>> my name is robert and i reside and own the property at 308 and 308 and a half on andover for 30 years. this is immediately east of the subject project of the i represent myself and my tenants and the residents at the property. we're in opposition for the project -- >> sir. i am sorry to interrupt you. right now we're taking comment on the matter of continuance. in favor, opposed of the continuance, prefer a different date and as far as the project we will take up that matter then. >> wonderful. i have no opposition to the continuance. >> fantastic. okay. last call for public comment on any of these items

proposed to be continued? seeing none commissioners public comment on your continuance calendar is closed and it is now before you commissioners. >> commissioner koppel. >> move to approve items one through three as proposed >> second. >> on that motion to continue the items as proposed. commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner tan tan. >> aye. >> moves 7-0. we will go to the consent agenda and considered routine by the historic preservation commission and may be acted on a single roll call vote of the commission. there is no separate vote until a member or staff or the public requests and then removed from

the consent calendar and considered at that time. first case at 3150 california street. commissioners you will take up the matter of conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator is here to opine on the ordinance s. case five case number as cited at 939 post street, a conditional use authorization and item 6 for case number as cited at 2567 mission street, a conditional use authorization again. members of the public you may come forward if you're in the chambers to request that any of these matters be removed from the consent calendar and considered today at a future hearing and if you're calling in press star three or webex. seeing no members in the public in the room we will take our caller and are you requesting for

one of these items to be removed from the consent calendar? . >> yes, yes, i am. >> which item would you like to have removed from the consent calendar and heard today. >> 3150 california. i just have a concern. >> okay. very good. we'll take items four "a" and "b" off of consent and sir i'm going to mute you now but you will need to press star three again when we takumlet matter at the beginning of the regular calendar today. very good commissioners. with that it leaves item 5 and six on your consent calendar as i do not see any other members of the public requesting to speak public comment is closed and the remainder of the consent calendar is before you. >> commissioner koppel. >> move to approve item 5 and six. >> second. >> okay. on that motion to approve item 5 and six on the consent calendar.

commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> vice president moore. >> aye and president tanner. >> aye. >> that moves 7-0 special we will place this under commission matters. >> thank you commission sec secretary. the san francisco health commission recognizes we're on the -- unceded ancestral homeland asks the caretakers of this place as for all peoples who wish to recite in their traditional territory traditional territory. as guests we recognize we benefit from living and working on the traditional homeland and pay respects by recognizing the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by

affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. and again i will be working inviting each of you to take a turn sharing our land acknowledgment and set up some schedule or something as we will do that and you will see this listedda an item on the agenda under commission matters so we're adjusting and making more regular. the other thing they will add is we had afternoon election last week. we had some final votes counted yesterday and want to thank the election workers and officials and everyone who volunteered or participated and voted and had our election process go smoothly, and i know there are winners and folks that didn't win the races and propositions that people cared about on all sides and good to see democracy in san francisco and thanks to all the workers that made that happen. >> thank you commissioner tanner. we should wait until that

is called. a little messy when we don't have the landment on the agenda and we'll begin to. and we're on to the approval of the minutes members of the public if you would like to come forward and seeing no request to speak public comment on the minutes is closed and they are now before you commissioners. >> move to approve the minutes. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye and commission president tanner. >> aye. >> so moved that moves 7-0 placing us on item 8 for commission comments and questions. >> any comments or questions from commissioners? >> okay. seeing none we can move on

to item 9 case number as cited remote hearing and again a procedural matter to allow us to meet remotely and who would like to adopt that resolution in the case we need to. >> any motions to adopt the resolution? commissioner imperial. >> move to a department the resolution. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on the motion to adopt a res that would allow us to meet remotely. commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye >> and commission president tanner. >> aye. >> that moves unanimously 7-0. placing us under director's announcements. >> good afternoon. notice announcements today. >> item 11 and the board of supervisors and [inaudible] and historic

preservation commission. >> good afternoon i am from legislative affairs. this week the land use commission considers the ordinance introduced by the supervisor and allow overnight camping in vehicles as for use as a triage center or safe parking site and makes minor amendments to the cannabis deadlines and you heard this item previously and recommended unanimously approval. supervisor melgar inquired how many were left in of the pipeline and how long it would take to e review. the supervisor had concern they heard this before want the office of cannabis clarified there are 35 applications in the queue and taking longer to review them than anticipate and the office of cannabis cleared the

other applicants and now focus on the 35. they hope to clear them by the time the legislation takes effect. there were no public comments and the committee moved to the full board with a positive recommendation. the board held a committee on the whole on the housing up date and lead my director hillis and rationing and staff available to respond to questions and comments. supervisors provided input on the draft and expressed frustration with the process. several supervisors had frustration for the mandate to build affordable housing didn't come with additional money for the city to meet the goal. supervisor melgar agreed with the plan's focus on the west side but was concerned that the city lacks the builders to build enough affordable units to meet the mandate even there was money to do so and noted her district didn't have any units in

the last secade. supervisor stefani said [inaudible] relax rules and otherwise still get bogged down in the process and supervisor walton had concerns it would go to other parts of the city and the eastern side would see the bulk of new construction. public comment was long and passionate. the hearing lasted about four hours before it was closed and those are all my remarks for you today. >> commissioners the board of appeals did meet last night. they unanimously upheld one permit over the counter but otherwise didn't consider any items of interest to the commission >> and the historic preservation commission met yesterday, and they adopted recommendations for approval for a number of legacy business registration

applications, the peking resident and candidateon on grant avenue the chinatown cake shop on grant avenue. the artisans of san francisco on irving street the mary es liz beth inn and life on haight street. after being pulled off of consent they took up the matter of harvey milk plaza and the relocation of two of the path of gold life standards. we received mostly comment in favor, and they approved the minor relocation. if there are no questions commissioners we can move on to general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on interest of the commission within the subject matter

jurisdiction of the commission except with agenda items and with respect to those items you're afforded it when it reaches the commission and up to three minutes and when the limit is exceeded general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. come forward or press star three. seeing no members of the public coming forward we will go to the remote callers. when the line isup meeted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hi. good afternoon. it's georgia. i really want say something about item 9, the remote hearings. i wondered if it was possible please if mr. ionin when you go to the remote people calling in you could do something similar what the clerks of the board do

with remote hearings and there are 27 listeners or 26 in the queue and that way you know what is going on if you're sitting at home waiting and that's really it. i think it would be helpful to the public to do that like the board to do it in room 400 and that's thave a happy thanksgiving and take care. bye. >> okay. last call for general public comment. again you need to come forward or press star three or raise your hand. seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners general public comment is closed and we can move on to your regular calendar. for items four "a" and "b" which were pulled off of consent case numbers as cited 3150 california street. again you will consider the conditional use

authorization and the zoning administrator is for consideration of variances. after hearing and closing public comment you continued this matter previously by a vote to 6-1 with commissioner koppel voting against. as such project sponsor you will have a three minute presentation and members of the public will have one minute. >> before they applicant i would like to make a disclosure. commissioner diamond. >> thank you commissioners. when we heard this item last week i made disclosures and inadvertently missed one and similar in vein to the others that i made and the project manager for the san francisco university high school equity builders is the same retained by temple manual for their projected. i sit on their board and on its project finance committee so have some interactions with equity community

builders. that relationship will have no bearing on my ability to remain impartial on the san francisco university high school. thank you. >> staff do we have a presentation? good afternoon commissioners. mary woods of department staff. as jonah said this matter was continued from last week to this week to allow the project sponsor more time to work with the immediately two adjacent neighbors to develop some or refine the conditions of approval for the project. the sponsor and the neighbors have agreed to five new conditions of approval which are included in your current packet for the revised draft motion. this concludes my presentation. if you have any questions

i am happy here answer. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. commissioner tanner and the rest of the commissioners. tara sullivan from [inaudible] on behalf of university high school. thanks again for hearing this item. i'm not going to go into detail on the project. i think you're well versed on it and as mary said we worked with the neighbors and contacting other neighbors. since last thursday we have five refined conditions in your packet. we're hope they're acceptable for you. they're for the neighbors. you heard emails from the neighbors saying they support these and we're here to answer any questions and look forward to getting your support. thank you. >> okay. that concludes project sponsor's presentation. we can take public comment. again if you're in the chambers please come forward. if you're calling in remotely

raise your hand and press star three. seeing none in the chambers we will go to the remote callers. again when your line is unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hello. my name is donald. i live up the street from the campus at 3065 jackson street. i wrote an email i don't know if it was discuss said last meeting on november 10 but i would like to read it. i express my concern not so much of the new knowledge at 3150 but the increased student population at the upper campus. >> . >> i read there is increase in accommodating constitutes by 60%. [inaudible] to 160. i believe that the new building at 3150 should accommodate all new students.

thank you. >> thank you. okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. >> thank you. mr. commissioner koppel. >> yeah, in my opinion i think we reviewed this project and confident that all the stipulations have been addressed so i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> okay. if there's no further deliberation commissioners there's a motion to approve this matter with conditions. commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye >> and commission president tanner. >> aye. >> so moved commissioners that. moves unanimously 7-0. zoning administrator. >> i will close the public hearing on the variance and intend to grant with conditions. >> very good.

commissioners that places us on item 12 for case number as cited for the neighborhood commercial and mixed-use zoning district planning code amendment. >> good afternoon commissioners. aaron starr manager of legislative affairs. this is an ordinance that would amend the planning code to bring the eastern neighborhoods mixed-use in line with the reorganization effort and make substantive issues -- i pause when

she gets here. so the first thing that this ordinance brings the eastern neighborhoods district with the effort and why the ordinance is so long. the reorganization effort started in 2014 with the intention of standardizing and consolidating the code and tables. in fact it's almost eight years to the date since the san francisco health -- planning commission passed this in november 20, 2014. that's what i look like eight years ago. that was our director. and commissioner moore seeps to have a portrait in her attic because she hasn't aged a bit. so beyond the non substantive changes on the code

reorganization effort the ordinance does make set of changes and i will provide a brief overview of those changes by category. so the first is the accessory use controls. the ordinance proposes to amend the article eight and article two accessory controls in line with seven to create consistency throughout the city and by allowing wholesaling and production of goods to operate more than 1/3 of a retail space and allow small manufacturers have a presence in one store front and uses the control for limited life performance in several districts and proposes to allow restaurants to have an accessory catering use like the limited restaurants are allowed to now. and for ground floor uses it would change the code that in the eastern neighborhood

mixed-use districts projects that provide over 10,000-foot pursuits of grand floor commercial space is provide it in a range of sizes and including $1,000 square feet or smaller. for entertainment arts and recreation uses it allows art activities in the soma and the ct and eastern neighborhoods and remove the good neighbor policies from the code and require compliance with the good neighbor policies and remove the 200 did you ever around a couple of districts that restrict animal services and night time entertainment and liberalize night time and general entertainment uses controls for most districts in the eastern neighborhoods downtown residential rct and folsom street and soma and ct. and then for eating and drinking uses the ordinance

permits bar uses on the ground floor in folsom street and rct and regional district. this would liberalize the facilities and public facilities and social service and tropical cyclone --. >> . >> philanthropic and arts activities and community facilities and private and public facility school and trade schools philanthropic and institutional uses permitted in in this districts and removes the hours of controls in the [inaudible] in the sally district. for automotive uses it would require rental or sale facilities to be in enclosed buildings. it would probability public parking in the districts cited and

garages and conditional use authorization in private districts in the districts listed. the residential changes and remove a provision and sro to have a smaller yard requirement than other residential buildings and align with the eastern neighborhoods with items passed last year and remove 311 notification for permitted uses in the eastern neighborhoods and allow for the 30 day permit review timeline as the eastern neighborhoods as the neighborhood commercial districts have and permit outdoor activities as long as they adhere to the restrictions adopted by prop h. the catch all urban ag is permitted in the eastern neighborhoods. the far and others listed here are permitted to do that based on the

height. ret activation of the lcus and don't meet conditional use hearing but activated by the zoning administrator again and definitions are amended so lighting requirements would be added. so i'm going to let madison give her part and come back with the recommendation. thanks. >> good afternoon commissioners. sorry for being late but thank you aaron for go ahead anyways. i'm a legislative aide for district six supervisor dorsey and give history about our involvement in the ordinance and support. when supervisor dorsey took office this ordinance crossed the desk and long time in the making and passed down from supervisor haney and staff. we're happy to see this ordinance heard by this body at this time. commissioners you should have received a memo from the supervisor's office changes we intend to make to the legislation and liberalize night time uses and

the supervisor is aware of general entertainment uses and have a robust process to find solutions for that similar to the process for night time uses. i ask that you please hold any of the technical questions but i want to talk about the community engagement process so over the last months i along with staff from planning and oewd met with a variety of stakeholders in the south of market neighborhood and players in the night life industry. we had productive conversations with both groups and bigger conversations to take place about soma and downtown and the supervisor's office looking forward to those discussions. we believe that zoning reform is necessary to revive downtown and reshape what it will look like in the post covid city. supporting small business is a hire priority for the office and we're excited for continuing community engagement around that as well so with that --.

>> so as mentioned by madison the supervisor is amending the ordinance and night time is for property on folsom street and division street and fronting on 11th and between howard and division street so that's what the map represents and the department is fine with the proposal. the department is recommending approval of this ordinance because it supports the goals to loosen the restrictions on night time entertain use to help this much industry thrive post pandemic. it permits more institutional uses in the eastern neighborhoods to help the non-profit organizations thrive and serve more communities. it makes consistent accessory use controls so all businesses can take advantage opportunities to expand and strengthen their business plan and limit new parking facilities in the eastern neighborhoods to help the city reach the carbon reduction goals and mode share shifts and vision zero

goals however the department is concerned how the changes could impact residential neighborhoods and have concerns how the provisions are implemented so we proposed the following amendments. rather amending the ratios in [inaudible] and child care and esadditional care facilities in those districts. remove the language with adequate language and guidelines from the definition of walk up facility. the planning department isn't the property agency to be regulating lighting. and prior to remove the buffer around these districts have the entertainment commission how to project them from noise and other quality of life entertainment. this amendment is not likely necessary by the changes proposed by the supervisor and the community but it's in the report. after planning commission's consideration allow amendments to the ordinance that allow planning code controls

and a standard recommendation that we always add to the reorganization ordinance so that concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. should open up public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. press star three or in the chambers please come forward. . >> hello commissioners. david woo with soma filipinas and thank supervisor dorsey's office for working with the community and making changes to this legislation and holding off on making large scale changes to might time uses in soma and limiting the changes to parts of folsom street and 11 it is street which we're supportive and i will acknowledge the

comments made about working further and discussions a general entertainment uses and we also ask that general entertainment uses are changes to those uses are held off and out of this legislation until there is more community process and discussion around that, and while this legislation is seeking to address important issues that we agree there need to be changes we strongly feel there needs more community processes with changes to night time and general entertainment to ensure there's not negative impacts to the well being of residents including families, youth and seniors living in the south of market, and exempt for the changes to folsom and 11 street and ask to hold off the uses for this and i ask if we're holding off on the changes relooking at changing

the buffers in the red and the red mx areas also so we can more comprehensively figure out a plan how to make necessary changes but take into account the impacts to those living in the south of market, and as we move forward with also updating the youth and family sud we want to affirm the south of market is where residents and families live and always taking into account in land use decisions and look forward to work with supervisor dorsey's office and community stakeholders to finding solutions with entertainment uses in the south of market. thanks. >> if there are no other members of the public in the chambers we will go to the remote callers. when the line is unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hello commissioners. kate o'neal on behalf of the san francisco venues coalition in support of this item. we

appreciate supervisor dorsey support for the night life industry in soma. thank you. >> hello. my name is bob. i'm the executive director of the leather and lgbtq cultural district and calling in to express our support for this legislation, and we appreciate supervisor dorsey's support of the item. night life and entertainment has been the heart of soma for decades and the cornerstone of the lgbtq community since the 60's. in 1980 there were 40 leather and lgbtq night life establishments in soma and we now count 14. we believe that this legislation and the changes to

the night life features will help strengthen and revive those which we view as a benefit to the city, and the district as well, and thank you very much. >> good afternoon commissioners. this is tom. executive director of livable city. we are in support of the ordinance and just wanted to commend supervisor dorsey and supervisor haney for taking this on. i served on the soma task force and thought about land used and how to keep the vital use of mixes in soma. i think we made a mistake with the buffer districts. realizing years later we made every night life venue in the district non

confirming with the buffer districts meaning that businesses couldn't relocate. you couldn't open new ones and what happened to the stud and the landlord extorted them for money and couldn't move and [inaudible] beloved my my community caused it to close down so this will fix that. now these uses to be good neighbor and not just the folks living in the residential enclaves but the folks in the mixed-use and ncd districts as well and in the code people live in the other districts and not mixed-use but a lot of people live in the mixed-use and good neighbors whether they're on the ground floor, next dooro behind and that's where the good neighborhood policy [inaudible] rather than the segregation by distance is good proof and this is a compromise by supervisor dorsey is a good way to

move forward and let's move forward and have pointed conversation and as someone that works in soma everyday the biggest impact is automobile traffic and planning needs to be serious about that if you're serious about livability in soma and creating a healthy environment for folks you need to take on the traffickic. as far as the far question i spent more time looking at the planning code than any sane person should, and your ratio generally don't make a lot of sense so we think what is in the proposed ordinance makes sense and floor area is floor area. doesn't matter the used and then it's calibrated to the height of the building. we think that makes more sense than existing code and more sense than the staff recommendation and [inaudible] in addition to residential from the limits. however, you may not need far limits in

the district. [inaudible] so we ask that you think about what do you want far to do and do you need it or is it just going to be unintended consequences like residential care and you want to permit and artificial limits how many floors you can have and go with the existing ordinance language or get rid of far limits all together. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is 18 cleary and calling on behalf of the golden gate restaurant organization with the ordinance under discussion. as we continue to recover from covid related closures and loss of business the measures in the ordinance will help businesses in the area facing challenges. we ask that the ordinance is passed and we thank you for your support.

>> okay. last call for public comment. you need to come forward or press star three or raise your hand. . >> hi. this is ben calling. i'm the current president of the entertainment commission but i am speaking today as a civilian and an advocate for night life and fun and small business in the city of san francisco. i am calling in very, very enthusiastic support of this legislation. i think when the rules were originally made they were trying -- people were trying to make sure that the worst case scenario wouldn't happen in their neighbor neighborhoods and in

their mind loud clubs and chaos associated with night life in a previous era. i think the result unfortunately the pendulum swung too far and outlawed entertainment from two person band to somebody spinning old school records to any of the fun things in between and i commend supervisor dorsey and previous supervisor haney for coming up with this common sense plan to legalize entertainment and night life uses in this area. people have mentioned the covid recovery. it's rough. it's particularly rough in this area as everybody knows and it's my feeling that arts and entertainment are not going to be part of the recovery. i think they will drive the recovery in areas like this. if we want more people to move into the areas and come back to offices and contribute to our tax revenue we need to give them reasons and if they have to take a uber or

bus or some other form far away to get these things it's very unlikely they will do that so i am supportive of this and commend everybody that is part of this and truly excited about this. thank you. >> okay. final last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners public comment is closed -- i take it back. go ahead caller. >> hi. my name is david. i happen to be on the board of the leather and lgbtq cultural district. i also believe this is a very important and worthwhile proposal which will be very important to keeping our community and this neighborhood revitalized, making it a good destination for people that live in the city and those that visit it. i think it's over due and i fully support it. thank you very

much. >> okay. final, final last call. seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners public comment is closed, and this code amendment is now before you. >> great. thank you. before i call on commissioner koppel i just wanted to ask a few questions of ms. tam or mr. starr, whoever is the right person to answer. i want to understand the recommendation of the buffer recommendation and the narrowing of folsom street and if we're still recommending to maintain the buffer until the legislation goes through? if you can help me understand it more. we're narrowing where we want entertainment but there's still the residential uses near by to those areas as well. >> i think the buffer would have to be amended in order for the last minute proposal to go forward but i think it's important for the entertainment commission to consider the interface

between the districts and their operating conditions and now they monitor those businesses so you can keep that recommendation in there, and -- >> yeah, because i would agree with that and not just in terms of the operation but sound attenuation measures that need to be part of it and if new establishments open we want to know that sooner or later and have we gotten feedback from the entertainment commission and the ability to take on the task at looking at that and coming up with recommendations? >> it was a while ago but i believe they're on board. >> okay. we can remind them and we're moving forward and it's been a lot time. that's my only questions. i will call on other commissioners. >> thank you ms. tam for showing the support today and congratulations to supervisor dorsey. district six is one of our heavier weekend and night time night life districts. it's still a

shame to see certain businesses not around, stud and slims iconic and multi-generational venues so definitely in favor of this today because i think those two examples show us we need to do everything we can to enable the businesses to survive with community input and the families and seniors to help this district moving forward and along with the lgbtq community comes the businesses associated with it as well so this language encourages everything to move forward. >> thank you. commissioner imperial. >> yeah. i am generally supportive of this ordinance as well as the recommendation by the planning department. i do have a question through the supervisor's office regarding the addition of the language regarding the entertainment. are you suggesting to as part of the recommendation in the ordinance in terms of like the entertainment use to be in a

way paused or held off until there's more community discussion? >> yes. so this ordinance is file number as cited and another ordinance that has the goal of narrowing to specific properties fronting folsom and 11th street. i will the intention once we are at the land use committee oburabsorb that in there and in the larger file it's permissive in more areas and then for the general entertainment uses there were good conversations had around what sort of the thought was around the night time uses with families and seniors so will continue to have discussions and the same groups will meet to talk about the broad entertainment uses as well. >> thank you. that's clarified in terms of the process.

so i would move with a motion for approval with recommendations by the planing. >> second. >> with that would be amended -- i guess that's what i was trying to understand about the buffer and the planning department initially recommended not to move forward with the buffer until the entertainment commission looked at it but now saying to withdraw the buffer from the certain areas that were named so i just want to make sure we're clear on the motion and modifying or recommending staff recommendation and the buffer to dissipate along the areas and have the entertainment commission look at it versus have the entertainment commission look at it and then remove the buffer. >> i think the former is the wiser course but you could modify staff's recommendation just to say that the entertainment commission -- they're not going to remove the buffer from the

other areas just in this area so direct the entertainment commission to mitigate the impacts of that. >> i will make sure that the maker and the seconder of the motion that's your intent. >> that's my understanding as well and that recommendation. >> also include the changes to night time entertainment in the motion. >> yes. i believe -- i mean that's what the supervisor's office in terms of -- like it's a different file is my understanding. right? >> it is. but -- yeah. >> when you incorporate -- >> we need to incorporate that part of the recommendation. >> when the staff report was written that wasn't in existence so add to the recommendation. >> i thought it was part of the recommendation four so i would amend to include the additional language by the supervisor's office so approval with

recommendations by the planning department and recommendation by the supervisor's office. >> thank you. >> so the buffer is in the motion as it stands? >> the buffer is to be -- >> the buffer is already -- >> the entertainment commission is to consider the buffer any other sound attenuation or ways to help night life coexist with housing better. that's my interpretation of that and i will the buffer would be removed around those areas that had been read into the record seventh -- folsom street and 11th street and those boundaries as well. >> so the recommendation number three and included -- >> right. i see that so it's already in there ; right? >> yeah. >> okay. the way i understand the motion we're approving the proposed

planning code amendments with the modifications proposed by staff and the language from the supervisor's office? >> yes. >> very good. on that motion commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> dye dye. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president tanner. >> aye. >> that motions passes 7-0. commissioners that places on items 13 and 14 for case numbers as cited for the housing element 2022 update certification of the final environmental impact report and a resolution to initiate amendments to the general plan. please note that the public hearing on the draft eir is closed. the public comment period for the draft eir ended

on july 12, 2022. public comment will be received today however comments submitted may not be included in the final eir. commissioners we're calling these items together but there's a request from staff that i think would be the most appropriate course of action for you once we receive public comment for you to deliberate on the two matters separately and act on the certification of the environmental impact report first and then take up the matter of the general plan adoption initiation. >> great. i first want to call on commissioner ruiz and commissioner braun for the disclosures i believe. commissioner ruiz. >> thank you. yeah. i would just like to recuse myself from these items. i have a conflict because of my engagement with the housing element prior to making appointed to this commission with my current employer. >> thank you commissioner ruiz. commissioner braun. >> i just wanted to

share so those who seen past hearings of the housing element in the past i recused myself to matters related to the housing element and i upon to state that and now the contract between my employer and the planning department and had concerns and the housing element is now complete so my participation on items concerning the housing element will have no potential income on the source of income and the city attorney's office determined that i no longer have a conflict of interest for the housing element. >> thank you commissioner braun. commissioner koppel. >> i make a motion to recuse commissioner ruiz. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on that motion to recuse commissioner ruiz. commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye >> and commission president tanner. >> aye. >> so moved commissioners. commissioner ruiz you are hereby recused. >> just before we get started i just wanted to introduce melana who is here

for the first time presenting although she's want new to the department she holds the title of the longest serving planner on our housing element team. she started work on the housing element three and a half years ago actually on the first day with the department and instrumental in designing and implementing the community engagement for phase one and two. she carried that work through the development of the needs assessment and the assessment of fair housing and finally the implementing programs, so very much appropriate for her to be here today presenting on the ark of her work which dies together this project from the beginning to the end so thank you. i also wanted to recognize two other members of our housing element team who are actually leaving the department and who have been long-term members of the development. maya small who is on the webex as we like to call it has been with the department for nine years. she's leaving to

become sfmta's director of planning. you have seen her here and a strong planner with the design group and enhanced our design guidelines in general in our design work in general making it more consistent and accountable, and she made architecture more accessible for us all. about two years ago she moved to the community equity division and instrumental getting us here today with the housing element and finally shell seleaving after 15 years with the development. she's relocating back east, connecticut; right? the nutmeg state, a little state fact. she's done incredible at the department and broad skill set that we took advantage of. she's a accomplished

preservationist and took the program and set up for success. she started and continue to lead on the cultural and element and heritage district and lgbtq district and irreplaceable of our team and best of luck to them and thank you for all your work. >> thank you director hillis. so good afternoon president tanner and commissioners. i am shelly from the staff. if we can have the slide. planning department's staff are here today to request certification of the environmental impact report for the housing element 2022 update and to initiate amendment of the general plan to adopt the draft element before you. your decision actions will be separate for each item but we will be presenting the policy work and the environmental review together so you can better

understand each component in context. we will be taking public comment on both items together. this plan is the result of thousands of hours and hundreds of people working to find common ground and a path forward for housing in san francisco. on behalf of the department i would like to thank the community members and organizations that have shaped this plan. their engagement helped us navigate the tension that is created when you decide to treat housing as a right despite an economic system that challenges that vision. as a result of this collaboration we believe that we're putting forth both an ambitious and pragmatic plan. planning during a health and economic crisis has strengthened this plan and focused our attention on how precarious the living situations of so many residents are. it instilled an urgency and brought more

people to the table and examine the core values of the housing plan should be. we arrived at these four ideas. center the advancement of racial and social equity. respond to the disruption around us by committing to eliminate communities of displacement. make housing affordable at all income levels in all neighborhoods to expand individual choice, and to provided infrastructure needed for healthy neighborhoods and resilient communities. when we were here november 3 we covered in-depth the who, how and what of the plan shown in the slide, the analysis concerning our needs, our sites inventory and he constraints analysis and in hearings prior to that we talked about our goals objectives and policies. today we wanted to focus on the implementing programs which we published with the final draft last week. this is

what it all boils down to, the 43 programs and 340 actions that we commit as a city with this plan so for the next slides i will invite melana to come up and present her work. >> thank you shelly. in 2020 our commission issued a resolution, apologizing for the history of discriminatory and inequitable policies that contributed to the racial disparities that we see today and direct result of years of organizing from native americans and black and japanese and other communities of color. sorry. >> it's okay. take the time you need. >> [off mic]. >> sorry, years doing this. >> we appreciate your

work and we understand the emotion so thank you -- >> including the land back movement and the black lives matter movements. this apology can't be words on a paper. it needs to have a government acting ways to redirect harm and with the commitment our engagement focused on communities of color and people most vulnerable to housing security while retaining -- sorry. >> [off mic]. >> okay. this is embarrassing. or raising other communities throughout the city. you can see an overview of our engagement methods from focus groups to listening sessions to survey and policy group experts. we want to give you a sense who contributed to this plan. in

phase one of our outreach 74% of respondents were people of color and 50% made less than $50 a year, 55 were presenters and 11% were unhoused, living in a shelter or cover surfing n the second phase we had 24 focus groups facilitated by community based organizations and 51% of participants and less than $50,000 a year, 14% were people with disabilities and 28% were families with children. sorry. around 90% of participants in the focus groups were people of color and about 85% were non homeowners. in general all the other outreach that we did had the same representation. our engagement had a broad reach and we heard about a range of lived experiences

and views on housing. what we heard loudest was these directives. people. access to abundant affordable safe and dignified housing and want resources redistributed to prioritize the most vulnerable people and those harmed by discriminatory government actions and see housing access increased by promoting wealth building for economically oppressed and vulnerable groups. people want to see housing distributed more equitably across the city. some people are passionate about saying in the neighborhood where they grew up or found community n they want to see resources improving their lives and access to housing they can truly afford. others want the freedom to find affordable housing elsewhere where they can move to areas that already have the qualities they want, and people in general. better accountability from the departments and from the city in our

housing systems and to directly participate in at this time decision making that impacts their lives and their neighborhoods. the plan has broad housing opportunity and accountability through the implementing programs while satisfying state law. we have nine areas. these program areas bundle the 340 actions that you've seen in the past in a way that reflects the city's existing agency's structure and programs making it easier for each responsible agency to track their tasks, report on progress, and to coordinate these efforts. the first three on the list focus largely on how we assist people impacted by our affordability crisis. the next set focuses on advancing equity. the last set focuses on expandings housing

choice and neighborhood quality. each of these program areas contains actions that affirmatively further housing in accordance with our values and state law which is what we will focus on our attention today. first and foremost the plan focuses on increasing housing affordability and stabilizing our residents. 35 percent of the actions fall in this categories. this requires that we have sufficient housing for lower income households and effective services to help people get into that housing. this programs will have the greatest impact on our american indian and black communities which have the highest rates of homelessness and other housing challenges in san francisco as shown in the red bars on this table. the plan would convene leaders to create a affordable housing plan within a year and to redistribute affordable housing

in well resourced neighborhood, increased rental assistance for seniors, people with disabilities, trances gender people and families and particularly those families living in sro. reevaluate the programs to observe serve these communities of color as well as with the lowest incomes. increase capacity and collaboration with community based organizations with preservation and housing services and for unhoused people and prioritize for rental housing among many others. 27% of actions in the plan make steps towards housing justice by redressing and preventing harm centering equity and serving people with special needs. among other goals these actions intend to stop and reverse the losses for american indian and black populations which have been cut nearly in half over the last three decades. our analysis shows how groups with

special needs and other vulnerable groups face greater housing discrimination and access barriers. the programs in this areas aim to build on and elevate the work of the american indian community, the african-american reparations committee, the dream keepers initiative and trans homelessness plan and the office of racial equity. some actions to highlight include supporting a community lead truth telling process about past planning practices to inform future policies. implementing community engagement strategies that center racial and equity and cultural comp pemmancy and increase collaboration with community and planning. explaining economic opportunities for american andean and black and communities of color aiming primarily to support wealth building, prioritizing american indian reference for housing opportunities and all services and programs and

establishing programs that offer home ownership programs targeted to black households among other actions. a new project manager and inventory and strategies we will talk about the remaining programs and close out the policy portion of the presentation. thank you. >> thank you melana and thank you president tanner, commissioners. so the remaining 38% of the actions -- the remaining 38% of the actions map out ways to expand housing choices across the city and invest in infrastructure and services that keep our communities vibrant, connected and resilient. as we've discussed previously our existing pipeline and highest current capacity is almost exclusively located on the east side of the city as shown in the map in

dark blue and part of the affirmatively housing materials that was added to the draft last we think. to break down the exclusion and racial and economic segregation that persists in the city and the short fall in the capacity the plan calls for rezoning focused in the well resourced neighborhoods and the center north, west side of the city and streamline and incentivize housing for approval income levels and for moderate and low income households. the method expands targets affordable housing across the city and social to middle and low income households. both mets rely on collaboration and capacity building with non-profit and for profit developer, builders and community

serving organizations. we spoke extensively about the sites inventory and rezoning program when we came before you on november 3, so i will just reiterate that the plan to rezoning must accommodate over 34,000 units primarily focused in the well resourced neighborhoods and to make that vision real we will need substantial affordable housing funding, cost lowering and other efforts. the plan also proposes to make shelters, silt sit housing and other crisis interventions principally permitted throughout the city and aims to improve the quality of life in the equity geographies, areas of cons streeted vulnerability with low income of color and investment to improve transit parks and streetscape and neighborhood amenities and have a long

range facilities plan to better gauge where new infrastructure and amenities are needed. so this is what is before us, the schedule ahead over the next month. as you're aware the process for housing element came with increased requirements and scrutiny over our local process and new state laws that need plan accountability and action. the housing community development agency is reviewing this draft and their feedback is seeking clarifications on the process and upon commitments to implementation and making clear -- making sure that our plan is clearly articulating how it will address affirmatively addressing fair housing and what we're doing in collaboration with the state over the next weeks. so before

you today there are two decisions in front of you. one is an initiation of adoption of the housing element for 2022 update and amendment of the general plan. you have a draft resolution before you that would initiate the proposed ordinance and as well as amend the air quality, commerce and industry, environmental protection urban design and to consider adopt of the element on or after december 15. we'll make some refinements to the final draft over the next weeks in response to the public, commission and board input. these revisions would be cataloged and presented prior to your adoption. your

other -- your other decision is to certify the housing element environmental impact report. any revisions to the plan between now and the adoption must be in conformation with the eir. resolutions adopting mitigation measures and statements of over riding considerations related to the eir will be included in your forthcoming adoption resolutions and before i turn it over to my colleagues from environmental planning i do want to thank shelly and maya for all their work and intellect and passion and heart that went into this plan. we wouldn't be here without them. with that i will turn it over to alana. >> good afternoon president tanner, members of the commission. i am alana, planning department staff and one of the environmental coordinators for the

housing element 2022 update environmental impact report or eir. joining me today is another environmental coordinator, liz white, the principal planners and other staff. we are joined remotely by the other environmental coordinator ryan. the item before you today is certification of a final environmental impact report for the housing element 2022 update. the draft eir was published in april 2022. the public hearing on the draft was held on june 9, 2022. the public comment period was extended twice and closed on july 12, 2022. the responses to comments document was published and distributed november 2, 2022. the responses to comment document and the eir coon constitute the fine eir. each

of were sent a copy of the housing element update before you contains updated language that was published on november 10, 2022. the housing element eir team has reviewed these changes and finds they do not alter the impact conclusions in the eir. this is summarized in the responses to comments supplemental memorandum provided to you this morning. i also have additional copies on the table to my left for public. as it relates to the updated november 10 language the memo released today notes that the changes to policy language fall into two buckets and the first revision for clarity and second new actions but not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those decloseed in the final eir. deferrally the memo notes as part of the subsequent rezoning proposal for development the department would prepare renderings or computer

stimulations when substantial changes are proprosed and comments from georgia and the issues raised were fully addressed in the comments document. here's a list of some of the common themes and comments on the draft eir. during the 83 day draft eir received comments from organizations and individuals including members of this commission and members of the public at the june 9, 2022 draft eir public hearing. the common theme relate to implementation rezoning, projected height distribution and growth, project merits and the range of alternatives. in the response to comments document distributed on november 2, 2022 we responded to comments raisings environmental issues and revised eir as necessary to provide

additional clarity. the slide provides a brief summary of responses to some of the common themes. as the department received a number of comments related to alternatives presented in the draft eir ied like to show the list of alternatives studied in here on the slide of the as addressed in responses to comments document many comment components of alternatives are contained in alternatives studied for the eir. additionally it presents a reasonable range of alternatives that meet the project objectives and reduce the impacts of the project. along the same vein additionally the department heard there was some confusion regarding the locations of growth projection assumptions used in the environmental analysis. the eir

assumed approximately 150,000 housing units by 2050 or approximately 5,000 new units per year in the city. of this approximately 50% of the housing units are in the department's current development pipeline or other reasonable foreseeable projects and could be developed anywhere in the city and number of units and larger projects are located in the eastern and southern portions of the city. secondly with implementation of the updated policies, goals and actions approximately 40% of the housing units are assumed to occur in well resourced area as in the blue areas on the figure and lastly the remaining 10% of housing units would be located in various areas throughout the city. they used these numbers see enforeseeable impacts to the (paused)

>> and with that planning staff requests that the planning commission adopt the eir certification motion before you. the motion certifies that the eir is adequate, accurate and objective and that the procedures through which the final eir was prepared comply with ceqa, chapter 31 of the san francisco

administrative code and planning department guidelines. motion doesn't approve the housing element update as you will take a separate action next month. this concludes the presentation on the eir certification. the team and i are value for questions but first planning environmental review officer lisa gibson would like to make a few remarks. jonah would you mind taking down the slide. >> thank you. >> good afternoon president tanner, members of the commission. i am the environmental review officer. as you know we prepared the eir to satisfy state requirements under the california environmental quality act and our local code, but i want to make it clear this wasn't just a two year paper pushing exercise, a check the box and now we're done and we move on exercise. the eir will streamline environmental review for housing element implementation and

future housing department throughout the city through this housing element cycle and potentially beyond. it will streamline while at the same time reducing environmental harm by requiring future projects that cause impacts to apply the mitigation measures we identified in the eir. we specifically crafted the impact analysis in the 30 plus mitigation measures in the eir not just to meet ceqa requirements so that the city could adopt the housing element. we went beyond that to maximize the utility for streamlining review for housing projects throughout the city. as we've done with air plans over the past decade or so we'll do that complying with the ceqa mandate for environmental review and infill projects consistent with the density established by the community plan or policies which the eir is certified, what we call community plan evaluation evaluations, so projects consistent with the housing

element will not need to prepare lengthy and costly eirs if their impacts are what anticipated in the eir and comply with the mitigation measures. i will also note that should legislation be adopted to adopt housing sustainability districts qualifying projects would be required to implement the applicable measures from the eir and not otherwise subject to environmental review and the good news we won't have to wait long to use the eir to streamline environmental review. if you stream the eir and you do today and the board of supervisors adopts the housing element we can prepare them right away and streamline environmental review for housing projects and see them early next year in the spring. i would like to close my remarks by thanking our incredible, awesome, amazing and caring housing

element 2022 update team both the plan and the eir team. in this slide shows the names of the planning department staff, partner agencies and consultant who is have contributed to these efforts. too many to name but each deserving recognition for their dedication, hard work, creative thinking and resilience. thank you all and thank you commissioners. >> okay. that concludes staff's presentations. we should take public comment on this matter. if you're in the chambers please come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. if you're calling in remotely press star three or raise your hand webex. >> before we begin and you may have said this reduce the time to two minutes and get everyone through via email and the board of supervisors we may

have a lot of public comment today. >> very good. you have two minutes. >> i don't think i need that long. my name is diane wesley smith. i am a 70 year old retiree, native san franciscan, homowner, blah, blah, blah. i'm here because the black community which is down to 3%, maybe 3.4. we're not the same. we have a diversity of thought and i wanted to share that. i love you. i would have joined but i'm retired. they're right on point with everything. all i ask when comes to planning that you consider. just because you see black people we don't think the same. now my son is becoming a doctor in may. other mothers are doing different things. we're all over the place so when i think of building -- when you talk to people and the names you mentioned, the names that have been mentioned they're already city

employees. they all work utilities. it's a clique quo and things will never thank to what they're speaking and people will cosine and the groups and piece people don't represent all of us. some are homeowners, some well educated, some not but we have different interests and so many groups like mine. at 70 my group of people -- i have a different group of people; right? but i am concerned about the future of young people. i'm concerned about the future of san francisco so what i ask when you talk about the community please make sure you have spoken to everyone. i have a licensed -- people don't call of us that have the facts. i only deal with the facts. that's all we can deal with so please don't take the word -- excuse me, i'm not pointing at you guys. don't take the words of people paid to go to meetings. that's all they do and

paid and they all know each each other and it's a clique and a status quo and that's why everything stays the same. thank you very much planning commissioners. >> hi. my name is debra scales reed and i also live in one of the areas that is being talked about, but actually -- >> ma'am if you could a little closer to the microphone. >> i just want to know where the hand outs are. she said "to her left." that's it. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. seeing no other members of the public in the chambers coming forward we will move on to the remote callers. when you hear the line is unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hello. i'm not sure if you can hear me. >> we can.

>> [inaudible]. i got a baby here so i am very concerned about the future of the city, and i just want to let you know it is not likely i appreciate all the work that everyone did to go into the housing element want unfortunately it's not likely to be satisfied by the date because it is assumes that pipeline projects will magically produce at twice the historical rate without changing any of the approval policies or incentives or anything else so it's not realistic and there's no back up plan or circuit breaker if this magic scenario isn't happening. we need some other thing, mechanism to kick in, zoning change or something, concession so it's actually easier to deliver the homes we're planning for and not

for the city and in want element or changes that hcd found in their investigation so it's my in the sky. it will be the housing element but the city is not committed to changing any of the policies. it will be too easy for the board of supervisors later to just be like here's the housing element but we're not actually committing to any of the changes, so thank you for listening. that's what i got. >> good afternoon president tanner, members of the commission. i am loriiam cutie and serve on the board with the [inaudible] task force whose mission is preserve san francisco's japantown. as one of the three remaining in the country san francisco japantown is a community that has been eviscerated by government policy.

the task force has been engaged in discussions with the planning department about the housing element over the past two years. japantown enjoyed a collaborative relationship with the planning staff. the task force greatly appreciates that the 2022 housing element is focused on racial and social equity. the task force asserts a need for housing particularly affordable housing in japantown and appreciate that chinatown is designated in the housing element as a. >> . >> . >> japan down is designate said a priority in the housing element and the corridor and with the housing element is prioritizing more housing. given the past collaboration with planning staff the task force was surprised when it discovered in the eir for the housing element that the planning staff was evaluating potential rezoning to increase the height limit and removal of density limits in

parts of japantown. we were assured that the height increases were hypothetical and not legislative and any changes in zoning would not occur unless you [inaudible]. however we were concerned about the signals to property owners that [inaudible] about the potential height increases and inflationary pressures on property values. since registers our concerns we were notified yesterday by staff and director hillis and supervisor preston that no rezoning of [inaudible] and showing potential height and density increases -- >> thank you ma'am. that is your time. >> [inaudible]. >> i am from the coalition if of san francisco neighborhoods speaking on my

own behalf. the board of supervisors held a hearing this past tuesday, a number of members were critical of the housing element. board president walton said he believes that the city is set up to fail. the draft housing element and eir has been described by some members of the public as comparable to urban renewal and redevelopment even though the draft housing element eir referred to the failed policies of past redevelopment efforts. the draft housing element eir case number description states and i quote "in general the proposed housing element update would shift and increase share of the city's future housing growth to transit corridors and low density residential districts" . the shifting begs the question is it apartment --

department running out of areas to designate or a path of redevelopment. this begs the question are there [inaudible] with the department and [inaudible] and penalties and lead to sb35 weaner and loss of local control. thank you. >> . >> hello. >> can you hear me? >> yes we can can. >> good afternoon. my name is gwyneth president of the japantown task force. our mission is preserve and redevelop the japantown in the u.s. and empower the agency with self determination. japantown was eviscerated through policy and the incarceration

of world war ii and the urban renewal policies of the city. over contrast over the past decade [inaudible] enjoyed a collaborative relationship with the department and working on the [inaudible], landmarking of the peace village and japantown design guidelines and [inaudible] osaka way and over the last two years on the housing element update. i'm here today to congratulate the planning department on this unprecedented milestone and thank staff, particularly shelly and maya. boy are we going to miss you as well as other staff members and of course planning director rich hillis. we thank you for engaging japantown in good faith, for listening with care to understand and most of all cultivating trust and restorative justice and reflected in the

housing element and acknowledge the housing element on racial and social equity. japantown is a area of vulnerability and geography and commitment that no rezoning of japantown will occur unless requested by the community and processes. the task force looks forward to build on the relationship of trust with the planning department on a plan and leveraging previous efforts to inform the development of community benefits that mitigate the impacts of potential development with affordable housing. thank you very much. >> good afternoon commissioners. joseph with the west side community coalition and race and equity and planning coalition. we are concerned about the housing element and the eir. we don't believe -- the coalition doesn't believe that a

viable alternative on a study on comprehensive [inaudible]. organizations had details and ambitious plans for community and by community participation, education and developing the skills and knowledge of our community residents to understand land use, planning and housing. some of the plans -- [inaudible] expertise vision in our communities. [inaudible] together, action items that provide a path forward for truly [inaudible] equity and [inaudible] fair housing. repull all these plans together for the city-wide plan for equity and land use. we still have significant concerns about the housing element and look forward to continuing to work with planning on meaningful changes for affordable housing, tenant reductions and community

input over the next several days. thank you. >> good afternoon. i with the senior tenants union and [inaudible] coalition. i gave public testimony on the draft eir in 2021. however the transcript of my comment is truncated and lumped together with comments on displacement and doesn't address the environmental concern i have about the harmful effects that carbon emissions have the environment and resulting in massive displacement that occurs due to people priced out of market rate housing and reside outside the city and commute two and from jobs in san francisco. are mitigations proposed? 46,000 new affordable housing units need to be produced in the next eight years the housing element doesn't prioritize

affordability nor does it present the plan for meeting the rhna goals for affordable housing. i remember planning integrate the city-wide people's plan into the policy of actions and urge the planning to incorporate council of community housing's recommendations and support of affordable housing and racial and social equity because relying solely on market based housing strategies for housing production will only cause further displacement of resident and deepen our housing immigrant in flagrant disregard of racial and social equity which is supposed to be the basis much san francisco housing element. community voices must define the policy and retained in this policy. lands need to be set aside and banks for 100% affordable housing. we have the opportunity to tackle the affordable housing crisis by exponentially growing our city budget. the

city must make this commitment early in the 2023-24 budget cycle and i encourage planning to commit to designating and budgeting -- >> thank you. that is your time. >> good afternoon commissioners. jake price on behalf of the housing coalition. i want to thank the planting department for the hard work throughout the housing element process. i know it's been long and a complicated process so thank you very much. as we all know the housing element's rhna target for each income level are a floor, not a ceiling, and to hit these targets it's absolutely that the city removes the identified constraints by the planning department, outline the neighborhoods to accommodate more housing and includes

robust circuit breakers that they're on target for the goals. additionally i would like to take a moment to highlight the potential combination of incorporating our shared goal of downtown revitalization with this housing element process while building in outlining neighborhoods is essential building housing near jobs and public transit is simply good urban planning [inaudible] the housing element gives a chance to [inaudible] and take that into account. this housing element is a chance for san francisco to get the housing policy right so i ask that you do everything you can and pass a truly compliant housing element. thank you. >> good afternoon president tanner and commissioners. my name is cheryl thornton. good afternoon president tanner and commissioners. my name is cheryl thornton a

resident of district 10 and i here on behalf of [inaudible] and in support of the people's plan. we need affordable housing now. affordable housing has become too expensive in san francisco, and developers have been able to take advantage of the tax credits for low income which is causing displacement of people of color. black african-americans residents are barely hanging on by a threat here in san francisco. we're 3% of the population yet we're 70% of the displaced homeless population. we need a you housing element that will address all people in san francisco not just some people so i hope you can adopt the people's plan. thank you.

>> good afternoon commissioners. my name is robert. i'm a resident of district 5 and i'm a long san francisco resident. i have participated in the housing element process and wrote letters to the city. i hope the city would write a quality housing element which is certified by the state but i have to admit i am stunned by the department's presentation this is a plan that has to be approved by the state and the planning department kind of admitted there is -- has not made it into the final draft of the housing element. at the november 3 hearing the planning department stated they declined to implement some of the of the feedback. this is incredible chutzpah. i mean california hcd is investigating san francisco four times

over and the housing element says there are indications and violations of state law and [inaudible] housing crisis act and state density bonus law." all of that apparently means nothing here. it's only fitting that san francisco [inaudible] of the planning department and i'm not alone. we organized emails that you have in the in boxes i will over 200 emails and a number of emails went out to california [inaudible]. members are pissed. we believe that the process has not resulted in the housing element which won't be certified. this is the plan when implemented has no safeguards. this housing element is ripe for subversion and allow the board of supervisors to weigh down all the changes that housing is costly and expensive just like it is now just like the board has done for the last eight years. the housing element is

meaningless. it's anup illusion. the state will see right through it and i hope the city is ready because this housing element will be rejected and we will deserve it. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am with the economic development agency and race and equity and planning coalition. realizing we're in the final stretch with this and after much discussion over the year with the planning department who we thank very much for the hard work in the process we want to focus on three areas of the housing element today. first we urge the city to prioritize affordable housing here and quickly launch an inter departmental affordable housing group with residents, non-profits and other neighborhood stakeholders to create a clear fully resourced and actionable plan to meet the 46,000 units of affordable housing required by this plan on a timeline with

clear metrics and benchmark. second we would like to see strengthening of the equity framework in the plan to ensure we're not creating additional displacement pressures expanding the mapping tool from uc berkeley and work in conjunction with the geography map to protect areas around the city including significant portion of the latino cultural district among others. and third it's critical to understand that ab2011 will likely override many of the housing elements and strategies and driving the housing market back to the low income of color that are building most of the city's market rate housing so we ask that the document updated to address this concern and include potential mitigation and ask that the city take a lead role in advocating to the state leaders over the next six months to make equity adjustments in

this space. thank you. >> oh hi. it's georgia. i have a little ticky tacky comment question. on the november 6 i wrote a follow up on the draft eir related to the cadex forms that the planning department puts out, and that was a change in the slope check box. it's now equal to or greater than 25% instead of former equal to greater than 20% which is a little more conservative i guess, and i thought it was important change, and i wasn't talking about the building department change. i was talking about the change in the cadex and there has been a change and i just wanted to point that out because i think it's important in terms of if there's any [inaudible] and the letter i wrote is on

page 73 of the correspondence that was published for the november 10 hearing and i just wanted to thank the staff. i think you know it's pretty amazing that you had to do all of this and i don't want to sound like a brown nose but i guess i'm a little tired of nimby form letters and maybe i shouldn't say that because i will put a target on myself but when you see form letters from napa you have to think what is going on so anyway that's my question, my comment and i am concerned about the change of slope in cadex. thanks a lot. bye. >> good afternoon commission. this is steve calling in. i am a homeowner in ingleside and also with the neighborhood association [inaudible] we're in

district 7, district 11 of san francisco. i just like to focus us on the point of the hearing and the point of the housing element. we need to meet specific goals that are laid out by the state in order to pass this housing element. the goal is not to include every wish list item that we want in our city's housing production. i could obviously ask a whole laundry list of new housing projects. i would love to see more subsidized housing of course. i would love to see more subways and bike lanes and bigger budget but that is not the purpose of this element. we're trying to pass a housing element that will pass the state hcd and that needs to have a goal of 82,000 homes, and we need to reach that through our zoning and our approval process, and we know that a, we're not

counting on that. we're counting on the pipeline which isn't sufficient as we have seen. park merced is in the pipeline for a decade and haven't made progress so we can't count on that and how to increase the zoning on the west side. this is where the least development in san francisco's history and see a lot of great amenities and benefits and wealth and this is where we need to share some of the wealth so i really hope you can focus on the gold bearing area and the housing element and thank you for your time. >> good afternoon commission president tanner. good afternoon commissioners. my name is jonathan and a resident of district 2 and i have been following the housing element process now for probably well over a year, and i think for anyone paying attention and looking at what has been happening statewide

just to be obvious that hcd and the governor for that matter are serious about california's housing crisis with this housing element process and with the draft right now i don't see how the state will accept it. i think this will be an embarrassment for the city and the draft and subject to circumstances that no one knows exactly how they will play out, so this is not a program to -- [inaudible] there are simple steps that the city can take to comply with the housing element most importantly incorporate all the accountability mechanisms that they requested in request before the city but a circuit breaker to rezone at the midway point in the rhna if the city is off track to meet the rhna targets and really making sure -- there's not a lot of trust with the city and the board

of supervisors specifically doing the right thing here so please insert language into the housing element to prevent the body from [inaudible] business registration fee and commit to making projects feasible in 2023. thank you. >> . >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is ken get live in san francisco in district 7 on the west side. the housing element process is crucial. it's something we only do every eight years and this time around it's even more crucial because we have to have a compliance housing element by january 31. can't lose vital funding for transit and affordable housing. we have to be compliant. we need the plan to build 83,000 homes by that date. the challenge is our housing element claims we're going to be over

halfway there just by our existing pipeline. as others have said that is just wildly optimistic and saying we're going to double our building without changing anything and at that time when costs are increasing and interest rates are raising. given that wildly optimistic assumption we asked for a backup plan. we declined to do so far. we need to put in a solid back up plan in the housing element. beyond that we have to commit the city and the board to the changes in this housing element to make sure it's successful across the eight year period. i have asked that we make those changes so we can be sure this will get us where we need to and lastly i want to thank staff for all the hard work on this because

it's a really difficult task and encourage everyone to address the issues to get to a compliant housing element. thank you. >> good afternoon. can you guys hear me? >> yes we can hear you. >> good afternoon commissioners. this is jessica a local real estate agent. i want to say the same comments i said at the board of supervisors meeting tuesday and please make a compliant housing element by the due date so we don't lose funding by the state or [inaudible] and have the state take over. again thank you very much. >> commissioners this is [inaudible] affordable housing for seniors. it is very clear at the

supervisors hearing tuesday that the top priority of most san franciscan is production of affordable housing, yet it is reported that the state only cares about two things. taller units and not particularly affordable and the removal of constraints, so it's up to us to make sure we have a funding plan for the number of units and it's also up to us to examine these constraints very carefully. one element cited in the housing element is labeled community opposition. community opposition expressed through hearings and appeals, et cetera rather than an obstacle and [inaudible] development and often [inaudible]. the housing element

suggests that these can be replaced by listening to the community and offering benefits behind closed doors. this could work sometimes but really there's no enforcement in the housing element for dealing with a developer or property owner who does not listen or sit in the same room with community members never mind mitigation and i recommend that the commissioners add into the housing element a provision that a developer who will not work with planning and community members risks application disapproval. community input can be productive and beneficial and actually speed the process provided that all can participate equally from the beginning. thank you very much. >> hi. my name is

mitch from san francisco housing corporation and a developer based in the area. thank you to staff and the commission for the hard work. transit and affordable housing [inaudible] get this right. we appreciate the focus on the racial equity housing element because that's where we're having problems. happy to see the broad rezoning of these areas. based on the maps shown last week and the one option looks the best -- larger area and few tall buildings and eliminate density we need options for other housing and achieve housing more people and [inaudible] production for a year. main options. affordable goal. the number is

[inaudible] of low income affordable housing and ami and one important strategy is land banking especially in the areas up zoned. acquire land for affordable housing construction to make sure it occurs ideally now before prizes guess up. we will need increased -- [inaudible] yes with the state and local adu program and need reforms as outlined. >> . >> that's one of the primary points from them in august and can't see approving the housing element without it. we rely on state funding to build affordable housing and we want to see this housing element approved. thank you very much for your work. this is the time for bold actions. >> good afternoon. can you hear me? >> indeed we can. >> awesome. thank you. good

afternoon. my name is raina and community organizer and i just want to as said at the board of supervisors meeting there's a clear out cry for affordable housing and [inaudible] and i think what needs to be taken and talk to the community first and the voices crying out for equity for years and decades. [inaudible] (audio is not clear). developments that may need -- [inaudible] so please i encourage you to affordable first. [inaudible] plenty of units that can be -- that wish to be counted towards this housing element. please prioritize the affordable

housing. that's the different between [inaudible] and my family. thank you. >> hi. my name is martin and a tenant in district 5. as many of the callers i would like the commission to pass the housing element. to me it's really impressive to hear from folks at meta, housing housing developer and back the people's plan. in the people's plan they actually have certain recommendations such as repealing sb35 and one of the laws that metauses to build affordable housing faster and more efficient loon they have in the past so it's very confusing why we have this last minute blitz at the end of the process to throw away the years of community engagement as described

earlier in this call from diverse communities and diverse income varieties from all across the city. it's really concerning that we getting to this point now at the very end of the process when affordable housing and transit funding is on the line. as we know if there's no compliant housing element means dozens of non-profit employers will not have projects funded and in other words will have their jobs at risk essentially so this is not a game. this is people's livelihood. this is people's home. this is affordable housing funding and to me there are people on the call that don't seem to be taking this seriously and seem to be [inaudible] claim of the process it's people's livelihood. this is not a game. thank you. >> hi. good

afternoon commissioners. my name is kevin burke resident of the mission. you're in really big trouble and [inaudible] both sides of the mouth and on one hand and have things from planning and approval and [inaudible] owner occupancy games. streamlining and promises that the technical committee will lower the inclusionary rate. that's the left hand and the right hand and denying projects on mission and the [inaudible] denying chinatown and north beach and denying and in corona heights. telling developers that san francisco treats deadlines and the [inaudible] act as optional. getting so mad about prop d that you did prop e. again you're supposed to be getting ministerial approval and planning commissioners talking about shadows to be mitigated in

the housing element draft. you just can't do that stuff have a complying housing element. you can't. you need to approve the projects when they come in if you're getting close to the target and hcd will want to see that just like any other jurisdiction in their purview. i haven't seen any evidence that anyone is sorry about that. if corona heights -- [inaudible] came back today and you would deny it again if mission or others came back you will deny it again so you're in big truly. you won't get it certified and it's your fault and not with the money from the state or the rhna is 50% affordable but the decisions you made with your own discretion. that's what you need to fix and demonstrate to the state to fix in order to get a compliant housing element and until you demonstrate that or take away

your own discretion you won't get certified. thank you very much and have a great day. >> good afternoon. my name is anne and i work auto bay area non-profit and it recognizes that the city review inclusionary requirements regularly through technical advisory committee and have more options and three, explore the potential for inclusionary policy for on site moderate income units well resourced neighborhoods. this is a gad starting point for directing the economic challenges of building mixed income housing in san francisco. we believe that stronger actions are required to close the feasibility gap under current market conditions. long recommended that the city establish a technical committee of experts and the [inaudible] building code and recommend that the controller's

office sets the inclusionary rate and for the process of the policy. research from berkeley and hcd shows that san francisco what a much longer approval process than any other urban location in the state. the failure of the propositions means that the city will have lengthy and approval processes and the policy should have discretionary review and [inaudible] well resourced neighborhoods. thank you very much for your time. >> this is sue hester. the people in the san francisco community organizations have been working for a very, very, very long time to get affordable housing in san francisco. san francisco was the first city ever to

require housing to be funded by additional office space in the 80s. there was no one else that ever did that so community organizations and labor unions and people being jerks at the planning commission basically forced the planning commission and the board of supervisors to put affordable housing requirements on every project that came through with legislation. pardon me. one of the key issues on all the area plan when is we did the eastern neighborhoods and market octavia plans was real struggles for building housing. that was really a lot of effort went into that from neighborhoods that were directly affected partly because we have seen a displacement of

racial minorities in the city and low income people. people struggle to get more housing built for low income people. equity demands that we do that and we force the issue at the planning commission, at the board of supervisors. trickle down doesn't work. people that need market rate housing are based not in the real world. i ask commissioners to think really hard about whether you're going to certify this eir. i don't think it's ready. thank you. >> okay. last call for public comment. again if you're in the chambers come forward. if you're calling in remotely press star three. if you're in webex raise your hand. seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners public

comment is closed and these matters are now before you. again we ask that you consider the certification of the eir first and then move on to the initiation of the general plan amendment. >> thank you. i want to thank staff before we get started with the deliberations again for a tremendous amount of work, heart, passion. we know some staff went to new roles in the city and some are leaving us and some leaving across the country but we want to thank you for the work and dedication and thank you ms. gibson for the wonderful slide and the folks that had a hand in this housing element as well as the many hours and many hundreds of thousands of san franciscan who participated who may not all be listening now but we hope they have the impacts of the housing element improve their lives and thanks to all that called in and wrote in over the last few years on this topic so commissioners we're asked to take up the eir first so i will turn it over to anyone who has a

comment, questions or kick us off on that the eir discussion? commissioner commissioner imperial. >> yes. i do have a question in terms of the transportation and how it coincides with the transportation element that i know it's going to be heard as well? so can you -- can someone talk about how this housing element at the same time as going through the process of transportation element how is this overlapping? >> good afternoon. i am from the planning department staff and on the transportation review team and i work closely with our partner agencies at the san francisco municipal transportation agency and san francisco county transportation authority and then as well as our own policy staff and great question commissioner commissioner imperial. both mta

and the cta were intimately involved in the eir and helping shape where growth could be targeted in the well resourced area so some of the examples you will see are targeted along transit corridors that are being studied as part of the long range transportation effort called connect sf which the transportation element is one of its components, so short answer is they're being thought of together, but the housing element is primarily focused on housing, and so that's where most of its actions are targeted whereas the transportation element will come later and focused on the transportation investments. >> i guess also i know we're in the housing element but the transportation element of you is still in the process.

i am assuming that there is funding of course. there will be aggressive funding in order to mitigate -- which is also part of the housing element you know -- analysis as well this is unavoidable impact even though there's a mitigation measure, so that's actually my big concern in terms of this housing element as we're trying to focus growth in ncds and [inaudible] and also along the geary boulevard. i mean the geary boulevard has been targeted for growth and also in the marina area in the northern part of the san francisco as well, so i am kind of like thinking as the housing element part of the policy is working group convening working group for the affordable housing funding parts of it, but i wonder if that is also

being part or discussion in terms of the transportation eliminate for aggressive funding as well it would need for years to come? so i just also would like to add that as a comment in terms of transportation element because that would take a lot of resource, and we have not heard in terms of like how much funding would take from the city to develop this transportation development. thank you wade. i guess i will just have to hear more on that. another question that i have is the letter that i received from the japantown task force in terms of the cultural resources survey. is it going to be started by the year 2026. is that correct? or do we have a resource in

terms of can we start the cultural resource survey as soon as we can? >> the cultural resources survey -- sorry, alison from the staff. i'm the cultural resource manager and i work with the managers working on the survey. the survey is starting. the goal is to finish the survey by 2026 -- 2027. and japantown is actually one of the areas prioritized so on the survey we will start in japantown next year. >> okay. that's good to know. and in terms of other -- also one of my questions in terms of the wind analysis and this is -- i am trying to understand as well in terms how because i understand in terms of the you know we're required what we have here in the city as mandated on

what in terms wind location test but are there any kinds of you know conversation about targeted populations special for aging population? how do we cope with that analysis impacts for a specific target population? >> alana callagy department staff. we don't look at specific populations with that analysis. >> i say for the policy for the housing element that will be part of the community lead process or the discussions on how it would affect the senior population? . >> i am with the planning department staff. for ceqa analysis we're really looking at the measured wind speeds and

that they reach what is considered hazardous levels and if that's the case than there are mitigations that are explored, but we don't have distinction between how it affects different populations. it's really more about people in general and hazardous winds. >> thank you. and in terms of the last question in terms of the utilities and service systems again in the housing element eir is one identified as unavoidable impact even though there are mitigation measures and these are also go to be conicided with our conversation in the implementation. how are discussions in terms of the interagency conversation when it

comes to utilities and services? again a lot of this i feel like is going down in terms of mitigation about funding, and how are agencies going to -- you know the construction, so i know we're in the eir but that's also being identified in our analysis, but how are those conversations in terms of being put in the implementation tool? >> okay. with respect to -- are you asking with respect to a particular agency or -- >> yes. in terms of like different agencies that work on the utilities and water services. >> okay. so the sfpuc is a very forward long range looking agency, and they have an urban water management plan that is updated every five years, but has a long look out to at least 45 years. for the eir we did consult them

and talk about the growth projections and those were part of their input to us about what facilities are available? and the fact there would need to be additional facilities in light of the bay delta plan, so i'm not as familiar with all of their funding, but they do have that long range look for capital projects. the same is true for wastewater. they have already been long time implementing upgrades for seismic improvements and redundancy to ensure that we have adequate water supply and facilities. >> thank you very much. that does inform me about implementation tools we may need. thank you. >> i am chiming in remotely. i also wanted to mention related to the water

usage they have also are very clear that more multi-family uses less water usage and someone align with the housing element you end up with less water usage perhousehold with small multi-family and with conservation measures and everything they're projecting out the water usage will go down. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> first big thank you not only for the extent you have been working on this and the eir and has challenges that has never been addressed before but also for speeding up what is in front of us today given the shorten timeframe that you were only informed of it not too long ago. this is

remarkable and i express my thanks to everybody. i have a couple of clarifying questions that may have been already addressed somewhere. i couldn't find answers to my questions. with respect to housing production goals did you take into account the high number of vacancies reported in the city? i know that abag has benchmark for vacancies and in vacancies i am particularly wondering how the high vacancies reported here have been taken into consideration? the second part of my question is why in the eir did you choose one oak and park merced as part of the environmental baseline? i have my questions about park merced since has been around since 2011 for 20, third time frame to be built out. for years nothing has happened.

why was this particular project chosen including one oak? they're two related questions if anyone has any answers i would appreciate hearing on those. >> good afternoon. liz white department staff. for the second question on the projects that were included in the baseline so the eir does look out over a 30 year horizon so we did in consultation with our community equity and city-wide partners feel that including these pipeline projects that might not have been constructed yet but still foreseeable to be constructed at some point over the next 30 years so they were included as part of the 2050 baseline for that reason. >> perhaps my question can only be answered in the way

that you do and paper articles and reporting on particular one of these projects over the last 11 or more years less encouraging or less positive than what you are presenting but i accept your answer. >> yeah. on your first question which as you stated ties to your second. we did projections based analysis of approximately 5,000 units per year going out 30 years, so it's on average and that projection analysis was of net new units in the city so we weren't necessarily considering the vacancies that exist today when projecting out into the future. >> thank you. the second part of my question is two fold.

adaptive reuse of empty office buildings in the financial district is a question to address replanting of the financial district but looking how potential existing buildings have fewer environmental consequences than buildings that need to be newly constructed and that goes hand and hand with the question about taller buildings most requiring concrete and steel are more impacting buildings and more expensive buildings to build than other forms of construction. i see a note in our eir that suggests that prefabricated housing is potentially one strategy but at the core of the question given we're a strongly unionized city is still the question about high rise buildings and

up zoning having environmental consequences in terms of the type of construction we choose. is there any comment on that? . >> liz white planning department staff. on the types of buildings that we could see in the future so the housing element does -- we recommend it's small and midrise multi-family development and i will -- we do have a response about the types of construction under the greenhouse gas section, but generally it would be speculative to assume the types of construction we would see. regarding the amount of construction and steel

for housing units so the type of construction that we're anticipating to see with the housing element generally would have less intensive construction materials than those above 85 feet, and so given these considerations it's speculative but given what we're anticipating under the plans and policies it's -- the materials are anticipated to be less intensive. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> that's all my questions at the moment. >> thank you. commissioner koppel. >> i wanted to send another personal thanks to everyone involved. i know there was a million minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years so just wanted to make sure everyone was recognized once again and all the community people involved too. this

has been a very intense long time consuming item. i have to say i am satisfied and think that we're looking at an adequate document here, and without seeing anybody else to motion to certify the final housing element eir. >> i second that. >> great. i have one final comment before we call the vote which is really under score ms. gibson's point about the programmatic nature of this eir and how in itself is a streamlining measure, is another way to reduce the governmental restraints, the cost of housing, the timeline it takes to get the housing approved and developed so i think it's worth under scoring that again i know we have folks concerned how not just e nameerate the government constraints but eliminate them and i think this is a

reason the housing element states that and in fact does that and a good marketer how we're doing and implementing the rest of the housing element so i want to thank if you for that great work and hope to have the effect we hope for so with that i don't see any other hands and ready to vote. >> there's a motion and second to verify the report report. commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commission president tanner. >> aye. >> so moved. commissioners. that moves 6-0. you still have the general plan initiation right. i was requested to have a short break before we begin. we have been at it over two hours and five minutes commissioners this time and we will be.

>> okay. welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday november 17, 2022. we left off under your regular calendar commissioners on item 14 for case number as cited for the housing element 2022 update. your consideration to adopt a resolution to initiate. >> great. thank you commissioners. thank you staff again and to members of the public who have participated and called in or wrote letters today. i'm going to kick off off today. i know we have quite a bit of work and an important milestone and coming sooner than we hoped so spending more time now to hopefully have a smooth process going forward. i wanted to start off picking up some of the comments that president of the board,

president walton made the other day speaking about the black community and how are they going to benefit from the housing element? how do we ensure that? i want to say there's been a lot of great work in the process by which we approve at the housing element and focus on the indian community and the black community and what they wanted and shaped it and not only housing but ownership and opportunities and wealth opportunities to live here and return here and maintain what we have and actually grow these comments and saw in the diagram huge decline over the last period of time, so i want to say that even though the plan has a lot of actions and policies that relate to strengthening the presence here in san francisco it's not really good unless we're able as a

commission work with the board bard and the many agencies that hold the programmatic keys to some of the things so it behooves us to focus on that. there's a couple of items i want to focus on in want housing element. one is for capacity so one of the challenges in the black community is really getting folks in the affordable housing to the have infrastructure base in the community to use the portal or other means to apply for and become in the lottery and become successful in the lottery and securing the units. the other challenge with affordable housing is the median household come for blacks is $30,000 and into the low income groups so when we're building inclusionary units they don't reach to the median household in san francisco so looking at 100% affordable for those communities and aligns with the people's plan that calls for

extremely low household and even zero household and how do we have units that serve those populations? so i wonder if staff can speak to those points and building capacity and bet into the lottery be successful in the lottery and reform some of the requirements what you need to prove that you're eligible for housing units and how we can build more very low and extremely low and no housing income units and where the housing element directs us in that regard? >> sure. i will start off -- can i start by answering questions related to the housing system, the system and some of the intentions to improve how the public navigates those but i will turn it over to others to maybe talk about building our capacity to build affordable housing so we simply have enough units for people to get into so we worked with them to

talk about the existing systems, how people navigate a system? we heard clearly from members of the public that navigating dalia is difficult, the number of time you have to submitted application, the sheer length of wait and the numbers of people applying is just enormous so they're multiple actions scattered through the programs and implementation programs that seeks to evaluate who is under represented in allocation of the bmr units and based on those studies targeted improvements to the system. we have an idea that certain communities of color are under represented or underserved by the system but we need to do more the digging into the data to understand that. we also want to create more robust data

collection system so than mo cd can monitor disparities. there's talk about turning dalia, the system into more of a portal, a more public friendly portal so people have just an easier time navigating and they don't a professional to help and accessing the lottery system and people often need assistance right now so i will turn it over to james to talk more about the affordable housing funding issues. >> great. thank you >> and actually before you go i see we we director shaw on the line as well and if you would like to chime in we would love to hear from you. >> hello president tanner. thank you very much for that. i just want to thank the partnership with mo cd and has been a huge -- a large partner and champion of the equity

framework detailed as part of the tree keeper initiative. we're continuing working with the department of technology reforming dalia and i want you know it's one of the most effective placement systems in the country. we used to slips of paper and excel spreadsheets especially in the administration of preferences including certificate of preference and place of preference and neighborhood preference so we continue to look at the uptick and the preference policy. we monitor the steps by race and by income and so i think that we will continue to work with the office of planning to make sure that we're doing regular reporting of those things and i think happening how to align marketing and implementation of the system and make sure it's more responsive. we're

doing a significant a point of investment into the agencies and provide support to the agency. we're actually working with all of the agencies and home-sf and rental sf and engage the african-americans residents and track outcomes and providing timely and responsive feedback in particularly understanding if african-americans or native american residents are not feeling served by communities. even if they're feeling racialized and metaand [inaudible] all residents engaged in the services feel welcome and served and we're investing in the capacity building on that. finally on the housing side i think you will hear it more and more coming we deeply committed understanding how to make it affordability and competitive for state funding and those investments and the gaps in state and federal funding that limit our ability to implement programs

but it's a standing policy right now and the creation of affordable housing around 20% set aside for homeless people through psh and the entry system and additional 5% and hiv housing space and find the appropriate mix of incomes and cross subsidization to ensure the long-term feasibility and operations of the program and i want you to know we value the input and we will build upon and scale a lot of things we're pursuing right now. >> great. thank you. mr. pappas did you want to add anything? okay thank you i does think it helps and hopefully folks can continue to advocate and see more low, extremely low income housing come fruition. i also wanted to comment on the implementing program items so there's a couple of bedrooms mentioned

and land acquisition strategy and strategy related to transit assets and transit planning and i like to see specifically the bay tray caltrain station called out and do planning for housing and land acquisition related to affordable housing. we also have the next one and look at the priorities for the black and indian community and two years and two years is far too long for the progress we're making and for the housing element we need robust and at least biannually and at least quarterly reports how we're doing. doesn't mean we will report on all actions at the time and maybe too robust we need to know on the short short term are we doing that and i don't want to be a year from now and we're behind schedule. we're

challenged by the state and treat the housing crisis like a crisis and that means we're doing things in much shorter timeframes. lastly bonn.5.power and add in addition to the communities that are addressed this to add that those communities who have been harmed by past government discrimination those have the presidencies and programs districted towards them so we're able to connect to the great work with the reparations task force but like to see more specific connection between their work and they're doing quite a job and i know it's not going to align exactly with the certification of the housing element but i know we that framework. we had that group give a lot of input and feedback but paving the way to the future recommendations from that group can be aligned into the housing element and the work this commission does is great so that's on that topic want i have a lot of comments. i'm not going to go through all of them before i call other

commissioners and the next topic and maybe you want to change in and the hcd letter and the verification of the element eliminate and how sure or not. >> . >> element will be certified and staff is working with them on this and i read and reread the letter from august several times and i am searching for this impetus to have the circuit breaker" idea and we talked about it last time and this element and the closest thing and i will read it verbatim and important to be clear and not using shorthand to describe what is in the letter. on page 11 of hcd instructions they state "in addition the element includes complex and strategies that are essential to the approach to address the housing needs. as a result the element should include a program to evaluate the effectiveness of the approaches and commitment to make adjustments as appropriate to continue working towards the

goals and objectives. specifically the element could include a program to conduct in-depth midterm evaluation of programs including effectiveness and commit to make adjustments within a specified time period. topics could include ash, which is affirmatively further housing, row zoning and adu and governmental constricteds. now i will ask staff if they're aware of other language that could be conveyed by some of the advocates we're heard as the circuit breaker. this seems the section to be in the circuit breaker in and defined as automatic rezoning but i can't find that language anywhere in the letter. >> i am from the staff. i am invite the director to come up and she's coordinating more directly with hcd and the staff. >> great. maybe

there's other correspondence or letters that are not in the letter and we're not privy to. >> good afternoon. there is another sentence on page two of the bottom on page two of that letter that reads "given the elements' reliance on pipeline projects it is element must include programs and actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring of approval of projects if assumptions are not realized" . >> sorry, i just -- can you say that one more time. >> bottom of page two is the last sentence in the last paragraph in progress of meeting the rein a says "lastly given the elements reliance on pipeline projects the element must include programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and

monitoring of approvals of the projects if assumptions are not realized" suppose those are two references including what you said before. we've had two sessions, two, three sessions with hcd staff to understand what was their assessment of the material that we have submitted. we have received questions related to the reduction of government constraints, questions and clarification. they have indicated they don't see any major issue. we wanted to get a sense if it was within our ability to respond to the potential questions and comments to work within the tight deadline we have discuss, and their understanding they don't see any big problem, but we're committed to work on every specific task that they believe we

need to address. there's one component that is missing in the housing element which is the affh and that's the one component we will submit tomorrow and they have committed to provide us a check list of everything they think we are missing by december 1. >> thank you so much for that clarification. i think -- and again i invite other commissioners to chime in on this idea of the circuit breaker. we did talk about it two weeks ago. it's certainly intriguing and i can definitely see the interest in saying we have all these great ideas. we have energy, momentum to

try to push them through yet many rely on legislation being passed and agree and rezoning happening and future actions be taken and there's a concern if we're halfway through the cycle and haven't made progress what we will we do to change things? i welcome staff to opine. i put thought and working to understand if we could have anything that would be different than our current programs which would automatically trigger rezoning? because rezoning is a legislative action in itself so how could we automatically require the board of supervisors to take a legislative action which itself discretionary in a general plan element? i can't figure that together. >> one more point. as you know one of our impetus for completing this housing

element by january 31 is that there's some consequences if we go beyond, one of which is builders remedy. if we fail to complete the rezoning in the three years that are stipulated that we indicate in the housing element we will -- our housing element will be decertified and we will be confronted with the [inaudible] which you know removes some of the basic rezoning controls. we're still tightening. we're trying to read carefully the reduction of government constraints in terms of the process. what are some of the dates or specific linkages that we need to address in order to ensure that it's not just rezoning but supporting the process for the approval of affordable housing projects and for profit projects. >> absolutely. i think that makes a good point and i will call you in one second. i think in terms of advocates who are concerned we won't meet the letter of the housing element we have to

maintain compliance for eight years. it's not a one and done deal and they're the midpoint, back stop and if we're not achieving the goals of the program we said then we're not compliant and our zoning is challenged by the builders remedy and part of the zoning for the city while we're out of compliance so i don't know if there's any other stronger measure quite frankly that body could approve other than that provided in state law. director hillis did you want to add anything? >> i would say on the process because of the shorten timeframe we're not going through one round of hcd comments that we expected originally to go through so we're in this period we're getting comments from you, from the board of supervisors, from the community but also working with hcd to make sure what we submitted to them in response to their first round of comments which were

extensive do what they want so we haven't gotten feedback yet and expect that december 1 so we can respond to those comments but i assure you their comments will be focused on this issue around kind of assurances that we're committed to rezoning and to looking at you know monitoring, the results of rezoning to make sure things are feasible so we're going through that process now with hcd and we will have changes on the document based on their comment when is we come back to you for certification. >> right. i would be interested to -- even between now and our hearing here in december getting their feedback but thinking as a body and as staff what our reporting frequency and mechanism looks like so it can be pretty often getting updates where we are. i know we have some things that will lag. i don't want to do the housing

inventory report more than once a year and a lot of work and the data needs to be precise but need tracking with the development agreement and in the pipeline that are already there and folks pointed out rightly that's where we're banking the process and the first part of the cycle and don't have the rezoning for the impact in the city so we need to make sure we're aware but also move other city agencies to kind of move those projects along and if some is about footaging and beyond the city's control but if we don't get those going then we will be looking at a pretty big deficit meeting arena. >> right. we're hoping we can give you the quarterly report and real time so you can understand what is in our pipeline at real time. you know as part of this last iteration we reduced reliance on the pipeline as hcd asked us

to do more emphasis on rezoning but we're also looking at ways to increase the results from our -- to get actual units from our pipeline so looking at projects what we can do to assist the a projects and working with oewd close on that so they're actions and even though we reduced the reliance on the pipeline to actually speed up and maximize the units that are coming from our pipeline. >> absolutely. i'm going to call on commissioner imperial and commissioner diamond. >> thank you. i have questions -- i don't know. sometimes i just jump on the questions without saying thank you but i want to acknowledge that the planning department has done tremendous job in the housing element, and everyone that has you know -- there are personal feelings around this

too as planners as all of us being residents here in san francisco so i want to acknowledge all the work you have done and continuously doing and more work to go at the end of the day too and will take our resources and part of it i am quite nervous about this but at the same time these are the things that we also need as a requirement of the city need to happen and the commissioner touched on some of the comments about the redoeses of government restraints and i want to touch on the last presentation that the planning department did regarding cuas and geographical location. is that something presented to us on december 15 or how are -- how does that analysis

being determined in terms of the geographic location? there was something presented two weeks ago. >> could you clarify which action it is that you're referring to? i think we referred to the conditional use authorization process throughout a couple of the constraints reduction actions. >> yes. i remember from the -- it was kind of like new information that was presented to us two weeks ago and one of the suggestions in term of the reduction of government restraint was looking to them by geographic location. >> well, i know we are -- and i would invite others to come up and help me answer but in well resourced neighborhoods where we're really focusing more of the streamlining measures in order to facilitate more capacity there we have

looked at removing the necessity for conditional use authorizations for demolitions when we have more than two units proposed when tenant protections are in place protections -- and rent control units are not involved we are not applying that, and priority equity geographies. it could be a tool that priority equity geographies access in the future if a community lead strategy calls for it, but we're not at this point part of the plan. we've also looked at the removal of conditional use authorizations for particular height increases that are within zoning more within the proposed zoning but currently we have a process above a certain height we automatically require a conditional use authorization even if it's within the zone height and we're suggesting we

can remove that in the future. director hillis or director would you like to add to that. >> thank you for that clarification because i don't think that was something covered or extensively i guess or explained well from the last presentation. in terms of the demolition we i also received comments in terms of the demolition when in regards to tenant protection, and so you know the idea is that when sf now if it's a tenant occupied demolition it's conditional use but if not tenant occupied it's streamlined but i believe from the coalition there were concerns about that if the building is not tenant occupied where it has been history of no

fault judgment or buy out that it would promote developers to do you know or you know developers to do no fault judgment beforehand, before the demolition would occur. would you respond to that analysis. >> i was reminded that maya mall is on the line. i forgot she is joining remotely. she's the author of most of the policies and i would like her to speak and maybe correct my last answer. i think i maybe misrelated some of the conditional use authorization proposals. >> okay. ms. small. >> hi. maya small planning department staff, also staff with the mta but we will speak to that first so there's a geography based discussion within the

ministerial permitting and the way it's referred to and what shelly was referring to. at this point they're want geographic based. there's definitely discussion about community lead processes and priority equity geographies so i think that would be a critical piece to lead with around some of this, but i will the conditional use authorization is around demolition and shelly described the additional tenant protections and aligned with the state law on free location and replacement units as well as not demolishing represent control units. we speak to seek remove conditional use authorization around additional height and base and additional height and density on certain lots that require that as well as lot mergers, so it really looks at these different conditions where you have a base condition that is accepted as a more code compliant condition and need a

conditional use authorization to get more height, density or combining of lots. >> thank you very much for that clarification. i just want to throw this, and i know the demolition topic is a very expensive and i know that the planning department is look in different ways because we've seen demolition as well in terms of different types of housing when we're thinking about or a project comes to us in terms of enlarging a unit or something or enlarging a house or something and the different topics with demolition and i appreciate that the planning department is really looking into that. however, in terms of the although in terms of tenant rights or tenant protections and also something to look into in terms of the exceptions -- not exceptions, but when we're looking for a demolition that

is where there's a history let's say of a move out let's say buy out or no fault type of a judgment. i think we also need to look into that and big data as well in terms of the buy out whether that would be ground for denial of a demolitions, so that's something i would suggest for the planning department to look into when talking about tenants rights protections. again i am emphasizing more on the tenant rights protection if we're looking into -- i know this doesn't come up as much but at the same time it does come up, and those are kind of discussions that becomes very heated here at the planning commission. >> right. just to get specific because it doesn't -- i mean we have a track record of the you do on the commission to not grant conditional use generally

for demolition of rent control buildings. i think in the pipeline of 70,000 units there's not much happening and 8.49 and action removal -- for single family and multi-family buildings which aren't tenant occupied without history of evictions and don't increase density and the rent controlled buildings so we think there is capacity in the city and add units without demo represent controlled units in commercial corridor, single family districts or where single family homes exist that are not historic and consistent with what you're asking for. >> thank you. in terms of the -- thank you for director hillis for amplifying that language as part of the

policy of the housing element. another thing too again talking about reduction in government restraints there are discussions or comments about the community lead process that of course it's a planning department that we are supporting as well. however, how does that look like in terms of committee lead approval timeline when -- i feel like we've discussed this in the commission before where if a project sponsor comes to the planning commission that this has been kind of you know thoroughly discussed with the community support, but how -- i guess that is kind of like -- it's part of our policy. i guess i am questioning more on the implementation and the action and what does it look like in terms of community lead process and let's say community lead approval project timeline? yeah. >> i am planning

staff. what we would like to do insert more of the community engagement at the beginning of our project review process. this is something we have been in conversation with our cultural districts with for several years. we're working incrementally towards implementing that. the cultural districts as you know overlay many of the priority geographies where places where emphasizing community lead planning as a way to stabilize communities and redress often to those communities as well so the idea is make sure that the engagement happens at the beginning before so much cost and energy has been kind of built into the design of a plan when the plan is much more flexible so that we can arrive at a negotiated project before we need to go to hearing or avoid hearings all

together, and so that ultimately the hope is that in cultural districts where they're proposing their own housing strategies and other other neighborhoods we intend to do community lead planning that the results of the plans are processes and we have embedded the community benefits that are being requested by the community in our process so we can reduce the plan review constraints. >> thank you so much. thank you for that. i guess it sounds like there's still part of civic community engagement in terms like what is a good timeline for that? lastly i believe -- [inaudible] again i think i know this is

not part of the housing element but it touch on in terms of the policy for the investment for transportation, and i want to reiterate that as we're going through the transportation element, the investment it would take for transportation as well, and i know that -- i don't know if transportation element would have action plans like the housing element but we're going through this part of the rezoning i think that will be -- i don't know if that is the transportation element -- >> i don't know if maya small wants to jump in within her new capacity but working with mta and sf connect and the partnership with them and making transportation investments so we believe we're aligned where we're making transportation infrastructure investment to accommodate the number of units we're asking for in this plan but maya -- >> yeah, i think it's

really important to kind of recognize these things build on one another and not all of the units are happening at the same time and all of the transportation will be layering in over time and as it's been discussed and wade mentioned as well sf connect was looking at different time horizon and have three critical pieces. one is make the exist systems better and immediate short term goals. the system is have the system have more capacity which means moving faster, adding additional trains to fit more people in and speed and in the cycle of the rhna cycle and preparing that for the city and the longer picture is adding additional subway to gear and he 19th avenue so it really looks at -- if you look at the housing element eir and where we imagine units going around the corridors and how it's

sinked and up and how those groups are thinking and building capacity and have a 20 year look forward and these projects work with how the housing is coming so we can get the investments and the kind of way of spending the money over time as we see how the development unfolds. the development isn't going to be hand and hand exactly where we imagine it to be. >> thank you ms. small and thank you again for you know for all of this hard work and again i just want to highlight the convening of the working group happen as soon as possible as we're trying to prioritize affordable housing and that affordable housing still in the pipeline so thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner diamond. >> i too want to start by thanking staff really an

incredible amount of work, truly impressive coordination between everybody and consistencies in the documents. you took very difficult tasks and made it manageable i guess is the best word i can use for us as commissioners to understand all the moving pieces, so thank you. so i want to reinforce some of the comments that have been made by other commissioners and maybe do my own take on this a little bit. i do agree directionally with where we're headed and in favor of initiating the general plan. i will start there but i don't agree with every policy and implementing action. i am sure we all and it's

not worth quibbling about them at this stage and that will happen with the rezonings and move forward on the implementing actions. (paused). to be incredibly sobering because at the same time this chart shows increasing reliance on government funding, local primarily with almost

no state and federal. we have our chief economist ted egan and property taxes are dropping and maybe other issues with other sources of revenue that feed into the general fund which we rely on, so i am very focused on this working group that is discussed as an implementing action. for the people we're putting at this time that are experts in the field who have a timeframe -- i actually quibble with that a little. i might talk about that, a year long timeframe to figure out where we will spend our efforts and find the funds and to me affordable housing is all about where is the money? and it's government money we're primarily dependent on. i spent three years on the merer housing and the real estate committee and my take away from that was that

financing and affordable housing projects makes a market rate project looks like a cake walk. the complexity how to put at this time the finances package and meeting the desperate requirements of the each of the want government entities attached to the projects is mind boggling yet we need to do that if we come anywhere to meeting the rhna goals and we need money from local, state and federal sources, so i don't think we should think about this as a one time effort by a group of experts that are going to tell us where to concentrate our efforts a i think we need to look at it as an ongoing process and we shouldn't wait a year to see what they come up w we're two and a half years into the this process and i think we should give ourselves credit for

the work done already and not make it look like we're just starting that, and that we should expect and ask for reports to this commission frequently on not only how are we doing meeting our goals but how are we doing finding money for the affordable housing effort? it's kind of weird we're a different type of body and they come together in the housing element and we have to achieve the land use goal s and we can't do that unless there's money to achieve affordable housing so i am really interested in the possibility of getting frequent reports to the commission with the opportunity for the public to weigh n i don't think it should be just a memo to ourselves. of course a memo is find but we to

agendize it at a minimum of twice a year to understand where we are on the affordable housing goals so director hillis do you have any thoughts about that? >> i agree with that. to some extent and i have said it life the housing element is kind of the work program ongoing for the foreseeable period in the rhna period not only ours but the other agencies we work with with housing and other agencies and director shaw can talk about this as well to the board and to the mayor and how we lobby the state and federal government so i totally agree with you it's not something we will report on and then end our reporting. you know it's the work of mo cd and become our work and trying to figure out how to reach the goals in different ways and because it's not a silver bull get want just money although it's a huge part of it

and how we get affordable housing and smaller scales that are affordable and partner with institutions and like ucsf and the employers and the list goes on and part of the overall city work program. sure there needs to be a group convening this and comes up with additional ways to get at those goals but it's enormous challenging goal that we've got to be firing on all cylinders with all city agencies to achieve. >> great. >> okay. then i will move on. >> director shaw did you want to add? >> thank you for that. a lot of the alignment right now and coordination with the state has been to understand the solicitation, unit mix and location of our upcoming pipeline projects to gauge their success in receiving state funding so if you see some of our projects that receive state

funding quickly the first time applying and getting that and 4200 geary with the senior housing in the resource area and believe we will have favorable funding on several different areas and we're seeing that. concurrently it's about advocacy about the equity space. we have a deep commitment to rebuilding hope sf and want a high resource area but making the case in the advocacy we're building infrastructure, housing and community and a commitment and how there needs to be adjustment by state financing policy, extra programs outside the competitive process that realize those investments, a recognition of the fact as supervisor ronen brought up that we are probably spending the most money per capita based off of bond measures by the city so a lot of this i will say in

appropriate alignment with the philanthropic partners and the capital and financing are equal to the programs that we do and i know there's a push to find more funding but in some instances it's making sure that the flexibility and unconstraint and prioritization that the city has that there's alignment in philanthropic, state and federal partners around that, or vice versa that we're understanding there's guidance how investments are going to happen from the state level that we recognize the alignment of that and then are appropriately adjusting projects in that way to be competitive. >> so that is very helpful and i guess i would sum it up by saying maybe in general and i will get to this because i want to reinforce some of the comments you made commissioner and the housing element will require us as a commission to understand how the planning department is working with many of the other departments in the city because it's not

just -- i mean in order to accomplish the housing goals it requires a coordination of many of the agencies especially mo in this particular case so i will move on. so the second issue is the hurdles that get in the way of market rate housing. yes, we a accomplished our market rate housing rhna goal but we are -- and little to do to affect the cost of construction supplies but what we're hearing from develop ares they have ratios that are dictated by the investors and if not they won't build so we can't affect the cost of construction but what we can do and within our control and i believe the housing element, this version with the constraints chapter goes a long way to accomplishing

is getting rid of some of the barriers that get in the way of expedited approval of these projects and time is money so i was really happy to see because i think it's really important that we're taking steps to remove the constraints so that we can increase predictability, increase consistency and increase speed, and that we can do that by having greater reliance on objective standards instead of last minute application of discretionary standards by us as a commission. that we're reducing the number of actions that are subject to the dr process and the cu process and that we are proposing to have these hcds, -- and in these neighborhoods of the housing which i hope is going to be on the commercial

streets. that makes sense to me, so the focus in this last round of removing constraints seems to me to be very well placed and i am in agreement with that. the third big area -- yes, i'm in agreement we should be increasing density on the west side, but at the same time we need to make sure that infrastructure keeps pace. i'm not proposing that we tie temtogether like some cities are proposing. that doesn't make sense to me, but i do think as a planning department we need to be working with all of the puc and all of the other departments to make sure we don't approve all the housing but the bay delta amendment is passed and don't have enough water and not enough money to pay for the solution and increasing -- in were three drought years a row. then we don't have enough water or that we don't have money to

pay for the wastewater systems. they all need to move on parallel tracks so we need to keep apprized of that to make sure that is happening. transit is a particular area of concern for me. maybe particularly right now because i think many people who live on the far west side are pretty unhappy with the state of transit in the area. i was delighted to see the mayor's announcement that the 1a is reintroduced on a trial basis. it's not the 1bx. it's only the 1ax and we want people to return to work downtown and yet we're not finding convenient ways to get them there. it's a chicken an egg problem. we have been talking about the extension of bart down geary and 19th for 30 years. yes we're further along with the plan. we had plans presented to us but we're hoping

we will have 82,000 units built in the next eight years and you know we'll still be in the ceqa nepa process for bart during that time and understanding how we make sure that transit keeps up we're building -- we hear all the time every week from neighbors who are concerned that we're approving residential projects that don't have parking and it's a big problem for the neighbors and we're saying rely on transit and we mead to be completely committed as a city to ensuring that the transit system works in the corridors so i agree with you commissioner imperial how we achieve that needs to be completely integrated into the housing element. the next area is that while i completely agree with increasing density on the west side and height on the commercial corridors i'm not at

all on board about increasing heights to 65 and 85 feet on the residential side streets. i was delighted to see in this latest version there inclusion of the two different scenarios that spread the density differently and greater concentration on the commercial corridors and almost complete in the second alternative especially because both of those scenarios according to the draft produce way more housing than the first one. likely because there's less risk involved because it aligns with expectations for where housing should go on the west side and it fits in with the neighborhoods. you know we're a city that where every resident values the small neighborhood they live in. they're livable. they're very attached to their neighborhood and i think we should avoid doing anything that is

going to create mission bay and pockets on the west side. that's not my goal how we're accomplishing this. i am very supportive of the third scenario. do not at all support the first scenario and the second one i am waiting to see how that plays out. this is all through the rezoning but i think we're at the right place. we have all the background. we should do the general plan amendment and get into the zoning discussion. we're light urlike move it along and get to that and the last point i want to make that commissioner moore made and i ahead it in the past and the buildings downtown and that has multiple purposes and one for me is 28ing a 24/7 downtown that is able to sustain the ups and downs of the economy but it's a more sustainable solution than

building new buildings elsewhere with steel and concrete or wood or whatever we're doing that we have these underutilized buildings. the fact they're permitted to be converted to residential is interesting fact but not pervasive of anything because we know how expensive it is to convert the buildings. i know director hillis you're forming working groups and get a presentation in january on this. i am about how we accomplish that. i am delighted it was at least mentioned in the housing element. i think it's not obviously the primary strategy,. the primary strategy is densify the west side but it's important part of the equation and we need a lot more work to see how we can make it achievable? what kind of incentives we need to offer? and i just don't mean through the planning

department but probably through the building code but an important part of the discussion so i will leave it at that exempt to say in summary i eager to get on with the next phase and part of that is very much the coordination with all of other agencies in the city that we need to work with ensure we can realize this vision. >> thank you. i will make a few more comments and then call on commissioner koppel and commissioner moore. okay. turning to the circuit breaker idea and ask staff to build on that and the idea about reporting and how we're monitoring our progress really throughout. if staff could look at ways to keep the commission and obviously that would go to other bodies as well updated and what kind of reporting we think is needed or could be feasible so it isn't again i know it takes as an author and 10 years much my life staff reports i know the grind of

putting them together and report back and make it simple and no it has to be this way but figure a table to fill in a few things each time and not having to write a lot of narrative. figure out it looks like and frequent and often and track and we don't need to wait for a midpoint evaluation but monitoring along the way. i would ask staff you could explicitly discuss with [inaudible] if they have specific actions with this evaluation. if they have something specific in mind to write i would prefer them to directly tell us and instead meeting program that meets their need and we're competiing x way through and not meeting "x" percent and through the cycle but not 50% through the housing allocation and maybe the committee of the whole with the

board of supervisors and some things to put in there but have legislation that is somehow triggered would require legislation to be automatically triggered at a certain time so if we can get clarity that is much needed and i don't want to not have compliance because we're not told something they're expecting. any comments? director hillis? okay. great. on the people's plan. i want to commend the people that put the time and effort writing the robust effort and paying attention to the previous and ongoing planning efforts happening. i invite them to look at plans of the city southeast and bay view property bays and recent efforts on community planning but good to look at adding in other neighborhoods. >> . >> i made a chart comparing everything in the people's plan with the housing element

programs and i found that almost all of their items were covered at some point in some way in the existing draft of the housing element. a few they think are worth noting that maybe of interest. they talked about the new york city model of community input and i think it's a really interested model. i did some research on my own. i want to note in new york there's a lot of development that as right which is the opposite of san francisco which is discretionary and a different context and in that context what goes to boards and this process ululp and need a acronym in government and it's projects outside of the code and not code compliant so i would be supportive of non code compliant projects go through the process and others have additional meeting and burden and

another constraint i would like us to remove and bears looking at that process but again i think it's a different development context than what we have here. there is discussion using eminent domain and gives me heart burn from the past and i want to be cautious treading lightly as a city if we use that word or dare to use as a tool last resort and interesting cases in the people's plan we should look at and understand what it should be and a couple of times that the city should take a position on a project and not appropriate in the general plan to do that but certainly note the area they noted they would like to see changes but otherwise there's good things and one thing that could be stronger in the housing element is personal bank and the tools and the city has sides and

perspectives and public banks supported by many folks on the progressive side or moderate side or whatever side people are in and public bank has been talked about a lot and something to have explicitly named as a financing mechanism we should look at. moving on to another topic project feasibility so there's this idea we saw in some of the correspondence as well that the city not making projects infeasible through policy and staff to look at could there be a program to somehow indicate as a commission or agencies would look at legislation that is proposed to go into effect will it make projects more infeasible, housing projects infeasible and if so how? maybe we need a analysis and sometimes we know the lever and increasing the constraint and know it's expensive we can assume it makes

things more expensive if we're increasing that constraint and guidance for the body with legislation and the team looking into that and something to add as a proposal. i had a question housing sustainabilitiable districts as well. i know we're looking to cover 30%. can staff explain -- that sounds great, sure but is there a reason that 30% is targeted for in the sustainability district? >> 30% of the land area is the maximum set by state law that enables hsds so the couple lative total of them can exceed 30% of the city's land area. we have one tiny one in central soma and takes up less than 1% of the city's land area and have the 30% available and the maps provided show the potential range it could cover

and covers a good chunk of well resourced areas potentially. that's the area we have to play with and each individual one has a further limit of 10-15%. >> have to be multiple to add up to the 30. i would ask staff to consider revising that goal to have minimum of 20% and within the eight years get to the 20% and the max overall is 30 unless state law changes. i will rattle off things and send to staff. i agree with commissioner diamond on the financing plan for affordable housing. can we look at that in two phases and one aimed at next year's budget cycle which is now and one that takes the full year and building on that so what are 86 ways we can put requests in to the dwindling city budget, but our dwindling state budget also according to the

headlines but what do we want to petition ourselves for and have the balance of the year to get the plan. i would encourage not just looking at city agencies but the private and public partners and regionally and philanthropic and businesses and get the folks at the table that need to be part of the planning process. i talked about adding a public bank. also for that one also timelines. just wanted to clarify for all of the timelines in the housing element i know we adjusted the timelines according to hcd and short this much time and medium this much time. if it says median do we think it's completed then or ongoing until now or then? i ask because that should have been an ongoing program around hope sf and wondering

if we think hope sf is done in the medium timeframe? >> i will clarify. our timeframe key state that we will initiate that action within either short, medium long-term. many are ongoing activity but we will initiate them within that period. >> okay great. just a fee more. i promise here. next one and adding the harm by government of past discrimination and help the american indian and black and japanese community and others hope receiving some of the programs would be great. next one and skipping ahead and implementing program. i really think it's important if we're working with cultural districts to do design guidelines they're objective and can't add subjective standards and make sure that's in there and objective those folks have the understanding and hopefully it's something that is

pretty. it needs to be easy to meet going forward. i don't know what my own notes are saying. (paused).

>> and cultural districts were able to make their own choices basically community lead on the type of housing and the scale and number bedrooms and family housing as they wish so they may need some tailoring after the legislation went through and it's in there and looking at options of removing housing as a definition and cover cohousing and coliving in a variety of ways the state is looking at that make sure we're allowing for multi-generational and the ways people want to live so we can double check that we covered that since it's in place. >> thank you. my last comment the next one talks about design standards and porches and stoops and things which is great but not great for accessibility so as we're talking about aging in place and thinking about housing and many san franciscan and looking for places to

live and the real estate rises and can't move and aging in place is important and porches and stoops great but not great if you can't go up stairs and need to think of alternatives that have the same impact but accommodate people that can't use the stairs or can't walk and those are my comments so i will call on commissioner koppel. >> yeah, i wanted echo the comments -- i am drawing a blank. >> [off mic]. >> commissioner imperial. >> not commissioner imperial, commissioner diamond fellow west side resident. i agree that transit is a huge, huge deal. it's actually really far away if you think about it if you're taking a train andent do know what it's coming. i am a fan of underground transportation and timeliness and the schedule and obviously more work on the front

end and something to think about long-term, long range but i'm a fan whether on geary, 19th, o teaguea or other areas and the street is wide and accommodate commercial businesses and residential mixed-use so i again like prefer kind of the third choice there focusing more on the ncds but do realize we need to maximize every possibility possible. i was looking more into possible like residential conversions and actually found there's a lot of about 70 different kind of midsize buildings that are honestly abandoned or seismically on sleet and nothing done with them and instead of taking away from existing

buildings they're a bank of buildings that could be a huge resource for conversions. there would need to be work put into them but we're expediting approvals here which i am proud of. another big fan of the housing sustainability districts. i was part of implementing the first one in the central soma plan and hits all the bases and gives the developers what they're looking for and literally creates more career path ways for the city's disadvantaged residents who are in city build and putting their best foot forward to stay in the city they grew up in, make a decent living to afford the housing prices that we all have to deal with and can't say enough about them and glad we have room to implement them and a huge supporter in every way and while i have the microphone i want to make a

motion to initiate the general plan amendment resolution if that's being said correctly. >> second. >> and that is the end of my comments. >> thank you. commissioner moore and then commissioner brawn. >> i am proud of the commission and stating what they are saying and i am proud of what everybody said and i am stand behind it and while i have three, four pages many of the comments have been made and i will want repeat them and we're seeing signs of fatigue and it's hard to hit here engaging all of you in critical questions but also staying on top of everything being said. it's not easy i can tell you that. what i hear loud and clear is that affordability, affordable

housing is at the forefront of everybody's thinking, and i think the department has done made a heroic effort to really bring that out our biggest challenge, our biggest obligation. what is missing and we all know it and commissioner diamond eloquently touched on it is how are we going to pay for this? what are we going to do? at this moment the state is not offering in. they're telling us if you don't you're not getting anything. that is not encouraging way to what we're trying to do here and i believe we're trying. however i won't get on a soap box here to say the obvious. i commend the supervisors on tuesday very clearly speaking to the issues that are obvious to everybody. what i want to briefly add and make it very brief we need to lookar additional implementation tools and while the three things that i will mention have already

been touched on i will repeat them because i haven't heard anyone spelling them out and that is land banking sites for affordable housing is something we need to start yesterday. that strengthening our small sites program aggressively is something we need to do everyday and that. we need to look for project acquisition immediately particularly when projects like 400 visadaro that hasn't been in front of the commission the potential dmv site are hanging out there and we need to jump on them. i think the department has tools and strength in terms making sound judgments and i ask the commission and everybody including the public to support any strategies that are potentially available. lastly i would ask the director i would

ask mohcd do we have sufficient staff to dedicate people particularly with the task of implementing and monitoring the housing element? staff is busy with projects everywhere. however, i think a core group hopefully can grow out of this year long effort that will switch into a special task force which will administer and attend to the challenges. you have the lingo. you have the tools. you have more than everybody else to take on and continue what you're doing in the proper implementation of the housing plan as hopefully gets supported and approved in sacramento. thank you. >> did you. the director to respond to that question? >> i mean the short answer is probably no. there's a lot to be done here in the housing element from working with

cultural districts in neighborhoods that aren't cultural districts but in priority geographies from the rezoning which we're starting to ramp up to the affordable housing strategies and building the housing so we've got to look as we come to the budget how we reallocate staff and add new staff and request for the department. i know mo cd has that same challenge and working on projects that don't have as much staff on the policy side so it's a great question and one we'll look at and come back to you during budget time with answers. >> i am looking towards (inaudible) who will pull the right strings to do so. >> great. thank you commissioner moore. commissioner braun. >> yes, i'm going to keep my comments high level and brief and i want to start off by saying i haven't been able to participate in the conversations today so i haven't had a chance to thank staff for the

incredible amount much work over a long time. i really, really appreciate it and am very impressed and i think that the quality of work is really showing and i want to thank everyone members of the community who participated in this process and all the community organizations who are paying close attention. i think it's making for a really good document as we approached adoption earlier than anticipated or early but it's the time we have. i think ultimately the work referencing really shows up being a really nuisanced plan that incorporates a lot of different perspectives and strike a balance between the things that we value in san francisco -- meet the

mandate especially for affordable housing and i do see in this the document like i said a lot of processes and raise that funding and i have to say as i have gone through the document in detail every time i have well what about this, what about that -- (paused).o i think it's great input on the document.

i know there's a lot of details to be sorted out through implementation of the document. i think it's a really great plan to guide that implementation. that process is already beginning in a lot of ways and i think a lot of the work that has been coming through community organizations and the people's plan that has been referenced which i did read i see a lot of that being a very effective and helpful tool for thinking about the implementation that comes through the housing element. a lot of the issues that were brought up as president tanner mentioned are addressed in the housing element but a lot will come through implementation ultimately, so that's i am supportive of the initiation and those are my comments for today. thank you. >> great. thank you. i don't see any other hands and we have a motion and that has been seconded. >> indeed there's a motion and a second to initiate on that motion. commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner

imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president tanner. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes unanimously 6-0. commissioner ruiz you're welcome to rejoin us. commissioners that will place on -- oh before i move on to item 15 i am extremely pleased to inform you commissioners that our dr whisperer has done it again and item 18 for case as cited which indicates there were 4drs and withdrawn at 65 russell street the discretionary review. all 4drs have been withdrawn and i know there's a member of the public that came at the beginning of this hearing for item 18 at 65 russell.

hopefully you're tracking this on sfgtv and now know that matter is withdrawn and not heard today. commissioners item 15 case number as cited for the stonestown development. this is an informational presentation.

>> good afternoon, evening commissioners. i am from the planning department staff. i'm excited to bring today before you an informational item for the stonestone development project. this is the first time the project has been before you and marks the collaboration between brook field properties, san francisco planning and the office of economic development welcome force and guideline and master infrastructure plan and related zoning map and planning code amendments. i am joined by the project team the principal planner and the project manager at oewd and the manager at brook field properties and principal at site lab urban studio. you will hear from a number of us today. today we are introducing to you the context of

the stonestone development project touch on the mechanics agreement for the benefit of the new commissioners and overall timeline and hand it over to the others to walk you through the project. the 41-acre stonestown development site is in southwest san francisco northeast of san francisco state bounded by 19th avenue to the east hamilton to the south and west, rolph nichol park and eucalyptus drive to the north. as you've just heard with the 2022 housing element update many well resourced neighborhoods exist on the west side of san francisco. historically the east side had to absorb the bulk of the housing element but the goals res for effort where stonestown is located. stonestown is well suited for housing given the surface parking lots 1/3 of the

site, proximity to public transportation and open space and neighborhood amenities that lend itself to a complete neighborhood and the entire stonestown use. stonestown project is included in the housing element sites inventory which identifies units for development and assesses capacity for rhna or the housing element for the eight years. as you're aware unite 2020 the planning commission (please stand by). but also in defining the project and identifying community benefits. over the past years the city has worked in collaboration with brook field properties and

site lab urban studio including the public engagement process as well as components such as access to housing, neighborhood services and retail, transportation, open spaces and parks. to give you a little project overview the project is proposed mixed-use multiphase master plan development with housing park and plazas retail office space and commercial and structured parking. the privately owned state is comprised the stonestown shopping center and part of the future development with minor modifications and upgrades. benefits of the project include 2900 new housing and affordable housing units. 200 square feet retail, community space and child care facilities. 6 acres of publicly parks and open space. up to 200,000 square feet of office or retail space.

streetscape and improvement, improvements to transit and routes and dickellists that build on the bike network they propose to enter into the development agreement with the city and amendments to the zoning map, general plan and planning code. so for those of you who are unfamiliar with the development agreement what is a development agreement? you may familiar with the past ones that the city did including balboa reservoir and mission rock and others. this is different than other projects and seeking for developers to codify program and community benefits that apply only to the project and are different more than the city code. in exchange they get the rights to develop their project over a longer span of time than

a typically building permit for on public or private land and results in a project constructed over time often in phases. the pieces may include a contract or mutual agreement between the city and developer with terms and conditions of the development of the project, conferred development rights to execute the project and codify the regulation and policies for the development including community benefits, amended regulatory benefits such as the planning code and general plan. approval by the planning commission and board of supervisors via legislation. design standards and guidelines and a master infrastructure plan. the da is designed to address the permitted of property, density erintensity of use, height and provisions and dedication of land. it can include the creation of new infrastructure such as blocks and streets, parks and community facilities as stonestown will. the commission will be

seeing a lot more of this project and crucial in recommending approval of subsequent zoning map and planning code amendments that will part of this package. with that i will pass it to my colleague ted at oewd. >> thank you patrick. good afternoon commissioners. my name is ted conrad with the office of work force and economic development. i would to speak of our goal on these agreements and patrick did a good job out lining the conditions we would do a mental health treatment service namely rezoning and beyond public benefits and obligations, so i think at the core of negotiating a development agreement is coming up with a public benefits package that is responsive to the community outreach that we've heard in the process that takes advantage of the

unique conditions of the site and maximizes the benefit that each project can provide to the community and to the city. i think it's worth noting these community benefits could comprise of a diverse range of benefits so affordable housing, transportation, open space, child care, et cetera. it's really a broad range of physical assets, programs, financial contributions et cetera. i think it's worth noting that we will always try to balance the maximization of the benefits while preserving financial feasibility of the project so you know the last thing we want to do is spend all this time and effort, all this engagement and input from the community and approve a project that is not feasible, doesn't get built and doesn't deliver the 2900 units in this case as other public

benefits so always keeping that balance in mind. i will also note that we play an important role in coordinating the departments and agencies that play a role in reviewing and approving and implementing a development agreement. this next slide is a timeline showing where we have been and where we're going. as you can see the as is appropriate the timeline started with multiple years of engagement and outreach to the community -- (paused) all of that information fed into a plan committed in the form

of a ppa last year. over the past year that plan has been further refined had been codified as patrick mentioned in a design standards document and infrastructure plan that is being drafted and a draft eir is scheduled to be published next month on the 14th and we will be back in front of this commission in february next year. followed by certification and consideration of all the other associated entitlements back here at the commission and in the summer of 2023 and subsequently go to the board of supervisors. after approval as patrick mentioned the project will be implemented in phases. with that i will pass it over to courtney from brook field.

>> good afternoon commissioners. i am courtney the scene development director at brookfield properties, a national developer with a 40 year track record in san francisco. our passion is transforming under utilized spaces into great places where people enjoy living and working and spending time. i am joined by the consultant and site lab urban studios and others consultants. we're proud to support on the progress to shape a vision to transform stonestown to a town from that work for the community for the city and for us. as ted mentioned we're midway through the entitlements process with the plan

to submit a draft environmental impact report next month and seek project approvals in 2023. following approvals we anticipate a 10-15 year phased build out of the project. for the past three years we have been shaping the plan with the community, the city, regional organizations and our team. we've had hundreds of individual meetings and conducted community workshops and open houses. we presented at homeowners and neighborhood associations. we organized a working group made up neighbors that live adjacent to stonestown and table at the farmers market, lead walking tours of the site and hosted drop in office hours via zoom and in person at stonestown. simultaneously we have been working with planning and puc and other agencies that we're accommodating to the

extent possible agency and departmental needs. a few key themes have a risen from the meetings which is lead to four goals for the projected. one, to sustain stonestown as a thriving retail center. two, create new housing -- new opportunities for housing. three, improve parking and access to and around the site and four, create connected public spaces for use by the community. we will the project will sustain stonestown as a thriving retail center with a constantly changing environment. it's already an important part of this neighborhood, san francisco and the region and we're dedicated to making sure it stays that way. in fact we made changes to stonestown prior to the pandemic by transforming the unused spaces formerly housing the department stores

into whole foods, regal cinema, target and sports basement. all are proving to be popular additions. with this project we will add new and different types of retailers indoors and outdoors as part of 20th avenue regional entertainment and dining corridor and make sure that the tenants complement the existing ones. as we heard today providing more housing for san franciscan is critical and the 2900 homes at stonestown will support this need and transformation to town center by creating a reds additional base that patronages the businesses on site and the housing will reflect the neighborhood and offerings and build mix of rental and market and affordable housing. the types will be a mix of townhomes,

midrise and taller buildings ranking from three to 18 stories. another goal of the project is to provide improved access and parking. the new housing shopping and public spaces will be easily accessible by car, bike, transit or by foot. entering by car is more diminished the circling for parking spaces today. drivers will go to parking structures and bike lanes and figure figures and routes and designs will make it safer and more accessible by all modes of travel. >> . >> while the mall will remain a focal point of shopping and gathering create network of open space of various spaces for the mall and the adjacent neighborhoods and add 66 acres

66. >> . >> 6 acres for dog runs and partnership issues markets and stores. with these amenities and experiences the vision of a town center will provide stability to the next crisis or next economic downturn. we are confident we can use the site of under utilized parking to sustain the shopping center, diverse retail offer accident, add park and open space and help meet the city's housing needs. i would like to ask laura of site lab urban studios how we propose to use the new uses on the site. thank you. >> hello. good afternoon. i am laura, with site lab urban studio and walk you what form what courtney described what

form it takes. so probably as you know stonestown is a large opportunity site here located at the intersection multiple different types of areas, it is single family housing that actually some built out by the stonestown bathroomer and sfu and the mall and. >> . >> surrounded by service parking and also the residential institutional and civic and community uses. one of the things that we entered how to plan and design the housing and open space and retail here was seeing it really is disconnected so you have this asset, you have this place of gathering in the mall but it's disconnected as an island surrounded by utilization liesed land so first move is how to rethink parking so it's not the dominant experience as courtney mentioned and

distributed or underground or embedded within buildings and then thinking fundamentally how to connect back to the neighborhood and provide difference experiences on the east and west of the mall so you see in pink the twentieth avenue retail spine connected to the mall with two new open spaces as well as a new greenway park and town disbar that connects to the rolph nichol park. all of that is then connected to the neighborhood with more housing, 2900 units in a series of buildings and parcels connected all around. and on the ground we really see that as a vibrant place providing more opportunities to take outside what is happening in the mall and but provide community and neighborhood resources in a way that feels connected so from really spot you're only walking a block to open space

and here's a series of those mentioned and the commons and gate way plaza from muni on and the linear park on the west and connects to a greenway park and connects to rolph nichol park so all of that together brought alive by mix of housing tippologies as courtney mentioned and from a massing or formal basis prominent height 6-8 locations and down to two stories and dun homes in north west and up to 14 to 18 stories. we located the taller building to the south and where it goes down and also clustering them so you have more of a levant skyline expression there. overall this plan the fundamentals did not change but

we refined working with the city and input from the neighbors in the community. one of the key things in that northwest area really right now it's a parking lot that brought alive by a farmers marketbut now in the revision people asked for and the city asked for had to become really a more accessible and connected part of the open space network so we connected the sight lines from rolph nichol park to the town square where the new farmers market could be held. we worked on the bike facility so now there's commitment to not only separated bike lanes on the streets but particularly on 20th avenue so a tree complete multimodal street connecting the transit and i will walk through inams that we produced and share with the community. this shows existing from muni on 19th

avenue and the on the site and what can be imagined with multi-family broader streetscapes and access to retail that is facing out as well into the mall. as you walk in where chill poley is shake shack is coming now and the entrance to the mall reimagined and breaking that scale of the mall with new buildings facing outside, new plaza with opportunities for outdoor dining, social gathering. and then here where the whole foods opened up you see that 20th avenue main street connecting to whole foods as well as a small amount of commercial, retail and residential and then on the other side northwest town square more parking, transformed into a flexible town square and host passive recreation, neighborhood amenities as well as the farmers

market and looking beyond to rolph nichol park and if you stand in the greenway park and look back here's the view from the greenway park with multi-family housing again, townhomes on the left as it steps down to the neighborhood. so that's just a picture of what we hope to see as we work through this process together to create that opportunity for housing public space, it is evolution of retail of the mall to a more connect neighborhood. thank you. >> and that concludes staff's presentation. thank you. >> very good. thank you. we should take public comment. if you would like to submit your testimony to the commissioners please come forward or if you're calling in remotely you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex.

seeing no members of the public in the chambers come forward we will go to the remote callers. when you see that the line is unmuted there's your indication to begin speaking. >> [inaudible] san francisco neighborhoods. speaking on my own behalf. many of the concerns regarding the proposed stonestown project has to do with the city and traffic congestion. some of the proposed residential towers are 18 stories high. the student towers are only 10 stories. further down the hill with park way towers are only 14 stories. the proposed office space is questionable in light of the glut of empty office space in the financial district and soma since the pandemic. there are unanswered questions regarding the horizontal infrastructure. the only stonestown agreement has two sets of water

pipes one for drinking water and one for emergency firefighterring and the other ones are pier 70 [inaudible] and two sets of water pipes. the pier 70 development agreement stipulates that there are two sets of water pipes. will the stonestown development agreement be consistent with those development agreements? and will the community benefits for -- what about the community benefits for the stonestown project? will the community benefits include an organization water pump station for the emergency firefighting water pipes as the current two pipes at second street and the foot of van ness wouldn't provide enough pressure for the stonestown project? would the community benefits include small

scale or off score delandination facility with the ocean pump station? the puc is looking at using wastewater from the treatment facility for an alternate supply -- drinking water supply for the west side. would diesel be a better option than toilet to tap? and affiliate of brook field properties is brook field infrastructure and a subsidy is poseidon and owns and operates the facility in san diego county. thank you. >> good evening commissioners. jake price on behalf of the housing act coalition. we are reviewing this project in a couple of weeks. we've not yet reviewed it but generally supportive of increased density

on the west side and transforming interutilizing spaces into homes to support people and looking to look at it in detail and i am sure you will hear from us further down the road. thank you. >> good evening commissioners. my name is kenneth. i live in district 7. not far from stonestown. i support this development. we need more housing and more walkable areas especially with transit connections. i think it's great to have places like this and people don't have to drive everywhere and live and have retail options around them and i support this development and encourage others like it especially on the west side. thank you. >> okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak public comment is closed and this informational item is now before you commissioners.

>> okay thank you. commissioner koppel. >> so i live in district 4 now but i grew up in district 7. grow up in park merced so stonestown was a frequented place for me, west portland. stonestown is where it's at so my planning brain has been waiting to see two things and this plan and the rid of all safeway parking lots and this is a step in the right direction and thrilled to see this and housing on the west side and it's non existent and we have a massive opportunity here. it's close to transit. it's close to huge amount was open space with the beach and lake merced, tons of walking and biking opportunities. can we go a lot taller? i mean i really want to make the most out of this huge, huge plot of land that we have and not to be little anything else or over indulge

ourselves here but what are our options? i am so thrilled with this and i am envisioning more. is that a possibility? or what are we looking at as far as capabilitys? i. >> would staff or the project sponsor to respond and i agree wholeheartedly with commissioner koppel. can you sell me we're at these heights and not seeing taller towers if they're locations for height or an overall height at all and i don't think it's maximizing the opportunity given the proximity to parks and open space. those are the spaces we need the most housing and access to shopping, biking, dining, being outside, schools et cetera so anybody want to respond? how do we get here? can we get it

taller? . >> excuse me. courtney with brookfield properties. we got here after several years of work with the community and the city trying to optimize the site. we looked at you know through the ceqa process wind, shadow, all of the different technical reports that need to go into designing something like this. looking at kind of the surrounding adjacent neighborhoods this is where we landed on heights throughout the property, and really we're trying to provide for -- or have different buildings different heights so they can accommodate different types of households. >> i appreciate that. do you have more comments

commissioner koppel? i appreciate there has been significant outreach on the projects. i don't want to diminish the community stakeholder input. this is the first time this commission had the chance to weigh in and for myself i am excited and a little disappointed there's not more housing units on a parcel of this size, so i hope the project sponsor and team can look at this and maybe study what if we had more units and the eir has capacity and things to change to have more units and it's a huge opportunity. i am so glad it's taken advantage of and i think we can do more and we need more housing. we need thousand units we talked about and great and within the eight years. i will call on commissioner diamond and commissioner braun and moore. >> so as someone who

raised her three children on the west side i spent a lot of time at this mall with my children hanging out, and i eyeing the parking lot and it's one of the biggest waste of spaces in the city. i'm on board with commissioner koppel all of the grocery stores with seas of parking are prime opportunities to accomplish what we just talked about in the early part of today which is our housing plan, and it is very nice to have seen the aspirational parts of the housing element you know an hour ago and to actually now see a plan that can bring it to fruition, so two things. one is i want to join in the chorus of saying i think you ought to look to see if there are ways to add more unit and a minimum do an alternative in the eir that has

higher heights so you're not foreclosing that opportunity. i want be very supportive of that and second if you wouldn't mind coming back up to the mic because i. like to hear more about the term you're thinking about for the da, the length of time you're asking for under the da and what your phasing plan is? >> we're still working. i am with brookfield properties. we're still working on all the terms with the da with the mayor's office of economic and work force development so we don't know yet what the term will be for the da. as far as phasing goes one of the tricky things with this project we have to keep the mall operational

through the duration, and so we're looking at six phases right now starting in the northwest and working their way around the site first on the west and then to the east. >> well, follow up question, so are you planning on developing residential first before the non retail office whatever that's going to be? and as you do residential are you doing residential and parks at the same time? i mean how are you creating a livable community for the people who are there while under taking construction on the following the subsequent phases? >> that's a great question. thank you. we will tie the community benefits so the parks and the affordable housing to the different phases to make sure that we're doing exactly that. a majority of the new buildings -- i think

all but one are residential buildings. the one that is a non residential building is the two story -- there's two, the two story building immediately adjacent to the mall that will have small offices on the second floor, dental offices, that kind of thing and retail on the ground floor, so all the new retail will be on the -- aside from the one building will be on the ground floor of residential buildings. >> okay. well, i just want to encourage you to go as fast as possible and to think about ways to increase the number of residential units beyond the 2900. >> thank you. commissioner braun. >> yes. yeah. this is shaping up to be a really interesting and helpful project for meeting the housing needs of the city and utilizing how under utilized it is and i

used to do my shopping when i lived in the castro and i would go out there and boy that work from the m to the mall it's not great. meanwhile i am glad to see -- every time an anchor store closed in the mall i said oh no but it's been impressive how the mall is reorienting and for tenants and destination for food and i am glad to see that and i think this will add more vibrancy, more vitality to the site. i have a couple of questions and maybe some can't be answered but let's see. one is i am just curious so is the mall under single ownership at this point or multiple ownerships? i don't know and think of the challenges that often arise with mall projects

and reciprocal agreements in the parking lots and ownership and tenants and anchor tenants and agreements with them especially so i am curious are there any hold ups from that perspective sorry what is the state of things to the extent you can answer? >> the mall and all the surface parking within that area are all owned by brookfield properties. the only other owner is the city that owns one of the streets, winston drive that goes under the mall. let tenants have some parking obligations through their leases but it's all owned by breakfield. >> you wouldn't mind stage up and my second question but actually maybe for staff but in the news some debate about the status of the closed theater site that's on

buckingham way and to the extent there is historic considerations of that site and curious of the status in making that determination or what is happening with that right now. >> . now the analysis of the former theater site is done through the ceqa process. it closed at the beginning of the pandemic but it was already intended to close and moved into the new space above the whole foods, so we're continuing to look at options for that on the northwest side. >> okay. thank you. and then i guess my last question is we've heard about the community benefits that are in the development agreement.

surely comment on the community benefits but i am curious about the range of types and categories of community benefits that seem to be emerging as the priorities for the development agreement? maybe it's too soon to answer. that's okay but we didn't really hear about what that package might be beyond affordable housing is one, potentially contributions to open space but are there any more responsibles that can be shared at this time? >> . >> . >> thank you commissioner. i am with oewd. unfortunately we don't have a lot of detail to share at this point. i think those categories are absolutely it. child care as mentioned, you know potentially looking at space that is available to the community et cetera so i think the full range of benefits that we've seen in other large development projects but unfortunately not there yet

refining what that package might be but looking forward to get into it in earnest in the coming months and having something more substantial to bring back to you. >> great. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> for those asking about site intensity the site is surrounded by significantly other intense project with the state and own housing or increase number of units including park merced which at the time of its approval which i said earlier 11 years ago had significant deficiencies in access to the site and site circulation and nothing in these 11 years have changed to remedy that deficiency and that will directly affect the capacity of the building capacity of the stonestown site. in addition to that if i understand correctly just like with an

airport the mall is an integral part of the site and still function like clockwork without being impaired by anything else, so it's very, very high order to redevelop a shopping center site with shopping center remaining as land use, and again i think there are ways of doing it, but i'm not quite sure as to whether or not that will result in the high rise or doubling capacity from what we're seeing. 2900 units is a very good number. it's interesting how the eir lays it out and what the alternatives are. the one thing director hillis is here. this is the first time that i hear about this project of the it's obviously interesting sketch design. isn't this normally planning responsibility to head up the projects? seems like it's a major step from

being already in the state of development agreement. this is the first time for me because normally those projects mature through planning in the public's eyes and here we are already see an eir or draft eir coming forward. i would like -- >> yeah, someone else could talk how long it's been in the process but it's been out there publically and meetings and we have been participating and oewd has been participating and a da and the change of the zoning and the community benefit. i mean there's lots to know did and do the eir and get through a lot of this and i mean i am happy to comment earlier. i think we here at one point -- maybe it's the first time. >> it's the first time. i was curious and it's unusual and all very busy and the

first time i see this project. >> but we can certainly commit to coming earlier on larger projects. >> i think it would be helpful. >> yes? >> i think it's also they take the lead on the da projects and on development agreements and the mayor's office is taking the lead and we work collaboratively but to clarify that. >> totally agree with that. i'm aware of that and the plan and the train leave the station rather early this time. >> did you have anything else commissioner moore? >> no. >> i have a last few comments and i agree with the commissioner and the challenge to see more heights and units and the community thinks this plan is kind of done but it's not done. it's entering another phase of its design so hopefully in the eir we have alternatives that puts in more height.

perhaps some of the tall building buildings get taller but opportunity on 19th street that's it's a wide street and compatibility and 20th avenue where you want the close pedestrian environment and try not to have too much height on that side but more on the transit oriented street. i will look forward to hearing more about the connectivity. i am concerned about the buildings on the backside of the mall and access to transit and if i'm a user and annoyed when i have to walk around the mall when i am leaving before it's open or it's closed and i think about sort of punching a whole through the mall how do we get people easily to the transit connections that are so close but from a pedestrian perspective talking to transit so far and i want to

learn more about that connectivity and if we add are more people and residents how the connectivity can be enhanced and a range of numbers or percentage that we're thinking about or not to a point thinking about the affordability package. i don't know who can talk about the affordability. >> i am with brookfield. i will address your first question first so we spent a lot of time with your planning staff thinking about connecting from the east side where transit is over to the west side where the new taller buildings are, and we've committed to keeping the mall open during the hours that transit is running and also there's also a passage way through the winston tunnel that

exists now that we plan on enhancing as this project gets built out so we spent a lot of time thinking about that and working through different options for connectivity from east to west. >> happy to hear that, great. >> and you're right. as far affordable housing ami levels and percentage we're not there yet, but you know we are planning to build nearly 3,000 units so we have the opportunity to provide a mix of housing to serve multi-generational households currently living in the area. based on community feedback and neighborhood meetings we're seriously considering focusing on senior housing and work force housing and but that's yet to be developed in partnership with planning and oewd. >> great. as part of the

conversation and mix of households and the bulk of is senior work force and seniors can fall into low income as well and have a range of income types and mute the number of affordable but reaching all income levels is important in the project and one last question about the phasing. one thing that is maybe concerning or maybe you future proofed it and the rise costs and the development agreements and when they started and anticipated x, y, z and the variable it is are changing and the dynamics are changing in the marketplace and with this multiyear build out and look at costs and things and future proofing it and confident you can go forward and build the project out even if it's over six phases? >> . >> yes. we're most definitely

looking at that and we're designing this project so it can with stand economic -- a couple of economic cycles. it's one of the many reasons why we have different types of housing because construction can vary depending on the type of housing, so it gives us a little bit of flexibility to with stand change in economics. >> excellent. maybe just one more plug for more housing and we're seeing projects asking for more units to have the flexibility they don't have and come to market right now and another reason to expand that number so we have the next flexibility to build more units than needed. i don't see any other commissioners on the informational item so i think we're good on this item. >> indeed. commissioners it will place on item 16 for case as cited for 5272-5280 third

street. a conditional use authorization and before you start again for members of the public who may not be aware item 18 for 65 russell street all four drs are withdrawn. we won't be taking up that matter today. >> [off mic]. >> all right. good evening commissioners. i am from the planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization to allow the demolition of a mixed-use building containing one ground floor commercial space and one residential unit above and to construct a five story building containing 750 square feet ground floor commercial space. [inaudible] square feet of residential use with 12

residential units including eight two bedroom units and four three bedroom units under the individually requested state density bonus program. the project site has base density of nine unit s. the proposal includes [inaudible] -- the project proposed a total of 12 units and requests a waiver for height for one additional story to accommodate the bonus units. the project is not seek concessions or incentives. in terms of the outreach a pre-application meeting was held on november 19, 2018 and presented to the hunters point cac in october 22 and received positive recommendation in support of the project of the the department received two letters of support and one in

opposition. the support letter are from commercial and residential tenants in the building. the tenant indicated she is (paused). in summary the department finds it's unlicensed consist went the bay area hunters point plan and objectives of the general plan. replaced with a mixed-use development providing 12 family size dwelling units and ground floor commercial space along the transit corridor. includes one site affordable housing unit which assists in meeting the

city's affordable housing goals. the department also finds the project to be necessary desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to the persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes staff's presentation and i am available for questions. the sponsor team is here and prepared the presentation. >> thank you. project sponsor you have five minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners and commissioner tanner. my name is cynthia and the owner of this property. i inherited this property from my grandmother who was not a native of california but migrated here from new orleans purchased that land that we're talking about today in 1950 so it had been a place that she wanted to be able to bring family and friends and rent their rooms. when she passed i found the

business card that says said rent a room $10 a month and from that my daughter who is the other heir we decided if we inherited something we want to leave it better and living in the community i live in in bayview in our family home we had for almost i won't follow my age but trust me it's older than 10 years and with that and working everyday and meeting an architect one day i said should i sell or keep which was mr. michael willis said don't ever sell it and call me when you're ready to build something and i did that and we propose to take down the pieces that was family at times but now to make it more of the community that my grandmother loved and

you may have heard of the cashmere circle in bayview, the cashmere senior status building that is there and other areas so she loved san francisco. she provided home. she worked for the seniors and did things, and i would like to leave our legacy as we're calling it the cashmere legacy foundation with something that really represents our legacy and our family so i applaud and please take a look at the presentation that i put together with our architect. >> all right thank you and my name is alfred. i am with mwa ark tenths on the project. i will run through a quick set of drawings. the project is on 30 street off light rail next to williams and you can see the street has a mix of

two and three story mixed-use buildings as well as some businesses. the project site itself is made up of two lots. one is vacant and one has the two story building on it, and so here is the proposed site plan. we've got the building with the rear yard as required, and then there's two also light courts with decks on the second floor, so here you're looking at the first floor plan. we've gotten some feedback from planning in the previous rounds and in large the amount of windows for the commercial space on the first floor. this building also provides bicycle parking for both the residents as well as the business and we've put in bike racks as requested by planning staff. this is the

typical upper floor. floors 2-5 all look the same. there's a three bedroom unit and a pair of two bedroom units on the other side and you can see on the second floor plan there are two small decks for the residents to use. so this plan explains the density bonus at the top with the code compliance four story project. on the bottom is the five story density bonus project. and here you can see the cross section of the building, five story building. and we have windows details. you can see that the windows should be slightly recessed to give some texture to the building. and here are the

elevations and finally this is the 3d view and rendering for the project. you can see that we've enlarged the glass and a lot of transparency on the first floor for both the lobby as well as the commercial spaces. thank you. >> okay. that concludes your presentation. we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission. if you're in the chambers please come forward. if you're calling in remotely you need to press star three to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> good evening commissioners. zach [inaudible] with the developers in district 10. i 50 heard about this project a few weeks ago with the hearing notice and i have a few thoughts. [inaudible] 12 units with one affordable unit and

lower affordable [inaudible] requirement for 10-15 unit project. this project at a minimum have two affordable units and three is a reasonable request. one of 12 units and one out of eight affordable is insufficient this is on the third street corridor in the african-american district and will not serve the youth and community. we hope in the new ground floor commercial space the owner will install a retail tenant that is neighborhood serving and price points and hiring practice that sept the surrounding community. thank you. >> i building the impacts are very high. i listened to the

presentation from the new owners of the building and quoting them at $10 a room. it sounds like the viz was more to help the community around them and with one affordable unit at the starting income which is 50% of the median income and it's out of reach for the community and i come from that community and the need for housing is great and we need affordable and out of the 126 need to be affordable to meet the need of the community and concerned about the gentrification it would cause and the rent for the area to get even higher so the folks in the community. i am concerned what it will do for the gentrification and has impacts on the local communities and [inaudible] was a gentrifier in

bernal heights and concerned that will happen on 30 third street as well and please work with the community to have a vibrant community in the area. thank you. >> hi good evening president tanner and commissioners. i object to the request for the temporarily use of authorization for projects, this project at 5272-5280 third street. the bayview already has a target on its back by speculators. it's important that the planning department do everything in its power to approve permit developments that will stabilize the existing community. with less than 5% of the african-american population hanging on by a thread it's crucial that housing in the bay view property managers hunters point be. >> .

>> hunters better than encoder

dropped). >> . >> can you hear me? >> yes we can. >> this is gloria biery from district 10. i'm calling to reject this project. i hope that the lady mrs. molden profit it is off the sale of the building but in a way it contributes to the black community. the west side of san francisco makes it clear they don't want us on this side. fill more is finishing us getting out of that district. [inaudible] d10 to have a community that looks like me and market rate housing with the dog whistle there's 14 or how many biking spots that is clear that's for gentrifiers and it's disgusting at this point. at the top of the meeting there was talk about racial equity, a lot of talk about black people and

the fact the planning commission projects have on us and the effect and to go forward with this project is setting a tone for more people that don't really invest into our community, shopped in our community, eat in our community, or even care about our community. we need a project that is affordable. i am for 100% affordable housing and we need people that live in our community now that have housing where our wages we can afford that. this developer needs to engage in an authentic way with the community to design a project that truly meetings community needs especially this being in the african-american culture district bayview -- somebody said that talking point with so many market rate buildings on the mart it's important to prioritize affordable housing.

other than that i yield my time. >> okay. final cast call for public comment on this matter. you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no requests to speak commissioners public comment is closed and this matter is now before. >> you can commissioner koppel. >> so i like this project is on third street and very transit oriented and like the family size and it's a density bonus i make a motion to forward. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i building this is a good project and code compliant and in a straightforward way creates the units we really need. the other comments by the public maybe a little out of context. perhaps you're not watching on the screen how the commission is proceeding with this project. the architect is one

foremost minority architects in the united states, michael willis, who i know for decades is indeed exact the person that understands community needs and appropriate design. i have worked with this architect for decades and just seeing his name in this community clearly shows me that there is a commitment to serve the community and to do appropriate of what is needed. we always see that the bayview hunters point is in support of the project and the litmus test for the commission to approve what is in front of us. >> very well good. i will thank you for bringing this project forward. very exciting. some of the callers referenced the housing element helping to build intergenerational worth which is exactly the story the project sponsor told. i am assume you identify as african-american and again a member of the community long

standing connection to the neighborhood and build intergenerational wealth on the property to provide housing for more san franciscan which is great, again well designed unit, very thoughtful. i don't think we have seen this density program this modest and we're scratching our heads and has everything so and the letters from your current tenants speak very highly how you relate to them and treat them as members of the community and to have folks that happy to leave to support you don't often see that and testament to your management and the steward the legacy your grandmother left you and with that i don't see any other hands and ready to vote. >> commissioner braun. >> aye. >> rei. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner tanner. >> aye.

>> that motion passes unanimously 7-0. again commissioners -- well, first that will place us under discretionary review calendar and those interested in item 18 and it is withdrawn and not taking up that matter so commissioners this is your final item on today's agenda. item number 17 for case number as cited at 557 sanchez street. a designee, lawyers, architects, engineers, expiditors and or . >> . >> good evening commissioners . this is a discretionary review of this case as cited to construct a rear deck to a single family dwelling. little existing building is category c and built in 1895. the dr

requester michael hall owner of 553 to 555 sanchez street and 9395 hancock street the owner is concern it doesn't meet the planning code pursuant to the rear side per the code and not comply with the design residential guidelines to articulate the building and impacts to adjacent remembers are and design and depth of properties within scale of the midblock open space and minimize impacts and light to adjacent cottages. his proposed alternatives is reduce the size of the deck and remove the art medication structure in the rear yard. to date the department received no letters in support or opposition. the department confirms support for this project and confirms both to the planning code and the

residential design guidelines for scale and articulation for light and privacy and preserve access to midblock open space. the design of this modest deck receives the open scale and masses of the context. the deck is set back 5 feet from the requesters property and greater than 5 feet from the neighbor to the south who is not involved in this dr. the deck is located with more than enough distance from the rear cottage of the adjacent neighbor to preserve light therefore staff deeps no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance and recommends not taking discretionary review. >> okay. that concludes staff presentation. we will go to the dr requester. .

(change of captioners).