six development prototype scenarios with rental versions of projects located in the bayview, in the richmond and pacific heights neighborhoods. the scenarios include the demolition of an existing home and new construction as well as the remodel of an existing home and in addition of one to three

units. including ground floor and rear yard units. the results from this study indicate that the resid was value of adding units fell below. construction costs in san francisco are among the world's highest and these costs make up the majority of project costs which is a significant barrier to feasibility. scenarios resulted in higher residual land values or greater feasibility than rental versions. the for sale projects still appear financially challenging. high rent and sales prices accompany high single family home purchase prices and construction costs do not vary meaningfully by location.

property owners goal may not always be income motivated. the conclusion implies limited financial incentive to undertake prototype projects under sb9. the planning department and public works will be the lead agencies for implementation with public works handing the lock splits and determining the eligibility in the program. we have created a working group with members from all city permitting departments and pg&e. through this work, we have learned that as you may imagine emergency access, egress pathways and utility easements will be a significant constraints for lock splits and rear yard developments on a typical 2500 square foot wide. we highly recommend that applicants request a project review meeting, detain feedback

from all permitting departments before officially submitting. we've created director's bulletin eight. we've also created a new supplemental application to determine eligibility and for applicants to list the code sections they wish to seek release from to construct the project. so far, we've received one for the middle under sb 9 and we've been working with numerous applicants in the initial drawing and planning stages. commissioners, i'm aware the board of supervisors is considering an ordinance to the city to rh1 parcels and eliminate single family zoning in san francisco. if the city is up zoned to rh2 as minimum zoning it will effective render sb9 mute in san francisco as sb9 only applies to single family zoning

districts which are rh1 rh1d and 1f. however, sb9 is in effect now and will remain in effect unless the board of supervisors passes this legislative zoning. as such, we would like to now discuss the action item for today and recommend option of the objective design standards. it does allow for the review against objective design standards. as many of you know, the san francisco planning department has residential design guidelines which are codified, but not necessarily objective. we've established some level of design review, we have created design standards that will apply to these standards. the standards are in the packet for 9a as exhibite and the packet for item 9b. i'd like to note that the draft resolution in your packet and the agenda language both

incorrectly use the words guidelines and should be replaced with the term standards and resolution will be corrected before it is finalized. the department has received one letter from the public since the publication of this packet with comments on the feasibility study to the objective design standards. these objective design standards are before you today as an item for adoption. we believe these standards can be updated over time as deemed necessary but we urge the commission to adopt some form of these standards today so that projects submitted after this hearing are subject to these standards. i will now hand it off to trent greenen who will walk through the objective design standards. we'll all be available for questions after the presentation if needed.

>> thank you, bridget. good afternoon, commissioners. trent greenen, staff architect. pleased to be here to briefly walk you through the sb9 objective design standards. the standards in the developmental standards within the parameters, we really strive to use guiding principles throughout the city as we've been using to do design review for years and some of the highlights of these are minimizing the impacts of block open space, balancing the scale of buildings that define this space. minimizing impacts to light and privacy, maximizing landscape and permeable materials on the site. so the standards are not intended to be comprehensive, but rather they provide a handful of requirements that we feel are important to implementing sb9 to allow for

ministerial approval of the projects. the guidelines are divided into two main categories. site design and architecture and we're illustrating the two main scenarios for the single lot options and the lot we're showing here is a 2,500 feet wide by 2,500 feet deep. so looking at the first guideline in how we structured this, at the top, you'll see the standard which is sculpt building which is 25% and 30% rear yard followed by the rationale and the means to achieve it and the means are what give it the regulatory teeth and describe what measures need to be met to meet this standard. so looking at the content of

this one, this is our single lot option where the three story building can extend back to the 45% rear yard line and from that main volume, a two-story pop-out can project back to the 30% rear yard line with 5' setbacks on both sides. so within this overall envelope, there's roughly a little over 4,000 square feet which usually allows for pretty ample sized units. so this is what we arrived at for this one. next slide, please. next is to ensure unit size parody. the intent that this was to prevent a sponsor for coming in and proposing an excessively large primary unit and a very small secondary unit. so what we're suggesting is

that the secondary unit be 50% of the size birds eye view. of what that would allow to go three stories at the street. next slide. then moving on to the lot split scenario. the primary sort of organizing standards for the lot split is to require that a 25' shared court be included between the front and rear buildings. so this does a couple of things. one it provides very high

quality open space with plenty of exposure for light, but it also due to that dimension, it sort of regulates the size of the buildings in the front and the rear and how big they can be, but it does allow for the minimum unit size that's required for sb9 and then we would also allow for architectural projections into this space as per code section 136. next slide please. and then again to make sure that that's a very high quality open space and to provide some relief to that rear unit, the front building needs to set back at the upper story a minimum of 10' to respond to that lower unit in the back. slide, please.

and then, again -- i'm sorry. can you go back to the previous slide, bridget. i'm sorry, i was getting my standards mixed up. let me revisit this one. for the rear building because obviously putting a building on this part of the lot has an outsize impact to the neighbors. so we're recommending that the height of that building be minimized just two stories or 20'. again, placing a building what is commonly in the mid block open space would have significant impact. so we do want to minimize that. next slide, please. and, again, this is the one that i put out of order, but basically stepping back that front building to allow the step down to the lower one and provide exposure to the space.

and then again for the rear building, in order to provide better exposure to the new duplex unit and provide relief to the neighbors, the building needs to be set back 4' either in the rear or one side to allow for flexibility depending on the lot shape and size. next slide. and then these are a few standards that we commonly apply as part of design review. we basically standardize them and provide numerical values to them. so for matching light wells and setbacks essentially, you need to provide 75% of the width of the adjacent light well in a minimum of 3' of depth. slide. and then for roof decks, another one that we commonly

provide comments for design review is that roof decks should be set back a minimum of 5' from all roof edges and including light wells. the stair penthouse needs to be minimized in size for building code and set back a minimum of 15' from the front of the building. next slide. and then minimize parking. for the current rh1 zoning, each unit is allowed up to 1.5 spaces per unit. so in order to prioritize housing and minimize parking, we're limiting it to one parking space per unit maximum. slide and then moving on to the architectural standards, this is a view of the lot split scenario from the street. it's just a hypothetical scenario of the three-story

duplex with the ground floor adu. in the context of typical two-story buildings. and then a few basic ones in terms of materials and windows and so forth. we use sustainable dushl materials. most materials are fine as a primary clotting material. but there are vinyl and tropical woods. vinyl which is inappropriate for street facing facades and tropical woods are not appropriate and unsustainable for construction. slide. and the use appropriate windows. essentially the only building material which would not be permitted are vinyl windows when facing a street and in terms of detailing which is very important is they need to be recessed properly, a minimum

of 3" for new construction, but for existing to match the existing reset. it can be down to 2". next slide. landscape setbacks. we're requiring more increased landscaping than is typically required for front setbacks. basically anything that's not a walk way or a driveway needs to be landscaped. in addition to that for the tradesmen entry to the rear units, you need to provide minimum landscape strip between the parking garage and the pedestrian path just to clearly identify it as a pedestrian entrance. slide please. and finally, incorporate prominent entries these are comments that we commonly make and very simple here is that

entries, well, primary entries, multiple units need to face the street and all entries need to be raised 3' from the sidewalk or recessed 3' from the facade. to be a minimum of four feet in width. we feel it's important to mark it as a prominent feature on this facade as opposed to the parking. and i believe that's the end of the presentation. i'm available for questions. thank you. >> secretary: okay. if that concludes staff presentation, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star three to be added to the queue. through the chair, you'll each have two minutes and when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking.

>> caller: good afternoon, president tanner, and commissioners. this is jeremy shaw with shaw architects. san francisco is obviously quite different context from other cities or other states. these objective standards seem to be quite well reasoned and reasonable based on most typical rectangular sites. my one comment is that and it may not be workable for modifying existing buildings so i would like some wiggle room there and last but not least, i would suggest we apply these standards or something similar across all our zoning districts. so i would hope that these would be precedent. thank you.

>>. >> caller: hi i've been an architect in san francisco for 30 years. very excited to see sb9 implemented in density and opportunity for both homeowners and architecture builders. i think my peer group and i are all preaddimentsly opposed to objective design standards and limitation on materials seems arbitrary given it's allowed on most other projects and be only limited to these projects just seems odd. it seems a bit back wards. this idea of carte blanche limiting things like 5% metal panelling seems kind of crazy and it seems like that's what most of our clients want these days. i would encourage more flexibility on some of those

design standards. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. i'm the chairman of the small firms committee of the san francisco a.i.a. and i would like to support jim zack's comments as a group, a professional group. we've had time to review the design standards that have been put forward and a lot of folks have raised objections. so they've seen today and would like more time to consider those design standards and work with the planning department to try to understand their intent. i do think that, you know, we deal with the residential design standards in introducing a whole other set of standards that get laid on a particular project. it doesn't seem to be a very expeditious way about it. we try to meld those standards into one set so they're easier to implement.

thank you very much. >> caller: hi. my name is christopher roach. i'm on architect and i've been practicing here in san francisco for over 20 years. i'm the chair of the a.i. public policy and advocacy committee. we only heard about these standards about a week ago, so i do want to echo my colleague's concern about the speed at which these are being proposed and that we're being asked to implement these tonight. we i think as are very supportive of sb9 we want to see it implemented. i think we understand the urgency, but this seems a little fast. i think we generally support the mapping standards, but the design standards, the architectural standards as my colleagues have pointed out are seeming arbitrary and

restrictive. we would just ask maybe this i'd be continued one time so we can have a little more than a week to respond to these and work with the planning department and come up with something that's more actionable across the city. thank you. >> caller: i'm a member of the a.i.a. cpack and a principal architecture firm in san francisco. i support the mapping standards. so i'm only going to speak about the architecture section which to my eye and all of my colleagues that i've spoken to need to be fundamentally rethought before adoption. the architecture section seems reassembled mixing several ideas about good design and to what amounts to it a highly scriptive recipe for architecture. of for instance, why is metal

illegal when it is a highly sustainable and durable. the architecture expression, why are windows starting at the floor illegal. to limit the size of openings. if there's a right sized. the notion that a big entry should always be a primary facade entry. taken together, these descriptive requirements seems to be lifted from inexpensive developments in the peninsula where the architecture is driven by economyizing the architectural line. it feels like the planning department is trying to design all future buildings with these rules. unfortunately, the language they have chosen is incredibly

cheap both intellectually and relative to the current potential building technologies. the architecture section feels like we're trying to disguise an electric vehicle of horse drawn carriages. >> secretary: go ahead sir. okay. >> caller: hello. my name is vivian dwyer and i work with architects in san francisco and i'm also a member of the a.i.a. policy group and i also agree that this has been rushed and that we haven't had enough time to thoughtfully review this and particularly in

the architecture section with the very prescriptive rules and making it feel like we live in a gated community which obviously san francisco is not and i would think that we want to celebrate the diversity and freedom of expression here that is something that is very proudly respected in this city typically and to restrict us in this way architecturally would not be a good thing. so i think we need more time to review this and reconsider with a it is that we're trying to do here especially in wanting to support sb9. thank you so much. >> caller: hi. my name is julie jackson. i am an architect here in san francisco, also a resident. and i want to echo the comments that have been made by my colleagues here in the city. i'm looking at the architecture, looking at the design standards that are shown

on a flat lot which doesn't reflect the majority or quite a bit of san francisco so i think just solely saying that we need to raise the minimum and upgrade that's not going to work and a lot of places, it really ties our hands for designing to a specific site and i just think back to some of the most treasured residential architecture in san francisco and kind of shutter to think of standards like this that apply to architecture that was built and make san francisco what it is kind of how our city would be. i also -- i don't -- i really appreciate the standards. i think they're very practical and can be implemented that we can work with those, with our clients. and i think that's what we are. they're often about massing. they're not about the

materials. so i'm not sure and i mean i really appreciate and i look forward to having objectives. but kind of having such specific and odd standards that are called objective standards i just don't understand that. that doesn't seem to make sense to me. hopefully we can see another revision of this. >> caller: hi. it's georgia shootis. about the sb9a i'll just say the word to mean that in that report which is challenging. since this is before you, the b part of 9 today, item nine, i think i agree with all the architects. i'm not an architect obviously, but i think it should be delayed and i would just say at this point, you know, the guidelines are objective. the ones you have already.

so i think this whole thing that they've been sort of viewed as this horrible thing is just wrong. i did send two comments, one on the a part of this item and one on the b, i hope you read it and i'll just repeat what i said on the b since this is pressing. they're already in place in many homes and the great swath of rh1 and they should be preserved or redacted. i like their window requirements and i think light wells should be larger than 75% if sb9 project floor is greater higher than the adjacent home. there's no discussion on excavation and that's going to be up for the next couple of months. that's happening at the b.i.c. and i think that's something the commission's going to have to deal with. quantifiable amount of permeable ground within the rear yard open space due to the

fact that ground water is mixed with the supply from hetch hetchy and we need natural rear yards to catch carbon and the roof decks on the structure on the front, if it's just one unit, they don't need a penthouse, they can have a sliding thing to get it up to their roof deck. it's a hatch. so thanks a lot. take care. be well, be safe. bye. >> hi, my name is ronald new, designer in san francisco and i feel that these standards work, you know, for standard lots but what happens when we have small lots or unique lots or lots that are in steep grades incline. so we have high standards for those lots already. so implementing the additional standards to further reduce massing eligibility which is

decreased the probability of more housing. so i would strongly urge you guys to consider those things when debating these rules. thank you. >> secretary: okay. last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star three to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is now closed. and this matter is now before you, commissioners. >> president: thank you. we'll call on vice president moore. >> vice president: i'm happy to see the department jump and take this on. this is a very urgent matter. i am very grateful to a.i.a. architects jumping in and

talking about an area where they have questions and where more creativity could be brought as a discussion about much reality and architectural expression. i strongly support that and hope that the department will work with the a.i.a. to come up with a broader spectrum of interpretation. the issues i have, i raised yesterday with staff in a short meeting. i believe that in the area of massing descriptions, there are a number of diagrams missing. in our rh1, we typically have lots that are 25 by 100. 25 by 114. 25 by 130. and i think it would be very illustrative to create a planned drawing for each of those lots to show how lots division as well as open space operates relative to building placement, building length for

both structures. i'd further like to see that there are no roof decks alloweded on the 20' structure because the impact on adjoining properties on all sides would be far too massive. i believe that there needs to be clarification on unit territory. i believe in the front building looking at san francisco architecture and buildings that have cottages in the rear, the front building is a larger building. so unit parody should apply to the front building. the rear building is so small that you barely get one building in there. that you get a single family unit. and that also would help with affordability by design not making that particular structure more expensive. parking is very interesting. if i understood the department

correctly, they speak about one car per unit, that requires excavation and below grade at the expense of units given the grade in the front and the rear needs to be permeable. there should be no excavation and parking below the low grade. that should be spelleded out because from my understanding of what is implied here, the rear unit does not have parking. i wanted to add mr. greenen on what i believe is a drawing error and perhaps minor as i'm understanding it but it's on page eight. can you bring that up? >> which graphic is that?

>> vice president: it's page 8. it's called s.1. early on. >> yes. >> vice president: i think -- can you bring it up. >> yes. one moment. >> vice president: yeah. thank you. >> okay. >> vice president: there you go. the line for the 45% rear yard should that stay on the ground plain and not fly in front of the top of the second floor because it's very hard to understand what you mean there. so the line would come to the fence, disappear and appear at the other side of the fence if i read that correctly. >> yeah okay. >> vice president: it's just hard to understand.

again, i'd like to use this drawing and any other discussion of mapping that these drawings would also be shown in property dimensions relative to the extent of what these buildings mean relative to the lot size that i mentioned earlier. >> yes. >> vice president: those would be my suggestions. otherwise i'm in support of what we're trying to do here. i would just like to encourage further discussions with a.i. architects and the small business section of the a.i.a. because that is what they're doing for a living and their input would be very important. thank you. >> president: thank you. we'll go to commissioner diamond next. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. my comments are very much in line with commissioner moore's comments. i discussed most of them with staff earlier this week, but i want to repeat them here because i do believe that we should be adopting something

today. staff's proposal hopefully amended by some of the comments that commissioner moore made, i'm going to make, and maybe some of the other commissioners. the comments from the a.i.a. and the other architects seem quite important, but i think they require more time with staff and that i don't think we that staff should convene in a group as soon as possible to get their input and then we should revise as soon as that group has reached agreement with staff on some of the architectural comments. in the meantime, i do believe we need something on the books, otherwise, there's nothing against which these proposals are judged. here are my comments. i believe that instead of having a 4' setback on the rear building on either the side or the rear, it should be on both sides. the goal of these comments by the way is to recognize that

while adding all of these units benefits all of us, there is a severe impact on the immediately adjacent neighbors on both sides and in the rear and that these comments are like the staff subjected to standards, many of them are intended to anticipate the neighborhood concern and try to reduce anger and accurate are you moany between neighbors as accomplish on these rear buildings. i believe that if i'm understanding correctly, staff, that there is a 5' setback

required on the second story on the rear buildings. is that correct, but it's either on the side or at the rear, it's not on both. is that accurate. >> apparently, we're requiring a 4' setback. >> commissioner diamond: i'm talking about the second story. so i think we should be proposing a 5' setback on the second story. we have a 5' setback for the front buildings that have, you know, the rear yard addition. i guess it would be either on the side of the rear or my preference is the rear makes it fit in better from the rear neighbors perspective. i don't think we need it on the bottom story because you could have a 6' to 10' fence anyway

so this is the portion that would be above the fence. third is i think we should require landscaping in the 4' setback. and it should be trees spaced at a frequency and of a type that we -- that are taken from a planning department recommendation. you can plan it wherever you should be working with the departments in order to figure out what kind of vegetative screen is likely to thrive in these 4' setbacks. i don't think it's necessary if you're building directly adjacent to the lot line building on the adjacent property, but my gaes is the adjacent and rear neighbors would rather look at a screen than look at the wall of the building that's facing them on the side or at the rear. and i think that the owners of this building should be

responsible for the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy, but required to maintain it as well too. it's not like you can just plant it, not put in irrigation, have the trees die and that's the end of it. there needs to be an ongoing obligation to maintain it which means something might need to be recorded against the property so that future owners are aware of it. i am not comfortable using the percentage formula for unit parody. my primary concern is that we're building these additional units out of the large enough to accommodate a family and whether we like it or not, we define family housing as two units -- excuse me, as two bedrooms. so i think we ought to make sure that the rear building or the second unit is at least and i don't know if it's 800' or a 1,000' and incorporate two bedrooms, so that we have a

real family unit that's being produced by sb9. i would take staff guidance as to whether or not you can do that in 800' or it needs to be a 1,000', but that seems less arbitrary than just picking a percentage calculation. thirdly, i don't think there should be roof decks on the rear building. i believe that's too great an intrusion on privacy for the neighbors on both sides and on the rear. and, let's see, that's it for my comments. and i don't, you know, i think we need to hear from all the commissioners and then figure out what we're on agreement on in order to make a motion that incorporates as many of the changes that we all support today as possible. >> commissioner diamond just to ask you a question to clarify. you talked about a 4' setback around the rear building on all

sides which i get, but then did you want an additional 1' on the second floor on all sides? that may be -- we were proposing 4' on one side and get your 4' around the bidding an additional 1' on top. >> commissioner diamond: yeah. i defer to staff as to what the appropriate amount is, but it does strike me that having in addition to the 4', you know, on all sides that having the second story setback an additional amount from the edge of the building just might make it fit in better, but i'm not the architect. i'm just putting it out there. my goal is here to reduce acrimony with the adjacent neighbors. >> right. it's tough to construct going back a foot. >> director, i think she's talking about an additional 5'. >> commissioner diamond: yes. that is what i had in mind.

>> president: and i think she's saying it could be less than that. of commissioner moore, you have a hand up. >> vice president: yes. i wanted to ask director hillis and commissioner diamond, i want to ask staff, there is a website by which aback and sb9 requires setbacks and i'll be happy to share the link. the setbacks that are uniformly required applies to all sides. the sides, both sides 4' and the rear is 4'. and we need to basically have that understanding and agreement before we go back and forth and try to say the one side or on two sides. somebody needs to basically get the legal interpretation of what sb9 is requiring. and my understanding is that it's 4' on three sides. >> president: okay. i think director hillis wants to answer that. you're on mute, director. or at least i can't hear you.

>> yeah. i'm on mute. i wanted to see if kate or others from here can answer it. that is the requirement with a.d.u.s is you're 4' back from from all sides. is that understanding it's one side or no sides for sb9, kate? >> yes, so basically a local agency the law states that a local agency may require a setback from the side and rear lot lines. so we could require it from all sides. >> commissioner diamond: that's definitely what i would be proposing. and then i have the additional request out there which i would love feedback on from the other commissioners and staff about the second story on a rear building having an additional setback beyond that. >> president: thank you. commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: two questions for staff before i make some comments. what about corner lots?

>> yeah. for corner lots, there's no setback requirement for corner lots since they have exposure onto two streets anyway. so you could have basically a larger building envelope. >> commissioner fung: no. but i think i remember sending some thoughts on that when we were first talking only about corner lots, what to do with that in terms of design standards. is is the department not proposing any design standards different for corner lots? >> we found that these worked for corner lots adds well with the exception of requiring that setback for the rear building with the 25' space organizing. >> our requirement was you only

had to be setback from one side. so on a corner lot, you could be up against the street on the rear building and an additional lot line. you just need to set back 4' from another. and we're going to go down this path in requiring a 4' setback on all sides, we should make an exception for corner lots so they can face the street on that side. >> commissioner fung: okay. but you know, is this development of design standards comprehensive? >> i mean, that's the problem. we're trying to get something on the books before sb9 takes effect. so we're trying to limit where we're going with this. >> commissioner fung: let's talk it out a little bit further then. what's the genesis of the architecture requirements? it's not part of sb9. i know these are items that

planning staff normally muscle applicants based upon their own personal prerogatives. why is it part of this? >> go ahead. i think just the massing standards are more important to get on the books now as sb9 is in effect and we're happy to go work with a.i.a. over the next 30 days and come back and kind of refine those architectures. >> commissioner fung: i'll give you my comments now. i'm not supportive of those standards at all. i don't think they should be part of this. >> i think the idea is that we don't have the tool of the residential design guidelines to apply to sb9 so we're trying to set a very minimum bar of -- >> commissioner fung: i understand, trent. but unfortunately, not all

planning staff are great designers either and what has happened in the past is that their personal preferences wind up being imposed upon applicants when it really does nothing to either the neighborhood or to the design of a small residential building in general. you sound like you want to say something, bridget. >> yeah. if i may, commissioner fung. >> president: can i just ask a question. i just want to clarify what you said. is it that you don't support any architectural standards. >> commissioner fung: i don't support any architectural standards unless you want to landscape things into planning which is fine. >> president: i think the only thing i would say in my understanding is that without this under sb9, there can be no

feedback. if there's not an objective standard, it's whatever goes. so that can be fine. i don't really have a strong opinion. i think that's the reason why they're here. >> commissioner fung: to the director's comment, it sounds like everyone wants to have something on the book. i can support that. i can support the massing portion of it in general. okay. >> yeah. i think just one comment we were saying of planners implementing this, if we have no design standards, then there's no review. so the department has long had a policy of not allowing vinyl windows at the front. so if we have none of that in place, then people can come forward with whatever. but if we put some form of objective standards and we're more than willing to modify, you know, remove, do whatever you all think is fit, then when a planner sees it, they would

only evaluate based on yes or no, do they meet that standard. is the material acceptable. then, yes, and that would be the extent of the review. but, yes, we are definitely willing to take whatever recommendations the commission has to modify them. >> commissioner fung: all right. then let me be a little more specific. the ones of the architecture standards that i didn't really understand or accept, one is that 3' raised on the entry. i don't accept the fact that windows have to have a minimum of 18" height. and i don't accept the limitation of materials. so if you want to rethink that and bring that back, that's okay. i would accept that and the other commissioners would accept it. and therefore you're able -- if

you want i can accept your comment on vinyl windows in the front although, you know what, there's some pretty good vinyl windows these days. but anyway, that's neither here nor there. i would accept that, you know, maybe some of that can come back, but i'm just telling you and maybe the other commissioners are acceptive of the entire package, but i'm not. okay. >> president: vice president moore. >> vice president: perhaps we should distinguish between what staff need evaluation criteria, they are not restricting architects to do what they know to do and this should not be basically a prescription, a minimal prescription of one size fits all. that would be the best way. there is interior staff guidance for what needs to be looked for, but because it is

ministerial approval, i can understand that staff and this architect need some guidance, but that does not become part of sb9 objective standards. those are two very different things. so the elaboration on surface material and permeability, trade entrance, description, attitude towards parking is fine. picking up on what commissioner diamond said. cause impairment of the adjoining person's fence, you're setting up conflict with a foundation of fence posts and the adjoining property. those are all considerations when i think need to be looked at more closely before they become objective standards. again, refine massing.

consult with architects and create a checklist evaluation criteria on which staff can work on this project, but don't make them part of the objective standards. >> president: thank you. i'll add a few of my points to the soup and we will see what policy we can make at the other end of it. i just want to start by saying i'm hearing some pretty strong support possibly for separating the architectural standards from the massing standards. maybe we can add permeability to that. i would be supportive of that if that's what the majority of the commission would want so that we can work with the architectural community on the architectural standards. but i have concerns about not having massing standards and making sure we get those in place. i'm just going to kind of scroll through the packet and my comments are going to be in that order. so on the page nine, the unit

parodiy description, i want to thank mr. diamond for your thoughtful way of thinking about is presented the right way to do this. is it thinking more about square footage. we could do maybe a combination, maybe it's one unit of at least a thousand square feet or 50% of the largest unit and i think maybe having attention to whether it is in the rear yard versus a building in the duplex, maybe that's something, maybe there's two scenarios. if you're in a scenario where you have a rear building and a front building. if you have two units within one build, this is the type of parody we want where again maybe a minimum unit size could be a way to think about it. i was looking at the next pages 11 thinking about the 25' that's needed kind of to separate front and rear buildings. staff, do we have any concerns

about this either in lot split scenarios or in scenarios where the lot is maybe not a standard size and it would preclude the construction of two 800 square foot units which is what the law requires. are we mostly confident this will mostly fit the scenarios? what are we thinking about this 25' separation? >> well the lot size needs to be a minimum of 1200 square feet so some sizes would not be ehlingable is my understanding. >> president: okay. so we feel this could accommodate most lots then. >> that's correct to qualify for the original lot must be 2,400 square feet. that gets us closer to that 100' depth of the average. but, yes, this is something that could be relaxed. >> president: i don't know if

we could do that today or see what happens with the rh2 if we don't up zone to rh2 i'd love to see you come back in four or five months if you have a lot split and then you have an existing front building and who knows if that or they special cases or common cases and then we're trying to figure out what the solution is. >> yeah. if i could add this is the be perfect lime time to jump in about the discussion. the scenario that we tested

looking at a deep 120' lot, we provided for one setback. the rear or the side in which case we can just squeeze in the requisite with a lot split. so we feel the tradeoff or the commission decides to go with greater setbacks and the trade off would come at the expense of because a project sponsor can seek relaxation if they can't do what the state requires. or lesser dimension between the two buildings front and back. so take that into consideration when you deliberate over the setbacks. >> president: yeah, i think that's a great comment because of the next slide is i tend to agree with commissioner diamond, i think it can just create lesser con stern nation

but to your point if it's a balloon that you're squeezing in order to accommodate that pressure or it's eating up this rear yard and so, to me, i think it's a bit of as to up toss up. i might say in that instance, i prefer having side step backs. i think i might prefer to have the set back and have that going into the 25' a little bit or i don't know if that's enough to make up for the difference or to the point where we seek relief. this project could be so buried in their configuration that they seek relief and that's the outcome, but we keep that kind of fixed footprint.

i understood that in sb9 that local jurisdictions can require access to the front street either through an easement or they can require certain lot configurations. are we thinking that in the recent scenarios you've planned in the rear yard from the front home or what are we thinking? >> thank you, commissioner tanner. we did not feel the need to put this in as a standard because we feel every project will need to do that for all utilities so there's going to have to be some form of an easement no matter what but in some of those renderings, that's the easement, but there will always be that under lying utility easement. >> president: okay. i think to point out it's

required. i think that makes sense to me, but maybe just putting that in there to make sure it needs to be required because i don't know that it's automatically required and i'd rather somebody find out about it at the building stage and so we should just note it's needed to have access to that rear building to the front. did you want to respond to that? >> other than it's a fairly required standard to have ease of access. it's a function of d.b.i. i believe. >> president: and then i think those were all of my questions. or my comments on those topics. maybe just to begin the round of responding to other

commissioners comments i talked about the setback. commissioner diamond, i wanted to understand more about the vegetation that you wanted because i understand there are requirements for that inner building yard area. i would be concerned about trees being too close to the building. like what do you want to be in those? >> so i think the 25' setback or space provides some relief for the neighbors on the sides, but the neighbor behind is looking directly at the back of the building and it struck me that having some kind of vegetative screen that goes above the fence level is a good idea. i'm very concerned that it be

something that experts have looked at and can survive because it could be a narrow space and it could be to the fence and i also want to make sure it's something that doesn't do damage to the foundation of the building or to the fence and i would be totally fine if we put this on the list of issues that we have staff look at in the next few weeks to see whether or not this is a feasible proposal, but i'm assuming that most neighbors would rather look at vegetation than the side of the building or the back of the building. >> president: i'm totally on board with that and you definitely read my mind on the foundation issues. and maybe they'll come back and just language today because someone may have identified the vegetation that meets the criteria that we don't know about today or isn't thought of at the time. i'm okay with saying no roof decks in the rear building except my only question and

concern is & maybe it's minute is if it is a lot scenario, is that a condition than what a house is allowed to have elsewhere and so you don't get these things, but if you're a house facing the street, you don't get that. maybe have more strict requirements for these sb 9 homes than any other house. i don't know if central needs to address that. >> in our scenario, we were looking at using the existing rh1 usable open space requirement which we could provide given a typical lot split more or less down the middle of that 25' separation

of buildings in the back knowing full well that putting a roof deck would be lightning, but we could also offer the standards such that the open space requirement would be less than what's currently in the code. >> well, i'm. i guess i would say on that topic, i'm ignore nausic. if we want to ask project sponsors, that's also fine with me as long as we know that going in they need to have that relief. and i do support the idea of corner lots having some different configurations in terms of their set backs because it would make sense for them to not be setback. i want to call on my fellow commissioners. i see commissioner fung,

commissioner moore, and commissioner koppel. so commissioner fung, do you want to go next? >> commissioner fung: sure. a couple comments. i would support the no roof deck on the rear property. i also view that there's a lot of problems with specifying that they have to put vegetation in a 4' set back area. i don't think we want to get involved in that situation and i would be prepared to if nobody else wants to take a shot at a motion, i'll take a shot at a motion to adopt the massing standards with the addition of the landscaping and permbility requirement, but to

leave out the architectural for staff to continue to review. >> vice president: i second that with the caveat that the massing studies will be augmented by diagrams addressing the different depths we have 25' and 120 to mack it easier to use including delineating our interpretation of the setback for the rear building and then mentioning in the 25 feet and what that means when you split the lot, one side gets 13', the other side gets 12' depending on what unit sizes you're creating in front of of rear building. that would be my explanation. the one question we have not addressed and i want to perhaps

ask commissioner fung also on these comments, commissioner diamond asked if we should entertain an additional 5' setback on the second floor of the rear building. i would caution against that because of the loss of living space including i don't think it really achieves anything. >> commissioner fung: no i accepted mr. winslow's comment that the size of the rear unit then becomes less probable for a family sized unit. >> vice president: so you're supporting sb9, i do too. thank you. >> president: okay. and just to make sure i'm hearing you, commissioner fung, the existing standards plus the apartment building as proposed in the hand-out, correct? with no changes to the existing standards? the proposed standards?

okay. commissioner koppel. >> commissioner: yeah. i will third commissioner fung's motion and i just wanted to add my support for not wanting the roof decks on the second back unit. >> commissioners, there were a couple of other items that you discussed and i'm not sure it was included 1 way or the other. >> president: yes. i'm going to go back but i agree. need to clarify a little bit. commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: so i was going to raise a couple of those. is there a 4' setback on all sides? >> commissioner fung: yes for me. >> commissioner diamond: okay. can we include that in the motion? and we said no roof deck which is great. i totally accept your comments about moving the vegetative discussion to further review by staff. it's appropriate. they can bring it back to us if

they decide it's not appropriate. i'd just like to know that and i accept all of your comments about the 5' setback on the second story interfering too much with the space. but what we haven't talked about is unit parody and where we all come to agreement. you know, maybe i'll just throw this out there to see if people agree starting with just the rear building. instead of doing percentage, do people believe, do other commissioners believe instead of doing a percentage, we should have some minimum size with two bedrooms? >> president: i would support that myself. a minimum size whether it's two bedrooms. i don't know that i feel one way or the other. we'll see where the other commissioners are. but i think that might be at least as helpful as sizing. that building's going to be constrained in a number of

ways. i don't see any other commissioners hands up, but if anybody else, especially the maker and the seconder of the motion is interested or maybe you're content with the 50% parody. >> commissioner fung: you know, if you're looking at almost a form based requirement here, you know. it's setting the volume of it. is it necessary to specify a unit size -- unit type? i'm not sure you need to do that, commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: we're talking about affordable by design it is what it is and i think just using the 25' lot in the rear will create the maximum use that anybody can get out of it. so i would just let that speak for itself. the 25' shared courtyard already creates a certain kind of delineation of what needs to be where. so i think the unit size falls

out in the 1100 to 1200 square feet anyway. >> commissioner: that's where i was having trouble. i don't like the 50% standard. it seems arbitrary for me. >> commissioner: it applies to the larger front building and squeeze it in like 800 square foot on the bottom. unit parody on the front building has to be guaranteed. the rear building is what it is. >> commissioner diamond: staff is that a correct reading? >> that was the intention and we can clarify with a condition stating that the parody would only apply in the duplex situation. so where they're only building a second unit. >> president: can we be clear, we're getting very excited. i know we are.

that to me is not what it says. am i misreading it? there's a couple scenarios you could have. you could have a vacant lot that somebody built two houses on, two separate houses and they are allowed to have at least 800 square feet. do those have to have parodies? that's one scenario. second scenario. an existing house, you have an existing front house that's adding something into its existing building envelope. so the parody discussion to me almost seems like we need to think about it more and also if it's intent with only to find new construction that's a duplex, again, it's front or back nature to me is irrelevant in terms of why it shouldn't or should have parody. it's not making sense to me. >> commissioner, if i may. >> planning department staff. so essentially we established the whole parody standard to address the fact that sb9 does

not include a minimum unit size for the second unit. so therefore under sb9, a single family home could be demolished and a very large single family home can be constructed and very small even at the rear. and, you're right, there are totally different scenarios. right now the unit parody requirement is only in the duplex situation, so that could be adding a second unit to an existing unit. it could be adding a second unit somewhere else on the lot. so there are different scenarios about how we look at parody. basically, we're really trying to prevent kind of that absorption issue that you guys have seen previously at the commission that can appear with a large home and a very small home. as commissioner diamond suggested another way to address this is establishing a minimum unit size and then removing kind of the relation between the two units to qualify for the rear if it's a

duplex. >> president: i'll make a comment and then call on commissioner fung. the challenge to me is you are allowing let's say 1,000 square feet. so in a lot split scenario you're making somebody build a bigger unit than required and now they have to have a bigger building, but we've told them they have to have a 4' set back. i just want to address the parody. maybe it is a minimum size, but maybe it's 800 that aligns with this particular law and so no matter whether it's a duplex in the front, a duplex in the back, the units are at least 800 square feet, it does limit the variety, but, again, this is one law that will be used not probably very many times and so if it results in many units that are 800 square feet, i don't think it's a necessarily bad thing. >> commissioner fung: i was just going to comment on that.

you know it seems like a more evenly process would be to specify a unit size. you can get two bedrooms easily out of that. and so it could be a family unit. and instead of looking at percentages which usually creates all kinds of problems it seems like, yeah, the second unit in the duplex has to be at least 800 square feet. >> president: i would support that. commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: yes. that's what i was trying to get at. i didn't care if it was 800 or a 1,000. i think 800 makes more sense for all the reasons that were just stated. what i wanted to avoid was a 300 foot studio in the back. i thought we needed some

minimum size and if you can get two bedrooms -- you know, i personally think it should be a family unit. i think that's what we need that's why i was proposing two bedrooms. but if the rest of you think that's two prescriptive i'm okay as long as we say it's 800 feet but i do think two bedrooms is a good idea. >> president: that's great. and i think people can use that program. commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. just a clarification for the -- we're talking about minimum in terms, i think i would support it if we say minimum 800 square feet. okay. just a little bit of guidance. >> president: that's fine. we don't want to people think they're stuck at only that if they wanted to have something that's larger. >> commissioner fung: and so i would add that amendment to my motion that the second unit of the duplex would be a minimum of 800 square feet.

>> vice president: i second that. >> president: so i don't see any other hands. >> i have one more clarifying question. you took the 4' around the entire, but did you make an exception for a corner lot to allow that to be on the street? >> president: can corner lots have exceptions on the street side? >> at least on the street side? >> commissioner fung: yeah because it makes sense to allow that building to go all the way to the adjacent lot that is perpendicular to, not the one that it's parallel to, so the setback would occur at the property line that it's parallel to. i think what we talked about in previous discussions on the -- on that one case. >> yeah. on the street front side. >> if i can suggest the amendment would be on interior lot lines require 4' side set

back. >> president: that would cover all. >> commissioner fung: and we would adjust again when we look at the architectural standards? i guess we could. maybe better thinking on the corner lots, director. >> yeah. okay. the suggestion on the interior lot lejeunes it will solve for the corner lots and then we can refine that when we come back to you. >> commissioner fung: absolutely. >> president: so i'm going to read what i have in my notes. did you have a question? >> i'm happy to share if you want to see i've written correctly what you guys have been saying, but i can also dictate what you write. >> president: okay. essentially moving staff recommendation with these modifications, it's just the massing and landscaping permeability requirements. architectural view will be continued staff work with architects and others in the

design community. set backs from the rear building, we're not going to have any set backs. no roof decks on the rear building. 4' set back on all interior lot lines. second unit to be a minimum of 800 square foot. that's what i have. >> yeah. i essentially if the 4' applied at the back as well. i wasn't sure if that was the rear back building. >> president: yes. >> all sides. did we have parody in there? 800. okay. >> president: great. i think then, commission secretary, we are ready to vote. >> secretary: sure. no problem. so there is a motion that has been seconded and hopefully my

notes reflect everyone else's. we are adopting standards that include the proposed massing standards with the permeability and landscaping requirements. we are pushing the architectural standards until further refined. we are not allowing or we are restricting roof decks on the rear unit and requiring a 4' set back on all sides of the rear unit for the interior lot lines. and then we are establishing an 800 square foot minimum for the second unit. >> vice president: commissioner secretary, is restricting the same as not allowing roof decks? i would prefer the word roof decks not allowing. restricting means somebody may want to come back and argue about that. >> secretary: okay. no roof decks on the second

unit. how's that. >> vice president: that sounds good. >> secretary: okay. >> not to add complications to that, but are you prohibiting roof decks on the first floor? you can have it set back on the first floor. i'm presuming you're saying no roof deck on the second floor. >> vice president: that's correct yeah. >> on the second floor. okay. >> secretary: okay. so not too further restrict or constrict, on that motion, [roll call] so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. and i'm really happy we don't

have a d.r. hearing after this. that concludes your hearing today, commissioners. enjoy the rest of your evening. >> thank you.

>> hello every one. thank you so much for your patience. good morning i am san francisco mayor london breed with dr. colfax giving an update what is happening with omicron because we are anxious to know when is this going to start dying down? good things are starting to plateau. it doesn't mean we take our guard down. even though we are still seeing additional cases, even though our hospitalizations are very high, we have the capacity to handle what is coming our way, we are starting to see just a number of plateaus and trends from other parts of the