>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday december 15, 2022. close out the year with a bang. to enable public participation sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming live and we'll receive public comment for each item. comments are opportunities to speak during public comment period are available by calling

415-655-0001 and entering access code 24856316748. additionally you may join the webex link. we will take public comment from those in city hall first and open the access lines. speak clearly and slowly. each speaker is up to 3 minutes and when you have 30 seconds your allotted time is all most up. when your time is up i will announce your time is up the next person to speak. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to press star 3 or raise your hand. call from a quite location, speak clearly and slowly and please mute the television. please come forward and line up on the screen side

of the roomism i ask we silence mobile devices. i would like to take roll. [roll call] >> thank you commissioners. first is consideration of items proposed for continuance. we had no items to be continued however we received request to continue item 10 for the property 1027 through 1029 clayton street, discretionary review proposed for continuance to march 2, 2023 and all parties are aware and in agreement to that

date. we should take public comment. [providing instructions on public comment] in the chamber please come forward. remotely press star 3 or raise your hand via webex. seeing no request to speak public comment is closed and it is now before you. >> move to continue item 10 as proposed. >> second. >> thank you. on the motion to continue item 10 to march 2- [roll call] >> so moved commissioners. motion passes unanimously 7-0. and will place us under commission

item 1 land acknowledge. >> the planning commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. >> thank you. item 2. consideration of adoption draft minutes for december 1, 2022. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on the mns. come forward or raise your hand.

press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no request to speak, public comment is closed and minutes are before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> move to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> motion to adopt the minutes- [roll call] so moved. motion passes 7-0. place on item 3, your 2023 hearing schedule. you had adopted the 2023 hearing schedule last week and in retrospect commissioner diamond overlooked the pass over holiday falling on or about april 6 and is suggesting reinstate march 30 and cancel april 6.

>> thank you. did you want to speak further? >> i apologize, i should have noticed it last time, but the pass over holiday lasts 8 days. the first days have pass over with the families and 6 is and the second night and those that families that celebrate the seder we should switch and 30 and 6 if that's okay. >> that is fine with my comments. any comments to the contrary? >> we should take public comment. members of the public if you like to address the commission on the 2023 hearing schedule this is your opportunity to do so. come forwer or press star 3 or raise your hand. seeing no request to speak public comment is closed and the amended 2023 hearing schedule is before you. >> move to adopt. >> commissioner moore also wanted to speak to this. >> support it. i

handed out last week a schedule for all holidays and glad we caught it since it is a important holiday and in full support. >> thank you. >> i heard a motion. didn't hear a second. thank you commissioner s. on the motion to adopt the amended 2023 hearing schedule canceling march 30 and reinstating april 6- [roll call] so moved commissioners motion passes 7-0 placing on iletm 4, commission comments and questions. >> i only will say today is our last hearing of 2022 if we can believe it is already time to start 2023. i want to thank all the staff who help make the commission hearings happen the public that comes and staff that dont always see but working hard at the department and contribute to the

projects we see and got to have a holiday party last week, it was great to see staff in person and to note some folks hadn't met in person yet as we hired new staff during the pandemic who came on and startsed jobs remotely so to the staff who helped make that event happen it isn't just something fun to do it is part of making the department feel tay can do their work and know each other and have a good at ms. sphere and environment so i thank all the staff for the work and hosts who put together last week's event and thank my fellow commissioners for the last year. it is another interesting one. more exciting then 2020 in terms of the number of projects, but looking forward to hopefully more robust sessions and commission hearings in the future so thank you for being such good colleagues. i'll call on commissioner diamond. >> i wanted to point out several events that have been

happening in san francisco in the last couple weeks that are really amazing. not put on by the planning department but celebrate the wondersf our city. i want to call out glow sf. i dont know if any of you had the opportunity to see the light show put on multiple buildings downtown, particularly lan the pacific stock exchange building. absolutely spectacular and incredible opportunities come down, see the best of our city hopefully stay and dine. the other is programming that is being put on on jfk drive in the park. it is not just a closed street. there is spectacular sculpture with doggy diners road work murals l the adirondack chairs musicians piano, ping-pong. it is not just the space but programming of the space so shout out to

park and rec for making us appreciate our assets in ways we might not have been able to previously. just two examples but fantastic to celebrate so many absolutely wonderful features of our city. >> here here to that. i did get to see the light show and jfk and really fantastic. very very fantastic stuff. i don't see-commissioner moore. >> i appreciate the notice of commissioner diamond and president tanner's saying good bye (inaudible) sure if any of you watched last tuesday's hearing on the board of supervisors where there was an extremely long line of people speaking to the eviction of tents in

the oasis motel and franklin street. 56 women and children will be evicted in the next few days because they want to take full control of it hotel again and (inaudible) people in the crisis of covid have been moved into this particular hotel. it was (inaudible) tears hearing the individual stories and hardship that people who not only are losing their home but a few days earlier lost their employment at the twitter building. (inaudible) any direction of where to go. the board unanimously expressed strong support and very open (inaudible) to what was being said. i hope that will be a solution and if anybody listen to (inaudible) you may want to do that. it was a very moving sorry and i want to acknowledge that i walked by there yesterday to get a better understanding

of the building and the location and its need to support our disadvantaged community. thank you. >> thank you commissioner moore for bringing that item to our taejz. attention. it is one we hope can have resolution for all involved. >> commissioners if there is nothing further,x we can move to department matters for item 5 director announcements. >> good afternoon and happy holidays. no announcements today. >> ix is, review of past events. there was no historic preservation commission. they already are on winter recess. >> good afternoon. aaron star legislative affair. jfk is a great place to go but you forgot the beer garden so another thing there. anyway, this is the last board report for the year. the board is now on recess but land use this week the committee initiated landmark designation for the park side

library located 1200 taravel street and sponsored by supervisor mar. needs to go to hpc for adoption and to the board legislative process. (inaudible) passed second read. the adoption of safety resilience passed second read. the landmark designation for the saint james church passed second read. mission street cannabis retail location continued to january 24 next year, and landmark designation initiation for 1200 taraval was adopted. hope you have a happy holidays and safe and fun new year. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. corey teeg zoning

administrator. the board appeals met last night and hear one of interest to the commission. there is a project proposed at 955 sansome street, a home sf project. as you may recall, when the market rate home sf adopted in 2017, the board of supervisors had carved out the northeast part of the city where that would not be eligible accept on parsals vacant or large and soft sites developed in no more then 20 percent of zoned capacity. this project filed the first application january 21. been going through the process. review process and going through the hpc process now because it is historic district. the waterfront action committee had disputed the eligibility of the site for home sf and the manner in which staff calculated the eligibility criteria requested a letter of

determination and i issued that in early october determining that the existing building which is 2 story parking garage represented 18 percent of the zone capacity and therefore did qualify. they appealed that on numerous grounds but the primary issue were that the analysis used represented a project that wouldn't be desirable and may not be feasible to build and our determination is that is not part of the context or requirement in the planning code to consider. there was a lively discussion at the board of appeals. they were conflicted with the wording in the planning code but they did vote unanimously for the determination and eligible for home sf so at some point you may see the project before you but available for any questions you may have about that issue. >> thank you. >> if no questions for

the zoning administrator we can move to public comment. members of public may address the commission. with respect to agenda genda items (inaudible) when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minutes limit general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. >> good afternoon. georgia (inaudible) the pdf i sent monday illustrates ongoing issue i will continue to talk about in 2023. sometimes in the pdf example both the flat policy and section 317 demo calics apply flat policy needs to be codified preserving the existing configuration of flats so not to be absorbed into one unit due to sliding doors or other slights of hand by speculative developers

or lack oversight. the slats in the pdf example were livable which the ads selling the notice while offering for sale as a single family home. the flats provide the type of housing the city needs and obliderating in neighborhoods including the well resourced neighborhood. there is one on advanced calener din january. this happens for year despite planning commission resolutions 16053 from 2000 and 17264 from 2006. and despite section 317. two of the reconfigured flats sold for over $6 million in well resourced neighborhoods. any newly proposed flats or second unit even as adu may need strict oversight if they expand housing opportunities. certainly it would be a positive outcome to preserve existing

flats with the right policy and proper oversight. and certainly that is true with the section 317 dem o calics for if they are not adjusted they will continue to be a loop hole for development like the one in the pdf and will slip through any incent rfbs to increase density. now at least to me the housing market feels like it did after the great recession which saw misuse of the demo calics so much so staff eventually declared noe valley (inaudible) it may be that only the financially viable development in many residential neighborhoods continue to be the high end single family home which takes advantage of the loop hole because the calics have never been adjusted ever as the commission has the legislative authority to implement under

section 317b2d. thank you. >> seeing no additional members of the public in the chambers we will go to remote callers. when you hear the line is unmuted you may begin speaking. >> this is (inaudible) agree with georgia. it is time to have a hearing on 317 demo calics. i want to ask the planning commission to please set a joint meeting with dbi beginning of next year. there have been two stories that have been absecured but they are real. one was in the mission local in the past couple days about the indictment of person connected with the (inaudible) this is a

project to the commission last year, 555 fulton street. you might remember it was trader joe's addition to a building built upscale condos. (inaudible) july last year. in addition, there was a article with very absecure in the chronicle. i think one of the only people who got it. (inaudible) indictment coming to court last friday. bernie (inaudible) was a corrupt building inspector and signed off (inaudible) the planning department reliance on the building department to do legitimate permits evaluation is really

relevant to the planning department and planning commission and so i think between both of those cases, which involved corruption in the build ing department (inaudible) various other people and the other one [difficulty hearing speak er due to audio quality] it is not just two people. i think the planning department needs planning department staff and the planning commission need to be grounded in what the hell is happening with dbi. they are about to have a over-haul because development (inaudible) was on the ballot and it passed last year, so there would be a change in the membership before the first of july. thank you very much. >> okay, last call for

general public comment. you need to come forward in the chambers, press star 3 or raise your hand via webex. seeing no request to speak general public comment is closed. commissioner, place under regular calendar and through the chair, we will be taking item 8a and b out of order for case 2019-021810 (inaudible) you will consider the conditional use authorization and zoning administrator the request for variance. >> good afternoon members of the planning commission, alex west, department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 209.3, 253, 303 and 608.14 the permit to retail use on the second floor

approve a building greater then 50 feet in height within rc zoning district and designate the property vertical sign as vintage sign. the site is located at 729 bush street which is rc4 zoning and 65a height and bulk district. the project includes the conversion of 4 story vertical addition to the historic adult theater space for 5 story over basement 60 feet above ground building totaling 6056 square feet of residential space for 4 dwelling units. 3418 square feet of ambulatory surgery center space and 3824 square feet of medical office space, and 823 square feet of open space with 6 class 1, and 2 class 2 bike parking spaces and no automobile parking. the proposed second story use is medical office which is retail use which is conditionally

permitted in rc4 zoning and second story and above pursuant to planning code section 209.3 regarding the height the elevator stair and generator enclosures cover approximately 28 percent of the primary roof area, which is exceedance of the 20percent allowable coverage of such roof top features and measure to the top of non exempt roof top features the proposed height is 60 feet, and thus pursuant to planning code section 253 conditional use authorization is required as the height is above 50 feet and rc zoning district. additionally, pursuant to the project mitigated negative declaration planning code section 608.14 sign. the sign meets the vintage sign requirements as it is greater then 40 years old and cultural art ifact which contribute to the city character and visual identity.

rear yard of approximately 34 feet is require pursuant to section 134. given the 18 foot rear yard rear yard variance is required. one of the 4 dwelling units does not face open areas that meets the minimum requirements pursuant to code 140 and exposure variance is required. the building is considered a rated property as it is eligible for listing on the california register of historic resources under criterion 1 for association with the early development of lgbtq communities in san francisco. specifically from 1968 to 2018, the subject building served as a gay male adult entertainment theater called the nob hill theater. the context was evaluating using the 2015 city wide context statement for lgbtq history in san francisco which

specified that adult entertainment theaters from the 1960 and 70 may be determined to be historical significant because they were unique form of socio sexual spaces that also played a important role for gay men. pursuant to the mitigated declaration project maintained interior and exterior character defining features. robust suite of mitigation measures including documentation and on site interpretation have proposed to account for limited removal and alteration of select features. the project respects historic resource and lower nob hill apartment hotel national register historic district that it lies in through appropriate setbacks massing compatible design and more. department staff have not received any additional public comments beyond what was outlined in it case report. the department recommend approval with conditions and the project sponsor will

now make a presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you project sponsor, you have 5 minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. rick (inaudible) land use attorney for the project and i like to introduce dr. chin who is the project sponsor and i like to introduce the architects john (inaudible) and michael morrison besides me. the new building is 3 floors of dwellings and medical use with one floor medical use underground. the surgical center which include the doctor office help fill a lack of surgical rooms at the nearby saint francis hospital and one reason the project is supported by the asian american medical association the letter of support you will see here. the front facade of the building will be kept along with 10 feet of side walls behind it along with blade sign and auditorium space. the

building operated as night club such as ginsa west, club hangover and are melody lane and jazz venue for white only patrons and feechards artists uch is as the great piana player earl hines. this period occurred after a period when african american musicians were not allowed to perform east of van ness avenue and that history will be on display. ranging between 934 and foub foub all residential unit are family size. dr. chin will live with his 4 children in the largest top floor year. the character defining feature are the blade sign, all the text accept for the touch our yunk wording will remain. the front facade included cladding will remain. the interior adatorium theater space of 39 by 18 feet

will become the waiting room for patients. variance is sought for two reason. one, dwelling units exposure. there is one unit without windows which face bush and that rear facing window will face a rear yard. variance for open rear yard that will be smaller then the code requires at the residential levels. by the way, the non residential floor levels require no rear yard setback. this is necessitated by the need for residential space that cannot be built as we wish to build it at the second floor. that is because the medical space plan for the ground floor is being taken up by the large auditorium which must stay and had hence the medical space on the second floor. a good deal oof space is lost by the fact that there happens to be very long neighboring light wells. without the variance it could not be the 4 family size

units and units of the size is what the city needs and they are needed to make the building economic sense. this should not have a material effect on the neighboring buildings because each of the buildings exist at a depth not too much different from the building being proposed. in other words, they are also non conforming to the minimum depth of open rear yard. the variance should not trigger material harm to the residential of the adjacent buildsings since they cannot use their rear yard since the rear yard is part of a greatly sloped hillside. planning staff anded we increase the open rear yard and we did that in the last stage of design. so, conditional use permit is being sought for three features of the project. i think that the staff went through that so i'll conclude. the project meets many city objectives.

restores the resident owned retail service in the downtown area which has many retail vacancies. fufills the need for downtown surgical room for nearby hospital. provides downtown residential units of family size. conserve cultural resources, and will provide between 25 and 50 jobs. we are pleased with the positive feedback of lgbtq historical society and san francisco heritage and the lgbtq plus community along with the support from the tenderloin soma western soma community planning association. thank you very much and i will turn it over for questions if you have any for the architects. thank you. >> thank you. we may have questions after public comment for the architect unless you want to use your 20 seconds. >> i'll wave the

20seconds. >> very good we should open public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission. in the chamber please come forward. seeing no members in the chamber, we will go to remote callers. when your line is unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking. >> thank you. this is steven (inaudible) the general manager of the cartwright hotel at 524 southern street. this building is basically right behind the building. the question i have, i know it is referenced that there are some steps to mitigate sound and wondering what those steps are, because obviously we have hotel rooms that face the back of that building, so that will be depending on noise can be a big issue for

the hotel. >> that concludes your comment, sir? okay. very good. last call for public comment. you need to press star 3 raise your hand or come forward. seeing no additional request to speak public comment is closed and this matter is before you. >> thank you. i did want to ask if the project sponsor and architect team could walk through in a little more detail the decisions and the design decisions regarding the auditorium needing to shift or adjust the medical center and understand more specifically the need for not having code compliant rear yard. if you can talk-you mentioned mr. gladstone the trade off and if you can walk through us similarly with the unit that doesn't have the code compliant exposure. >> i will ask michael

morrison a architect to go into that for you and he has a special drawing i think for that. >> you have to get before the microphone michael. >> you can use that overhead projector. >> you can also address the noise issue if you wish. >> so, the auditorium was deemed historic resource the character defining feature and so it is dead center in the street level of the floor and so when we submitted we had the medical office at this level and by maintaining the large volume we had find another location. it goes to the edge of the building so you can't route circulation around it accept on one side and so it really limited our opportunity to put the medical office in this building without pushing it up to the floor above and thankfully all is a large parapet at the front which mask this

vertical addition. >> so, the auditorium is there so you push the medical office to both below grade and around the auditorium, is that-i dont know if you can zoom out the projector. there we go. >> the rear exit for the building will have to go around the side here, whereas the front exit is able to arrive just in front of it. i think we had a clip a little of the front of the auditorium out to fit the stairs. there is a separate waiting room for the surgical center that is downstairs on that level and this is the waiting room for the medical office. otherwise the auditorium is unuseable space. >> it was mentioned you expanded the rear yard. how much did it expand? >> i don't recall an

exact value. i think it was about 3 feet. we have color coded here all is additional during the course of the project 10 foot front setback for residential levels and so that pushed the front of the building back a bit. and then you can see the mid-span light wells on either side which eliminate a lot of the space in the middle so we are able to fit staircases in the middle for circulation and units on the two ends for the barbell plan and for the rear units effectively facing the rear yard or rear of open space there, are the bedrooms so by eliminating-pullingb back to the 25 setback we lose the (inaudible) the living room for the lowest unit is a studio and dr. chin's unit takes the top and back of floor above and it is

presently a 5 bedroom unit for him and his 4 children and by eliminating 4 of the bedrooms his unit would be dramatically reduced and don't know if he is able to live there on site anymore. >> thank you. other commissioner comments or questions on this project? i'll go forward with the noise. i don't think residents or surgery being noisy but don't if you have comments or talked with the hotel. >> not sure if the question was about the construction noise or post construction noise but there are regulations for both and through the mmrp there are requirements for noise reduction and monitoring, so both the vibrations of the construction equipment and then any of the sound produced by the construction equipment or the hvac. there is noise acoustic engineers will develop the specifics for all that.

>> great. mr. gladstone did you is a chance to talk with the hotel? not sure if this is first time you are hearing from them? >> we sent a let eer to them, a copy is in the packet. a copy of the letter was sent to all the neighbors. we wrote about a 2 page letter and encouraged them to call us and gave our cell numbers and that was about 6 weeks ago. we haven't heard from them. thank you. >> if the caller is listening if you hear that hopefully you have the information and if you don't you can reach out to our staff and follow up with the project sponsor. i want to say i do appreciate the attention to retaining historic feature and have a new life and certainly unique way to do it and certainly a challenge in some ways but a great opportunity so thank you for doing that. i see mr. (inaudible) hand or zoning administrator. he is over there, how is he

raising his hand. i will go to the da and then you commissioner moore. >> appreciate that. just to touch on the rear yard more because that was a issue as you mentioned. constrained at the front. constraints in the center with the light wells which we want to (inaudible) adjacent properties. but the rear does extend past 2 ajausant buildings. i understand bringing that in more will impact the programming on that southern half of the building the par of the bar bell so to speak. and i understand significant shaving off back there is going to reduce bedrooms unit count but the one area i want to see if you can speak to, there is essentially a bey form that is also added on and just curious if that-is that serving a specific design function other then more area and if not is that a area where

it can be reduction in depth without technically effecting the bedrooms and the habitable space or unit count that could help the project conform slightly more? >> yes. so, let me grab the other floor. >> when we were working with planning they did ask us to notch the building so we felt that since it does reduce any impact to the adjacent properties that it felt like a appropriate way to have a slight san francisco quality to the back and i wanted to stay that i'm john the architect by the way. that the one side is 10 feet 8 inches past the existing rear facade and it is the other one is 7 feet 4 inches so in essence it matches the setback that was requested by planning from the front.

>> two additional points. the 2 adjacent buildings have beys so there is a continuity of context and the beys provide the usable space in the bedroom from a 7 foot bedroom to 10 foot bedroom. i dont have the exact figures but as i remember working on it in july those were the values we were struggling is can we fit enough space for a person to live in the bedroom. >> thank you. any other questions? alright. commissioner moore. >> just jumping on the bey discussion as we are dealing with very skillful expansion of usability of sites increasing square footage dedicated to residential i say that is a quality of the bedroom and livable space i think is greatly enhanced by adding the bey over

the somewhat limited or non functional to rear yard in the first place. i believe that it will be advantage to people living in and looking at the rear unit from the outside and it is better building by having the bey. i like to say the project is a great example how to maximize useability of the site. i believe that combining office and residential on the site is skillfully done including meeting significant challenges that are posed by historic preservation. the building as it is over the years declined in presence and usefulness on the street as it (inaudible) empty shell and always wondering what the future will be and delighted to see a building that fits into context and in deed complement and respect the adjoining residential units on both sides. i am in full support and move

to approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioner moore. commissioner diamond. >> wanted to complement the project owner and architect on combining historic preservation of the exterior and important interior elements. business uses and residential. took a lot to get all those to work together. that is obviously resinating with a number of us and so i'm also in full support of this, but want to complement you on figuring how to make all that work together. >> thank you commissioners. >> very good commissioners . there is a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on the motion- [roll call]

motion passes 7-0. zoning administrator- >> close the public hear frg the variance and intend to grant the standard conditions. jrkts >> very good. commissioners that will place now on item 7a, b and c for case 2019-016230gpa for the housing element 2022 update. you are requested to adopt findings, adopt the housing element update as well as initiate future amendments to the general plan if necessary. >> thank you. i will call on commissioner ruiz. >> yes, i would like to recuse myself from these items because my involvement with the housing element prior to being on the commission. >> is there a motion to recuse commissioner

ruiz? >> motion to recuse. >> second. >> commissioner diamond seconded. >> on the motion to recuse- [roll call] so moved commissioners motion passes 7-0. commissioner ruiz you are hereby recused. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon president tanner, commissioners. jaims pappas with planning department staff and housing element team. we are here today to request your recommendation to aadopt the housing element 2022 update as a amendment to the general plan along with associated amendments and findings. this plan is a result of thousands of hours and feedback from hundreds of people working to find common ground to find common ground and path forward for housing in san francisco at a time of change and yet when the housing needs of our people are pressing as they have ever been. on behalf of the planning

department i like to particularly thank the community members and organizations that provided input on this plan. their engagement helped navigate the tension created with you must both address substantially increased housing production targets as well as a new focus on racial and social equity which demand new tools including new ways of engaging with communities changes to where and what type of housing are allowed and new levels of community investments. we must also thank the state housing community development department which has been both a rigorous and supportive partner in meeting new state requirements for housing elements. as a result of this collaboration, with communities in the state we believe are putting forth a ambitious and pragmatic plan. can i

have-thank you. we know we did the land act acknowledgment earlier but it is a integral part of housing element presentations over the last 2 years so we want to again acknowledge we are on the home land of ramaytush oholone people. so, here is a overview of what we are going to cover today. we are going to over overview of the housing element itself. going to review recent feedback and proposed changes to address that feedback since we last came to you for informational hearing a week ago. and then we are going to summarize the commission actions before you today. so, here is what 80 have done over the last few months and what will come after today. we

realize you may be a little tired of hearing about the housing element by having had informational hearings on november 3, december 8, we also had informational hearing at the board of surprisers on november 15 and we had our initiation hearing on november 17 about a month ago here at the planning commission. in between the hearings we have worked intensively to respond from feedback from hcd public elected officials and you yourselves provided in these hearings. adoption today is essential as you can see on our schedule to meet state deadlines for adoption and certification of housing elements by the end of january. hcd issued a letter to us at the end of the day yesterday which i believe we have been shared publicly, and it is providing a

pathway for certification of our housing element assuming remaining points have been addressed and we will discuss this more later in the presentation. so, first overview of the housing element and how we got to the plan before you today. the process for housing elements comes with greatly increased requirement and scrutiny over the local process as well as new state law that demand plan accountability and action on aerfblg from reducing constraints to housing development to metrix and monitoring for the implementation of our equity focused programs. the regional housing needs allocation or rena the housing targets we must plan for in the plan increase nearly 3 times from the prior rena cycle to over 82 thousand units and 46 thousand of that is needs to be affordable to low moderate income

households. there are also extensive new requirements regarding how we come up with that capacity as we discussed when we covered site inventory that requires rigor about estimating both capacity and likelihood of development. and there are new requirements on furthering fair housing that have to be kraesdsed not only in site inventory and where we plan for housing but throughout the programs included in the housing element. so, here again the key components of the plan. which we presented before but just want to cover here today and summarize. it included or includes assessmentf othe housing needs, assessment of fair housing, the site inventory and analysis of constraints to

housing development, and finally our goals objectives and policies and implementing programs that describe the actions needed to meet the plan goals. in addition, our environmental planning team along with consultant have provided an environmental impact report eir and environmental justice analysis for the plan which can be found on the eir project web page. to continue this overview, i will hand the presentation over to (inaudible) working on the plan over 3 years. she has been one of the core members of the team and i will let her take it from here. >> hello, commissioners. here we are. this plan was developed during the health economic crisis and racial reckon. it is in time of crisis or out of the comfort zones that some of the most significant changes happen. we believe the

circumstances have strengthened this plan. the focus or collective attention in the deep disparities many residents experiencing of housing and economic opportunities. urgency that (inaudible) values of san francisco housing plan and what they should be. we are right the 4 core values--which have provided the framework for policy and implementation decisions. centered advancement of racial and social equity. eliminate community displacement. housing affordable of all income levels in all neighborhoods to expand the individual choice, provide infrastructure needed for thriving healthy neighborhoods and resilient communities and the city has a incredible organizations that are working to center

equity in all planning. engagement helped novigate the tension created with you decide to treat housing at the (inaudible) economic system that at times works gaerns against that. in the next slides i want fooprovide a overview the way the plan address the values while navigate the tensions. racial social equity is present throughout the plan but i want to highlight actions (inaudible) harm and changing the way we plan. (inaudible) to actions that sport studies lead by communities and incorporate findings in how we readdress those harms. it calls for implementation of housing strategies recommended by the african americans reparation committee and opportunities to give land back to the american indian community. it call frz the city to invest in home ownership and

provide (inaudible) community land planning in cultural district and for equity communities to have the power to define the priorities of this plan are and for accountability from the city in implementing the priorities. (inaudible) calls increasing capacity and support for community based organizations linking residents to anti-displacement and (inaudible) having more cultural competent services in doing so. to stabilize our residents there plan calls for rental assistance and service for very low income residents (inaudible) addresses homelessness through the expansion

of permanent supportive housing (inaudible) supportive services and it call frz the expansion of tenant protection and eviction prevention services. finally, the plan calls for anti-displacement inveshment to accompany rezoning or investments the city does. to create affordable housing for everybody's in all neighborhoods, the implementing programs begin by emphasizing the need to substantially increase supply of affordable housing particularly for very low income households. this program also provide pathways for land banking and expanding funding for affordable housing. the plan satisfies (inaudible) requirements by expanding housing choice and increase capacity in well resourced neighborhoods. it also includes significant number of actions reducing constraints to development

rehabitation and replacement of housing at all income levels including permanent affordable housing, shelter jz permanent supportive housing. finally, the plan aims to foster thriving neighborhoods creating expanding programs targeted environmental just communities for housing rehab that promote and safety. insuring future housing development put us in a path forward for (inaudible) foster access to opportunity and priority equity geography by prioritizing these areas for investment in public transit and community fusutilities suvish and amenities and finally, elevating expression of cultural identities through the recognition and development of cultural spaces and retention and growth of culturally associated businesses and services. as mentioned before,f this plan built through extensive

outreach and engagement. phase 1-3 where we provided structure and proactive outreach and engagement. on this slide you can see overview of our engagement method which went from focus groups to more informal listening sessions to survey and policy group experts. acting oen the mandate for racial and social equity focus on communities of color and those with housing need insecurity while reaching other communities throughout the city. phase 4 the phase we are in now focus on interagency coordination providing (inaudible) and responding and capturing ongoing feedback and questions from the public and decision makers. more recently our focus has been to refine and finalize the plans implementing programs and actions. this is

what we'll give san francisco the traction to achieve our core community values and provide accountability before our communities. refining the implementing programs is extensive iterative process one that went on until yesterday. one which we try to incorporate as much feedback from the equity communities while satisfying state law and requirements. as a general overview there are 9 implementing program area. these program areas bundle 340 plus actions in a way that reflect the city existing agency structure and programs making it easier for each responsible agency to track their tasks report on progress and coordinate this effort. the first 3 on the left focus largely on how we assist people impacted by there affordable crisis. the next focus on directly advancing equity. the last set focus on expanding housing

choice and neighborhood quality. i will hand it over to james to present the recent feedback and how we have been incorporating it. >> thank you. so, i'm going to pick up where we left off last week and it has been a busy week. we've heard feedback on the plan from the public, various community organizations and from hcd, and so i will summarize some of the feedback we heard and then talk about how we responded. so, we had the opportunity actually to meet with hcd twice in the last week and of course we received letter which is in response to the second draft of the housing element. now, the second draft was submitted in october

but we had a iterative process which we tried to keep the public or have kept the public informed of that process and of course the commission informed of the process updated working to respond to hcd comments. so, the interaction we had over the last week have been about refining these last pieces we heard about in their letter. some things we heard about in the last few weekerize enhancing language about compliance with state requirements. improving language in the plan on surplus land program. adding outreach to tenants owners and non profit about at risk affordable housing as well as demonstrating our commitment to preserve and acquire affordable housing. emphasize objective standard and reduction of constraints in the plan and also talked

about potential for rena production short-falls and having actions in the plan that address those short-falls. in terms of feedback received from the public, we heard a range of comments. some were very specific to particular actions within the plan. for example, actions regarding study of highway removal. communities wanted assurance that that would be done in consultation with communities that are geographically impacted by those changes. wanted more protections for tenants that may be in buildings that would be potentially subject to demolition. we heard people wanted early convening on affordable housing funding and land banking to identify solutions earlier in the plan and heard concerns about the so

called circuit breaker or midrena cycle response if production is below our projected pipeline. these are actions 8.1, 5 and 8.18 which studies constraints. we heard concerns they are in conflict with other parts of the plan. we heard advocacy for adoption of the rep coalition city wide people plan and desire to see recommendations from the plan included in the housing element. and we also heard advocates in relation to 8.1.5 again the circuit breaker action wanted to see expansion of that action and stronger commitments or stronger language included into that. really a range of feedback we received. so, in terms of how we

responded, again we have been moving quickly to update the materials in the housing element to respond to the feedback that we have been hearing and so for the hearing today for adoption we included updated version of various associated pieces of the plan that correct errors or make clarifications, make technical changes to the site inventory and other documents. and we also revised implementing programs this is included in a memo provided to the planning commission and published on the housing element project website. these include responded to comments received from the public and hcd including expanded tenant protections in buildings that may be subject to demolition incorporated increasing engagement with communities who would be impacted by

studies of freeway removal and we also added additional clarifying language on action 8.1.5. so, i did want to note on action 8.1.5 and 8.1.8. we heard concerns the actions seem to come relatively recently into the plan and we wanted to note that these actions-8.1.5 which is designed to respond to the production of the pipeline and 8.1.8 which is analysis of cumulative constraints both were referenced in hcd august letter and discussed at the november 17 initiation hearing and the-why they have appeared in the plan more recently

is we have been working very carefully to construct language we thought was implementable and could be acceptable to local policy makers and communities and to state reg yulators and so that is why we more recently put those-the language that we have arrived at into the plan and we continued to work with hcd to refine that language. i want to note on the proposed revisions that we are offering in the memo in response to hcd feedback and community feedback that our environmental planning division has reviewed those revisions and they concluded the memo posted on the housing element website they included a memo posted on the housing eir website saying concluding the changes would not result in physical environmental effects beyond those disclosed in the eir certified by the commission on

november 17 so no further environmental review is needed in relation to the revisions included in the memo. so, finally, what are the actions before the commission today? there are three main sets of actions. first is adoption of findings. these include ceqa findings, including statement of overriding considerations adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, the mmrp, and findingsf oconsistency with squeneral plan and priority policies. the next action would be to approve the resolution recommending that the board adopt the new housing element and related amendments and third is initiated further amendments to the general plan in case hcd request additional edits after today's approval.

just to explain each of these slightly more. in terms of the ceqa findings regarding significant and unavoidable impacts, and the evaluation of mitigation measures and alternatives and statement of overriding considerations, also include an adoption of the mitigating monitoring and reporting program. the mmr rks p. and adopting findings of consistency with the general plan and priority policy of the planning code in connection with the housing element 2022 update. conforming amendments to the air quality commerce industry environmental protection and urban design elements. again, the principle action here today is adopting resolution approving the ordinance to adopt the housing element 2022 as proposed. inclusive of the proposed revisions and edits presented in the

memo today. these edits include the direction provided from hcd in the letter of yesterday december 14. we also want to note the ordinance is amended to include findings that the planning commission has made that the housing element is substantially compliant with state law. finally, the third action would initiate further general plan amendment hcd requires additional edits after today that require further consideration by the planning commission. the initiation action enable to more expeditiously schedule approval hearing for any future amendments. we hope this will not be necessary given edits made today in response to hcd feedback but it is possible and we want to be able to act quickly. any such hearing is calendared

on or after january 5, 2023. so, lastly, just wanted to track the remaining steps we hope today-which move to introduction and board of supervisors and then hearing at the land use and transportation committee. the first hearing at the board of supervisors, second hearing at the board of supervisors and mayor signature and approval on the plan and state certification so that is what we are working toward. again, i want to thank the community for all the feedback on this plan that has made it a better plan. we want to thank hcd for moving rapidly with us to provide feedback and make changes to the plan. thank the commission. i want to personally thank this team who worked so hard to move the plan forward in a very quick amount of

time and colleagues at the planning department and our colleagues at other agencies, particularly the mayor office of housing community development and department of homelessness and supportive housing. with that, i will close my presentation. >> thank you very much. >> commissioners, if there are no immediate questions of staff we should open public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on the housing element update. if you are in the chamber come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. if calling in remotely, press star 3 on webex, raise your hand. >> good afternoon commissioners. jake price on behalf of housing action coalition. we are very happy to see the progress made throughout this

process. very grateful to planning department. planning staff. everyone who had a role but while it is great step we remain skeptical of the political realties of this city and the ability to afford us the chance to make meaningful progress in these goals. so with that being said i like to caution that adopting this draft is not the end of this process and still need to make good on these commitments because the state is not just going to burry their heads in the sand if we do not. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is gilbert williams with (inaudible) and member of race equity all planning coalition. first of all the coalition appreciate the hard work on of the planning staff to accommodate many recommendations into the housing element

final draft implementing programs. support the resolution adopted by the housing stability fund oversight board that request that action be added to the housing element that identifies the revenue of proposition i. presently estimated to generate $170 million in fiscal year 2023-24 as a ongoing annual revenue source available to the city to assist in achieving the housing element affordable housing goals. but we do reject actions 8.1.5 through 8.1.8 of the latest version of the housing element. the community advocates are calling not the circuit breaker but the developer dirty bomb will nullify every attempt at

equity in the housing element. without any community input large swaths of the city will be up zoned and prime to be destroyed and rebuilt with luxury housing while current residents and businesses and communities of color and cultural districts will be pushed out by developers eager to profit from development incentives provided by the city. despite the revisions that planning has proposed, this housing element has the potential to cause massive displacement. our low income communities of color already suffered extraordinary displacement. during the current housing element cycle. and new housing element promises to make displacement even worse. the impacts and harms of the strategies proposed by planning appear to be potentially even more devinating and wide spread to low income

communities of color then redevelopment was. rep and the antidisplacement coalition recommit recommend a public hearing process for every development that proposes to demolish existing residential units. in reference to section 3 preventing eliminating homelessness rep sf finds there are too many actions focused on providing temporary shelter accommodations. it is crucial that planning recognizes the fact expanding shelter accommodations is not a housing solution. san francisco housing element must focus on funding land use solutions and providing stable dignified affordable housing for all. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon commissioners. my name is don (inaudible). i'm a life long resident of san francisco and here representing richmond district rising. a member organization of the race and equity in all planning coalition. while we appreciated the efforts of the planning staff to work with rep through incorporate many of our recommendations, we were quite appalled by last minute addition of developing interest that undue this and run counter to what our coalition of over 40 community organizations have been struggling to achieve. we demand removal of the last of the 4 provisions added to implementation 815-818 of the housing element. my family and community are too familiar with the displacement and suffering caused by the first iteration of urban renewal in the 60 and 70. with this

developer dirty bomb, the housing element will be gutted of a attempt of equity and result in a second redevelopment that will once again devastate our community of color and cultural districts. i lived through all that once and don't want to live through it again. i will not address the specific ways that these developers driven last minute machinations under effort at developing affordable housing, but it is my hope this public testimony will expose this blatant attempt to manipulate the process to serve their profit driven interests. the language about racial and social equity without any means of achieving it turns this whole process into a sham intended to deceive. commissioners, if you do indeed consider yourselves stewards of the public interest,

then you have no choice but to remove these provisions. failure to do so will sell out our communities to the high est bidder. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is pria (inaudible) with the people (inaudible) member of the race equity all planning coalition. as others said we appreciate that you incorporated a lot of our recommendations, but it doesn't go far enough. i worked as a tenant housing organizer for the past 2 and a half year mainly in the mission district and seen first hand how undocumented immigrant families are deeply vulnerable and the current housing element cycle caused extraordinary displacement to low incommunities of color and this new housing element will only exacerbate that. given what is in the housing element as people before me mentioned, the impact and harms that propose planning will cause more devastating wide

spread harm then redevelopment. rep and antidisplacement coalition recommend a public hearing process for any process that (inaudible) a lot of time buildings might not look rent controlled but they are and the housing element seeks to tear down that housing. if a property appears to be vacant developers and landlord hide the fact tha there are tenants living there and intimidate them to leave. a loop hole of opting out public process this will cause displacement which already has and it will violate a sank ware city policy that san francisco seems to be proud and vocal about. the only way tenant advocates have brought the issues to light is force the hearing at the planning commission. we need a predictable process and bring the housing element back in line with requirements to

furkter fair housing. it is disappointing the commission has not done all they can to listen to the communities that are begging to be heard. rep has been showing up the last 2 years and hundreds of hours of meetings to build strong coalitions and cultivate policies that center low income community of color. we beg the commission to incorporate the policies and we hear that the developing lobby bullied you into including implementation actions that undermine everything communities of color low incommunities, cultural district disabled (inaudible) that is deeply disrespectful and demand removal. you can't claim to prioritize a racial social equity framework and not listen to years of generational trauma that redevelopment caused with the same if not worse policies. that is by definition

hypocrisy. let itby knoun this is the housing element that exploits the basic necessity to live in safe aforfdable housing and give power to developers. you put profit over people and while the communitys fight for truly equitable city wide people plan to help you do the job that you owe san franciscanss you have to live with the fact housing element will be long lasting stain- >> thank you that is your time. >> our fight is not over. thank you. >> okay. while i appreciate the language about equity which is something that has been missing from the conversation for a long time, you know, i come out of

this process this 2 year process not feeling good. writing and saying the housing element will be centered on racial and social equity to me is like republicans saying thoughts and prayers are with gun violence victims. you may think this is harsh comparison but displacement and gentrification is violent, redevelopment is violent and make no mistake the housing element is a roadmap for redevelopment 2.0. buried somewhere in the packet that says 5 opercent of sites identified for lower incomers are already occupied aka non vacant. when was that going to be shared with the public. the housing element proswas disrespectful to the communities it intended to center. working group session asked if we were to

focus anti-displacement on high risk communities which ones? how do we find the target? this puts communities against each other clamor for (inaudible) all the laj pwj about streamlining the housing element is taking out public input because you don't want to hear from rich nimbys so you are bowing to rich nimbys instead of finding ways for low income communities of color and cultural districts to lead on it decisions you take a sledge hammer to thuproval process making so no one can comment. we heard last week hearing the city has been working on the rezoning plan for months. ready to go. rezoning will (inaudible) to be destroyed and rebuilt with (inaudible) especially in low income communities of color. 57 percent of the new housing is supposed to be affordable where is the plan ready to go to make this happen? the mayor budget instructions for next

fiscal year will scompl out very soon and is affordable housing plan ready to go so we dont respond the next year behind? we get to the finish line. the changes are put into the red line version. the developer lobby represented bay (inaudible) drop in the developer dirtdy bomb that will nullify all the positiveolog wj we worked for. whatever changes were made last night dozent erase the fact this was allowed in the first place and took community advocacy for people to be aware of the last minute changes. actions speak louder then words. that said commissioners your words have power, you have power. you have power for public comment so use that and listen to the community today. thank you. >> good afternoon.

(inaudible) rep coalition. as others said the rep coalition is following this housing element process for over 2 years. we pain steaking reviewed every draft, every update even when released late at night. over the past 2 year offered to clab raitd with planning staff to make the housing element meanfully centered on racial and social equityism many positive revisions are still compromised by new actions enaction 8 in direct conflict with the equity goes of the housing element and put the city at risk not meeting the obligations. we understand the need and the logic to remove constraints to achieve our rena goals especially our affordal housing targets but not expense of low income communities communities of color and cultural district. if we truly center racial is and social equity we should be

critical of measures that can displace and destabilize already struggling communities and instead find ways to strengthen voice and self-determination through significant increase in investment for affordable housing retaining existing affordable housing fubdsic community input and decisiont that impact neighborhood. protecting from displacement oz as result of demolition and insuring conspt (inaudible) low income communities of color must continue to have a voice in the decisions that directly target their homes and families. civic par tigpation (inaudible) rep last minute provisions to silence community voice be removed. make the revisions to make sure the city is in compliance with legal obligations to furter fair housing and stated objective to center this housing

element on racial and social equity. thanks. >> state my name for the record. diane ruiz with the rep coalition. thank you. >> commissioners good afternoon joseph (inaudible) west side community coalition and race equity all planning coalition. i was thinking about not speaking. i will say a couple words just from personal and perspective i community. sincerely appreciate planning staff hard work to incorporate many rep recommendations including the most recent revisions published late last night. unfortunately as you heard, many

troubling asspects remain, which cause significant concern. after the revisions and references to affordable housing, action 8.1.5 still needs to be removed for many reasons you heard. it is still dissempowering to community and bias the housing element to market rate on affordable housing. most critical issue besides-that is a pretty big issue is demolitions. (inaudible) with housing rights committee and someone who had to request discretionary review for properties proposing to demolish existing housing the planners thought was not rent controlled and discovered through discretionary review process it was rent controlled the proposal around demolition needs to be

addressed. because right now it causes a lot of jeopardy for tenants existing tenants in our city and then as mentioned by previous commenters, we see this language from hcd in had letter that just came out yesterday which references non vacant sites non vacant generally to us means occupied. as reminder quoting from the letter the housing element relies upon non vacant sites to accommodate more then 50 percent of the regional housing needs allocation for lower income house holds as part of adoption. the resolution must contain findings based on substantial evidence the exist uses is likely discontinued during the planning period. that means evicting businesses, small businesses evicting tenants for other uses. it is stunning the language is and

here and says as remindser and language never disclosed to the public. there are significant concerns before you and hope you address them. thank you so much. >> hello. my name is matthew. i have a phone call last night from a (inaudible) asking a bunch of questions about a 2 hour conversation with this individual on the phone and it was questions pertaining to serious (inaudible) dealing with the city and ordinances placed here i guess today. brief moment this conversation was cpc was mentioned so googleed it and decide today show up today. the conversation people are addressing here i notice that the my biggest concern personally was assessing the people

capacity to afford dealing with structural integrity of the building and commitment to the people that are living inside and so making that decision in order to financially avoid something as opposed to have the capacity to be honest in the situation to deal with those developments i think it is a huge disparity and something to look into. not sure what the stipulation is here. i don't understand anything sfiskly. i have no idea what i'm talking about but in the past (inaudible) i would rather be honest and have means to assess the situation then just to lie about it and hide it in the dark and have consequences out of that. and so, that is just my opinion and thank you. >> how much time do i have? thank you. i really like mr. smooks letter because he compares his background with the

staff backgrounds and have been impressed because i know the staff is highly educated. you all have masters degree and think that is important and says a lot especially as someone with only a bachelor degree. that being said, beyond the demo calic i looked at 3 maps in the housing element draft, the well resourced area, ownership rate by census tract and the (inaudible) seniors by census tract and they are congruent. right over one another. due to demographic shifts so to speak, transformation and turn over. people dying. there is a large chunk of land where the housing element proposes policies and densification that will become available. there are two ways to look at it. either that is a good thing from hcd perspective and other perspective or it will be a real problem. i'll show you the maps real

quick. overhead, please. there is the well resourced area. and -here is the ownership housing tenure by tract ownership and then there is the age thing, over 65. the other thing i want to say is regarding action 9.28 to preserve trees and natural open space and reduce paved surfaces and underground (inaudible) rear and side yards retain deep soils for tree and more sustainable vegetation is a good thing since the private open space contains majority of tree canopy in the city and it is important for our climate to minimize cementing over such as this example here which i'll show you,

overhead again please. that is what they did there. here is a close up of it. you can see it is all cemented over, huge excavation the amount of soil is unbelievable. absolutesly crazy to do. i think it is important to preserve the open space whether for climate or to grow food in the next 20 years. we dont know where we will be. here is a nice picture. typical yard in the richmond district. that was a ad from the richmond review. thank you vaerp very much and congratulations to the staff. they deserve congratulations no matter what happens. thank you. >> okay. if no additional members of the public in the chambers wishing to address the commission on the housing element we'll go to remote callers. press star 3 or raise your hand via webex and when your line is unmuted you can begin speaking.

mr. woo. mr. woo. alright. we'll go to the next caller. >> good afternoon commissioners. zack wisepenburg with young community developers member of race and equity planning coalition. the rep coalition appreciate planning staff to collaborate with us and incorporate many recommendations in the housing development draft. rep supports the letter from supervisor mar requesting planning commit to adequate concrete plan for identifying allocated (inaudible) acquiring sites and building capacity. the ability to meanfully achieve affordable housing require investment and accelerated time to (inaudible) also connect planning and ocd working in collaboration with each other with affordable housing developers and

advocates to achieve the goals working together being bold and innovative. community advokit said are calling the (inaudible) the implementation action 8.1.5 through 8.1.8 will nullify every attempt at equity without community input large swaths of the city will be up zoned destroyed and rebuilt with luxury housing (inaudible) displaced by developers (inaudible) for affordable housing and social racial equity and replace with policy for urban renewal style demolition and displacement. that is constraint reduction and (inaudible) the language is too broad and ambiguous and will be no checks what is torn down and developed. (inaudible) made so much worse

and brought to critical levels if (inaudible) other low income area and communities of color. (inaudible) for permanent affordable housing.

>> allow housing to be built to give more people a place to live in our city. we need to end the regional displacement occurring by lack of housing. when (inaudible) insure we keep focus on this. thank you. >> hi. my name is (inaudible) i want to thank staff for the work they put in not just this week, but over the course of the year plus and they put together a really good plan. this is one of the most ambitious things the city proposed to do on land use with racial

equity. (inaudible) the city has not let affordable housing get built at scale in the richest neighborhoods in san francisco and this is the first proposal that is close to enactment that actually insure working class families can live in richest neighborhoods in san francisco and benefit from all the benefits that come with that. and think there is a lot more to do. unfortunately because san francisco is so far behind the ball can complying with state law, when it comes to the hurdles every project affordable or subsidized housing or unsubsidized housing have to go through there is a lot more to do. i support (inaudible) and without a a doubt we can't ignore guidance from hcd and lose

affordable housing fundingism i hope everyone agrees the last thing you want to do is ignore guidance on programs added and risk losing funding for affordable housing. i want to thank staff for work they have done and there a lot more work to do. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is john (inaudible) resident of district 2 and member of northern neighbors. kenneth just spoke-i came back from a trip from seattle and impressed by (inaudible) saw lots of (inaudible) [difficulty hearing speakers] which has not been helping and seen (inaudible) anyone who does not earn high salary or (inaudible)

is priced out. the housing element is set in the right direction to enable growth without displacement and i'm so grateful for the city staff to work to (inaudible) however, sf (inaudible) on building housing make me skeptical and seems hcd is skeptical as well thus we need to pursue the most aggressive rezoning to insure we build 10 thousand homes a year that the city needs to implement programs from the housing element such as constraint removal immediately to start solving our housing crisis. this will prevent displacement and rebuild vibrant community not just in san francisco but throughout the bay area. thank you. >> good morning planning commissioners. this is (inaudible) i wanted to say that this housing plan is the beginning because

now the (inaudible) rezoning to allow-if you have to build 10 thousand homes a year this is the beginning. you have a lot more work to do. this is the first step. thank you very much. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners and staff. (inaudible) we appreciate the planning staff (inaudible) housing element cycle [audio cut out] how

many have seen the struggle? i hear thes constant need for construction and for units to come online, so we have 58 thousand empty units on the market now and most are market rate if not all. what we need is affordable housing and we said this time and time again. this developer dirt y bomb is just another wave ofgent fiication with approval from the planning department. if you don't remove these i don't know if i'll be able to be here for the next cycle. i love my city. i born and raised here. have my family here and that sadness has taken over everything else i wanted to say because no matter how many times we tell you this is what we need from

you for protection, the state hcd and conversations they talk about a balance. this balance is pointed in the direction of market rate housing so long when will it pivot to affordal housing so i can stay here-it was the mutual aid started by organizations without funding that really sustained us until we got funding from federal state or the city. i want a chance to live here and see my family grow here. please remove this develop dirty bomb 8.1.5-8.1.8. thank you. >> hi. this is adam. i live in district 6 and we have seen the brunt of construction over the years but

also seen the gentrification happen and cost go up because we had such a restrictive process. we got $6 and we have seen the brunt of construction over the years but also seen the gentrification happen and cost go up because we had such a restrictive process. we got these amazing multimillion dollar homes on had the west side in district 4, 1, 2, 7 that want to preserve the suburban feel in san francisco at the cost of others. we have all seen friends family have to be forced out of the city. i have seen parents with kids have to move because their kids have no place in the city. the status quo is not working. we know it isn't working. it isn't working for anyone unless you are rich. as far as the points 815818 those are the circuit breaker required by hcd. the only reason anyone would think those are a problem is they think the plan isn't going to deliver the

units we need. if we have a shitty plan the circuit breaker will kick in and if we encourage a shitty plan to observe the status quo and insure home owners keep their property values up that home owners keep their views and that we are just in the same place and not go toog have homes for people who need them or homes for kids or homes for friends and we will end moving out of the city unless we win the lottery. please push this forward. please take all the advice from hcd under account and don't risk losing affordable housing funding and this failing. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. (inaudible) i am a (inaudible) who worked

tirelessly and practically effectless to (inaudible) housing element and to respond to feedback from a variety of stakeholders. i par titspated in some of the first housing policy group meetings back in 2020 and department was doing a lot of work back then. i think my main take away from this whole process is if you read the letter from hcd, over the in the past year or so, the state does not trust the city. san francisco (inaudible) so egregious there isn't a lot of trust at this point, and my hope is san francisco will or

city will appreciate the importance of what it means to comply with state law going forward. the latest draft does have a lot of great (inaudible) like others have said, the real work is in the implementation. the promises in the housing element are just that, promises without real work that the city will do. it is my sincere hope the city honors the spirit and letter of the commitments. the city needs to cooperate fully with the policy and practice hcd is doing. our rhna goals. building 10 thousand units a year is not impossibility but it is self-defeating prophecy if we say we cannot do it. that guarantees we will not be able to do it. it

is--we have created a hell of our own making and we (inaudible) make san francisco (inaudible) equitable for everyone. (inaudible) i ask you to commit to that goal today and to really think about our region. thank you. >> hello commissioners. david woo. (inaudible) added to the housing element that strengthen commitments to affordable housing, pieces in the work to insurerentially and social equity in the housing element are undermined by section 8 which includes the market rate circuit breaker. the last minute push by the planning department to demand completely undermine the trust of working class communities and communities of color. while communities on the ground have been

advocating providing feedback and organize to give input on the housing element for years, working hard to make small gains with the planning department these last minute changes undermine all this work. this shows how the process is catered toward real estate and development interest. in order to be in line with requirement to further fair housing the housing element must remove any market rate circuit breaker rezoning (inaudible) such as those described in section 8.1.5. we must put affordable housing first and cannot take steps backwards by eroding actual racial and social equity in the housing element. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. this (inaudible) san francisco tenants union and race and equity in all planning coalition. planning had a huge job to reconcile the equity

needs with the developer of market rate housing needs and they failed by putting in these last minute changes which mr. patterson would not say we are just getting the language straight before dropping them in. so, we are going to lose our voice. we are not go toog have representation if this goes through. commissioners, i urge you to ask for removal of these things so we can maintain equity in san francisco just like we put through a resolution a couple years back. also, funding to be started at the very beginning at inception for affordable housing. none of this push off to march when the next cycle begins or the following year. we want it this year for affordable housing now. thank you.

>> my name is (inaudible) with the community housing organizations. the housing element is demonstrated and unprecedented level of collaboration and inclusion of equity perspectivals and for this we like to appreciate the hard work of planning staff to make this possible. and yet despite the effort we are concerned the housing element isn't setting up the city for success to achieve the goals mandated by the state and adopted by our city. because our affordable housing program is set up to depend on market base strategies it is incredibly vulnerable to be boom and bust cycle of the market economy. we do not see a real plan in place to achieve the 46 thousand units of below market rate housing especially the deeply affordable housing inclusionary units are not able to deliver. already received developments slowing down due to high cost of land financing and material

input. therefore we need to rethink the path forward. we urge the planning commission and our city to pivot towards system of social affordable housing that stands on its own two feet that demonstrate our city commitment to satisfy the land dedicate public investment and partner with local communities to scale up affordable housing strategies. the mayor will be submitted city wide budget proposal in february. will the budget signal the milestone moment we are in? will it demonstrate the city will commit to public investment to insure we are on track year to year to implement a bold affordable housing pipeline? we seek circuit breaker policy such as 815 and 818 that open the flood gates to developers. >> thank you sir, that is your time. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon. my name is eric (inaudible) coalition of cultural district and race equity planning coalition. the rep coalition appreciate the hard work of planning staff to incorporate recommendations to the housing element draft. the loss of african americans from the bayview, latinos from the mission and filipinos from soma (inaudible) so much worse and critical levels if civilization (inaudible) communities of color. impacts will be dire if not increase in permanent (inaudible) best for them the culture and future. we have lived experience. having others speak (inaudible) continue the harm of the path of (inaudible) modern twist on housing for everyone. rep request the planning commission make the revision tuesday the

housing element to make sure it is in compliance with the legal obligation to further fair housing and stated objectives to center the housing element on racial and social equity. thank you for your time. >> thank you. okay last call for public comment. in the chambers come forward. calling in remotely press star 3 or raise your hand via webex. >> good afternoon president tanner and commissioners. (inaudible) economic development agency and member of the race equity all planning coalition. i want to start thanking the planning team for their hard work during the long journey. (inaudible) and

working with hcd to insure this document started to grow recently and prioritize communities of color in accordance with law and status will be closely man tained. i want to start by recognizing first significant improvements thin area of racial equity and fair housing and mention a few significant concerns we still have. we have seen a number of great improvements which i do want to note. including maintaining existing affordable housing fees until there is further studied. increase commitment to affordable housing and preservation including affordable housing circuit breaker provision. addition of elements of the equity len centered in collaboration with communities such as potential removal of cu and cultural district and potential for removal of the central freeway. expansion of asfh provisions including build ings (inaudible) antidisplacement it to the market rate

housing circuit breaker and monitoring program and finally recognition areas of displacement need to have special placekeeping provisions. two areas that we want to mention here are noted earlier in the december 14 letter. we love clarification about how non vacant sites applying to 50 percent or more of our affordable rena requirements will work and most notably the concern that mentioned by others 8.1.5 and removal of additional constraints for housing projects does not appear to have the same lenss and equity provisions as the rest of the document and we like to hear some clarification around whether those lens apply here. thank you for your attention to these equity and fair housing issues and look forward to collaborating further as we go into the critical implementation and

monitoring phases. thank you. >> hello, my name is john schwartz. i live in central market. (inaudible) because of loss of local control developers propose 15 projects totaling 4500 new units more then 800 affordable for low income households. if san francisco is out of compliance in housing builders propose project of the same rate san francisco will have about 45 thousand units of housing proposed including 8 thousand units of affordable housing in one year. this is much higher then the current rate. i encourage you to remove the introduced circuit breaker

language so (inaudible) san francisco non compliant (inaudible) i believe this is the best path forward to create the howing needed for hue future of san francisco and think the planning department staff the planning commission and the members of the coalition for making this drastic increase in housing construction possible in the future. thank you. >> final last call for public comment. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and the housing element update is before you. >> thank you. i want to thank everyone who has come in or called in whether today in the past or participated in the focus group or survey to give input to the housing element and staff and hcd staff who have been giving

consisten feedback despite going through illness and challenges and are want to call out (inaudible) have been key so thank for their work and helping us get to this point. our last hearing and unless we have the hearing in january or later if changes are requested. the last that will be with us 8 years. i want to start with a few opening comments and then i have a couple questions that i will ask staff as well as proposing some adjustment to some language before us primarily tweaks to the staff memo and language there to hopefully if other commission agrees get the language a little tighter in terms of making sure we respond to hcd in a way they hopefully cannot question and maintain our compliance for the housing element. ypt i want to pick up

around the tensionprint in the housing element and it is significant. holding intention goals we want to pursue equity that we want to raise money and capacity build 46 thousand below market rate housing units at a variety income levels and all below market. lift up and give power to the cull clrl districts. focus on developing housing in areas with high resources that folks living in neighborhoods that are well resourced and at the same time inherent challenges that can come into play trying to pursue all the goals at once and trying to again be in a area-in a place where housing is not a right. we want that to be a case and want everyone to have housing and housing is a commodity. many dont think as a home as a commodity and think about the stability they bring and foundation for our lives and heth and foundation for community. i want to respond to comments.

while there is attention i think there is a way to live in the tension. streamlining doesn't mean there is no community voice and democracy is out the window. there is process for notifications to happen and action taken. moving efficiently doesn't mean there isn't input into long range plans how to shape neighborhood and how we want the city to look and function and buildsing market rate housing 9 percent of the city housing was affordable so most people in san francisco live in market rate housing. it is fact where we are and (inaudible) building more market rate housing doesn't eliminate our need or capacity or desire to build half the housing in this element is supposed to be below market rate though that doesn't eliminate the state mandate to do that and need and desire and hopefully our can do spirit to pursue that very very ambitious goal and really realize it in the next 8 years. the

last thing i want to say before turning to questions, this is a start. i think several callers stated that. this is the beginning and it feels the end and finally, staff know it is a long ambitious list of programs shepherd at the commission and also other agencies and for the entire city and so there are in particular 8.1.5 and other provisions have been seen as maybe this is taking away our voice but all most all of those are analysis or studies that require further legislative action so if analysis performed doesn't trigger a certain legislative action there is a input dialogue discussion democratic process so saying we perform analysis and this is the (inaudible) does not mean there is automatic trigger that this certain law kicks at a certain point. this is general plan

element. it does not legislative action in terms of the way that change inclusionary is specific to legislative action. the housing element doesn't do just by virtue of the commission passing and hopefully the board giving thumbs up. with that said i want to start somewhat in the order of going through the element starting at the beginning and going down. one thing that would help mr. pappas if you can explain the non vacant sites analysis. that where it gets in the weeds for many. my understanding is generally our city is built out-if it isn't vacant what gives us the belief that during the cycle for some reason the use will cease and the person will decide to have that become housing instead of having that property maintained the use that is there. can you talk what non vacant site is? >> yes. thank you

>> the state uses a tight definition-even parking lot-anything with improvalment on the site is considered non vacant site, so clearly in san francisco the all most all of the sites that we are considering for the housing element site inventory were non vacant so we were pushed into that situation where 50 percent of the sites that are designated low income are not vacant. it is requirement that has been on the books for a number of years that we must adopt findings that are non vacant sites. we believe non vacant sites based off substantial evidence that we are designating low income will have a likelihood to be redeveloped as

housing during the planning period and as we've discussed in prior presentations, we did a number of things to try to assess the sites included in the site inventory for likelihood of redevelopment that include the model that we created of based off past development as well as the assessment of the pipeline adjustment based of past pipeline and research on development agreements those make up the bulk of the sites so the findings statement is we believe that the analysis in the sites inventory is well substantiated and that is what those findings in relation to non vacant sites refer to. >> thank you very much for explaining that. and then i wanted to-possibly stay there because i have a few comments. apology in advance for that. this was not necessarily in the memo you all prepared

for us yesterday and today, but we talk a bit about prop i incorporated into the implementing action and couldn't find where prop i referenced or property transfer tax so i want to make sure woo we have a place where we reference property transfer tax is general fund revenue that could be allocated for affordable housing so perhaps 1.1.2 could be a place to add the reference if the rest of the commission agrees. does that sound alright or maybe you are able to find it in a different place? >> not sure. i know 1.1.2 was updated to reference regular general fund allocations and of course prop i is a funding source for the general fund. but i think an explicit reference to including regular general fund allocations for example or such as from prop i could make sense there. >> yeah, partly ypt to make sure when it gets

to the board we talk about wanting to incorporate that and want to make sure it clear they can see that we are saying such as the property transfer tax. that's one suggested change. the other is looking at 1.2.6 which is in the memo the version in the memo that we have in front of us. the last bullet point there it says the city target 500 to 2,000 units in the planning period and i want to make sure because this is public land process and some public lands are mixed income housing development that is 500 to 2,000 below market rate units. there may be more units on the sites then that but of them we have at least that and hcd asked for metdric and also believe in the letter said-take a minute to find it. they wanted

to is a numerical goal and something else which i can't find. numerical objective and affordability. this is on the hcd letter page 3 second paragraph. this is schedule of actions and numerical objective by affordable and don't see by affordability connected to this objectbive. >> that is the intent we maximize-local policy is maximize affordable housing. >> certainly understand, want to make sure it is crystal clear we read their letter and know objective here is 500-2000 affordable units because they could have additional market rate unit component as part of them which is fine.

that's the second suggested change. the other looking at 1.3.3, so, with this one i think that i really-one thing that i share concern with with many of the correspondence is how we may be indicating we put inclusionary housing program at risk which is not a goal i would share as part of streamlining or reducing constraints. modifying adjusting evaluating are program but certainly not eliminating it. i understand and welcome the revision here to say assess inclusionary tier. i think that is great. but the last sentence i think is not clearly expressing the specific of wlaut we like to do. currently reads, changes to inclusionary tier and requirements must improve or maintain the current affords bltd of inclusionary units and retain or

expand the number of units including consideration to rent perchts price and hoa fees and i think language here just not as precise we need. particularly use of the word current. that is relative term. affordable of inclusionary units is indicating the cost to build and operate the units instead of affordsability to the house occupying the units. the goal is to say we are going to assess the changes we can make but put guardrail on the changing made based on the assessment. the language i propose is changes to inclusionary tier and requirement must improve or maintain feasibility of constructing operating inclusionary housing units. changes to inclusionary tiers and requirements must retain or expand the fraction of units including with consideration to rents purchase prices and

hoa fees. inclusionary isn't a number , it is portion of the buildsing not aisk sp number you need to build so i hope this is clearer in what we are talking about so that it can be clear what kind of guardrails i see as to put on the changes. i can also e-mail this if it is more helpful but again or repeat it if that helpful. >> i think we are recording. >> okay. awesome. if staff are recording need help please let me know and i can repeat it. i know i talk fast sometimes. >> (inaudible) >> commissioner diamond you need to turn your mic on. >> if you want to adopt those changes now we need to have the exact language in front of us so somebody needs to be recording it now. >> i think what they were saying is someone is typing now. is that what is happening? >> (inaudible) >> great. >> we got the planning colleagues in the corner. >> they will type that up and somehow see it. >> would you mind

repeating the second edit? >> i do not mind. i just need to find my other window. the edit, thes is new version of them. changes to inclusionary tiers and requirement must improve ear maintain feasibility of constructing operating inclusionary housing units. changes to inclusionary tiers and requirement must retain or expand the fraction of units required probably should say including with consideration to rents purchase prices and hoa fees. that what happens if you edit overnight. that's the recommended change. i will go through a few more and then i will turn it over. i see commissioner imperial's hands. the other language is 7.1.1 which again was not in the letter so it is in the implementing action but not in the staff

letter. what i am concerned about here is hcd has a suggestion that we would-this is on their letter page 3. this is sites inventory mid-term evaluation under that topic and the middle of the paragraph and it says for these reasons the city should pursue the most aggressive rezoning scenario as part of adoption and implement the aka circuit breaker with hcd and hcd approval. i see we added hcd approval in the legislation that refers to the "circuit breaker" but for the rezoning scenario i like to add language that does suggest the city would consider and kind of not commitment us to because we have to go through the process but considering the most aggressive rezoning. i want to make sure hcd is seeing the language they are asking for in our housing element.

the suggested add to 7.1.1 would be when implementing this action the city should prur sue the most aggressive rezoning scenario possible. when implementing the action the city should pursue the most aggressive rezoning scenario possible. any comments or feedback? looks like youp want to come forward. >> planning staff. i want to clarify when this is referring to scenario, there are scenarios that are in the document but they are hypothetical examples and not meant to be scenarios we would-not proposals ready for adoption. we would seek to work with public and commission over the next year plus to craft some combination of all these elements that more then meets our requirement. it is a little-(inaudible) what most aggressive

scenario means, but just so you know there is already language in 7.1.1 that says seek to exceed the minimum number in there which is--maybe strengthening that sentence. >> that would be acceptable. i want to make sure we are responsible in insway to that idea that-again, welcome maybe not saying scenario but the most aggressive rezoning path possible and path is yet to be determined because it hasn't been-put forward scenarios but the proposal that would be approved hasn't been hammered out so maybe when implementing the action city pursue the most aggressive rezoning path. >> or rezoning that maximize housing capacity. >> that sounds better. great. yeah. i love that. that is great. maximizing to extent possible. >> if you questions from us as you go along? >> that would be great. try to keep it on this one so it isn't going too far away. if there are questions on this one

or previous i have gone over maybe we can do that. do you mind putting your hand on commissioner imperial but i'll come to you first. it is okay, you are just on my speaker queue so i'll call on commissioner diamond because think she has response to this. >> i'm strug gling with that. not concept wale but because i don't think we know what it means. we could rezone the entire western side. >> please turn on your mic. >> it is on. can you hear me? >> the most aggressive possible could be something that is 20 times graimer then what we have at the moment. we haven't done ceqa review. i am very concerned about language that is that ambick e big ws because i don't think that provides parameters and so i think we need more definition if you want to change it as opposed to saying the most aggressive possible and maybe staff could give- >> i think it has to be under ceqa

analysis. not suggesting we perform additional ceqa analysis or have a plan outside the parameters what we already studied. >> i also believe we yet to hold hearings with the west side on any of that and that it is-we are committed to certain numbers. we got rena goals. we are going above and beyond the rena goals with 115 percent. i'm not sure that using the language the most aggressive possible is something that is feasible or implementable or specific that it gives us and the board of supervisors action and i wonder if it comes in conflict with other policies in there. maybe it works but i don't know without reexamining everything i will be reluctant to include that language now. >> one suggestion could be we call out in 7.1.1 the 36 thousand units which

is what we committed to with hcd and 15 percent buffer. if you want to exceed that amount which the scenarios that are contemplated in the eir do, perhaps set an amount you like to exceed that 36 thousand by. 40 thousand. >> i'm not sure i--we could say amount but that seems more arbitrary. i am just focused on what they is said in the letter and one thing i did not see as a change was any change that suggested we would do what they are saying which is we should pursue the most agreshive rezoning scenario. i don'ts know how they read should but read it as pretty important. i think it is more to me like a suggestion that the direction we are going to trying to maximize the amount of rezoning that we contemplated and so there is a floor the 36, i dont know i need

to set a ceiling because i don't think we would know what that is beyond i guess what we contemplated in the analysis to be ceqa. maybe i shouldn't be concerned but concerned we haven't addressed the sentence. (inaudible) if you feel we addressed it sufficiently, but i'm concerned. >>eme polk just bringing up the language and we interest trying to coordinate on the logistics how we record the suggested changes. i think our sense yesterday when we spoke with hcd that we assured them we would be exceeding the short-fall. fundamentally it is important to remember the rezoning in 7.1.1 is triggered by short-fall in capacity. it has a specific number we are trying to achieve. it is now 36 thousand,

units. what we assured is we would exceed that amount and the analysis that mr. (inaudible) has done shows we can do that through the various rezoning scenarios. just trying to think of what would be the appropriate language to answer what-they did not necessarily insist we needed to use the word most aggressive or maximum amount however they wanted us to exceed that minimum. >> okay. i perhaps maybe there is a question--if staff are comfortable that we have met this sentence that they stated that we are pursuing that and then i just don't want it to get to a point they say you didn't put that in there so not compliant and i don't know if that is the sense you got or they are using the sentence as we want you to do this and therefore do these

other things. i just donts think anything they have written in here lightly so want to make sure. >> do you know in your conversations with hcd, do they want more changes in response to that language or are they happy with the language? >> our understanding is they reached a place they are comfortable with yesterday afternoon. >> yeah, no disrespect to the two staff who reviewed it. they have bosses which i believe did not review with you so where i get concerned. it is fine until somebody else reads it and--ile stop on that one if there is no other support but i want-i'm concerned we haven't responded to that sentence hcd put in the letter. we can take it up later or maybe there will be more suggestions as we continue our conversation. >> (inaudible) >> yes, go ahead commissioner moore. >> i would greatly appreciate if we don'ts fall pray to

adding a word. i am interested that our intentions as mr. pappas described are more in line of what the real issues are rather (inaudible) obey and do et cetera, but i would like to keep our language free of these emotionally charged words like aggressive. >> that's a good suggestion. certainly. >> (inaudible) is online. she was at the meeting and requested by text to raise her hand. >> great. thank you. mrs. chan. >> good afternoon. (inaudible) planning department staff. i just want to confirm what has been discussed at hcd was satisfied with the language in the packet however if you want to add additional language instead of using the most aggressive scenario,

we can indicate-give me a second to find the language: we can inticate implementing this action the city should pursue rezoning that increases housing capacity to the maximum extent possible. by possible it will mean possible according to our environmental review, possible according to the community process and rezoning program that we will be implementing. >> i wb amenable to that again if other commissioners deem it so and perhaps through the recording process we will take a look at each of the things and i see other folks shaking their head but it can be rejected. i will just move on to the next few points. i think i have a couple more. 8.1.5, so hcd gives a choice, this is sticking also with that same next

sentence the feedback. they say under letter b we should revise the additional rezoning program beyond 115 percent of the projected short fall 2 times or affirmatively increase acapacity and reduce restraints based on analysis of constraints. i think we kept the 115 but increase capacity and reduce constraints. is that correct? >> yes. that is our understanding of the approach. >> they were satisfied with that? yes, comfortable with it. >> great. for 8.1.6 in the memo we have, one thing that i kind of realized through the conversations i had with community groups and through the correspondence is part of the concerns that are raised and i also have are really what is a government constraint. i really appreciate this sentence about saying

government constraint is city imposed requirement that increase cost of development not in effect january 1, 2023 and not including-that goes a long way to (inaudible) what i would ask in addition ask that we partly because some groups and advocates see #2c3wu6789 constraints as fees and specific dollar amounts that development has to pay to be built here impact fees inclusionary phrones or other fees and i think the way that we see constraints and evidence in the chapter on constraints is it can be designed so the way we require your building to be configureed. a procedural constraints just read the article in the chronicle about the time for building permit and planning review. those are procedural. they have cost impact that can and should be measureed in 8.1.8 but not just about the actual fees-part the

reason i think it is important to add government constraints is because i don't want 8.1.8 but just getting rid of fees, it is improving the development process whether process constraints whether it is how our design guidelines are impacting things and that pro forma analysis should thake into account some of those with a quantitative impact if your permit takes 800 days to get versus 180 you can measure that in the dollar impact on the development. it is a further refinement to the definition of governmental constraints or expanding on the aspects of that. any commissioners challenge by that? going to be procedural design or financial constraints. such as. not limited to those but making sure it isn't read just one way. the last one is

8.1.10. the second bullet, 5 percent more affordable housing units and 50 percent more then when? or what? increase to accommodate 50 percent more affordable housing units, 50 percent more then the land bajing strategy accommodate today or what is it more then? >> i believe it would be because 8.1.10 is meant also as the (inaudible) cycle. part of that mid-cycle assessment of where we are at and focus on resources and approach to provide affordable housing. i think we would be looking at what is our production been and the idea we would trigger at a minimum 50 percent increase. >> got it. that makes sense. i think that's-double check so i don't give false hope but think those are all the changes i

wanted to look at. the last thing i will say is i i know these changes are coming in some ways late at the same time advocated for the past couple months so the language may be new but saw some last week and revisions this week so thank the community oreckzs respondsed quickly overnight to the legislation or proposed language and i do know it is a little can feel like last minute for example it feels they have been asking for this a while and finally seeing in prints. with that i will close my comments. thank you mr. pappas, thank you (inaudible) and will turn it over to commissioner imperial. >> thank you president tanner. first of all, i just want to start this off on how much of the work that the planning department has done and also in

terms of the kind of community engagement as well as the conversations having for the last couple years around this. this is not an easy effort. it is really-there is a lot of good things about the housing element, and this is the first housing element that inrorpicate affordable housing strategy, tenant protection, community planning, environmental justice. there are so many good aspects of the housing element that as part of the commission i'm proud of. on the other hand, of course there are still in a way i would say perhaps out of control that i would like to also address and also have questions and especially in the rezoning program that will effect or will i feel need clarification

regarding 8.1.5 as this is more of a circuit breaker language that is interpreting it. how is this going through-how is hcd-because the department has been having conversation with hcd in terms of this language adding this on, but at the same time we are also as the department planning for rezoning program that will involve community engagement process and so this is my question 8.1.5 is when-if those amount of units are not met and the city enact and implement additional rezoning program how is that going to be defined? can you tell me if hcd trying to give us a prescription or if it is up to the city or how is the city going to respond to the

rezoning program if the units are not met? >> just to be clear, this rezoning program the potential rezoning program undrp 8.1.5 would happen after the rezoning under 7.1.1. which we just talked about. we likely or hoping it would be aggressive and exceed the 34 thousand unit requirement that we call out in 7.1.1. so, only after that is in effect could 8.1.5 be effective. if that rezoning program is effective and far exceeds the 36 thousand there may be no reason-two things that can happen where 8.1.5 wouldn't come into effect. one we are building at a pace that we committed to for the pipeline

project so get the pipeline units permitted, 25 thousand pipeline permits, there is no then necessity to look at rezoning or additional constraints reduction. and if we don'ts we would look at the rezoning we already did to see the capacity built into that. if there isn't enough capacity it would be the city that would undertake the additional potential rezoning under 8.1.5. hcd asked to be uvvaed involved and part of the approval process which we are fine with in going through this analysis if we had to but ultimately you and the board of supervisors would need to propose or approve or rezoning. >> my follow-up question, because

again we prioritize the building of affordable housing first. i want emphasize and be grounded on that. the 29.o49 units is not defined it is only units. this is kind of like anxiety that the pipeline that are 29.049 units are more likely market rate then affordable housing and so that's also the clarification and also the understanding from hcd that it will be those affordable housing units that will be built. >> i think that is recognizing that in the third bullet at the end of that section that when we look at kind of where we are deficient in housing we look by income groups. if we over-produced market rate in the 29 thousand or rezoning,

this would compel to do pore on the affordable size. >> (inaudible) 8.1.10. >> and the third bullet in 8.1.5 shall consider progress and implement strategy meeting rena goals by income group and (inaudible) including strategies under 8.10 so 8.10 would kick in as 8.1.5 but more of a focus on affordable housing in those income categories. that was--request made by by rep and community and also by hcd that we look at that when we do the rezoning and not blind to that market rate versus affordable housing that is being built. >> another question or maybe something-i realize that as i'm

going through during the weekday and tuesday and last night again, i realize that the committee planning section which i thrink probably we have overlooked and i-but i understand too that in terms of the community planning i think this section number i think that is number 4 -section 4. >> 4.2. >> and this is going to perhaps i think what i'm trying to achieve around this community planning areas is that yes it does-i applaud again the planning department incorporating in terms of developing strategies i think-i'm going

to--4.1.something. 4.2.1 to 4.2.11. but i do not see anything or maybe something that needs to be highlighted to me in terms of community engagement strategy and metric around rezoning. sorry. >> community engagement maybe in 7.1.1 which- >> it is more 4.1 community action. maybe i just overlooked it but if someone from staff can highlight to me if there are any wordings about community engagement strategies. there is the racial social equity competency by the planning department staff, but nothing that i have seen so far in terms of the rezoning what kind of community engagement strategies as we are trying to consider that for budgeting

next year. >> james pappas, planning staff. there is a couple things. i think there is broadly in program 4.2 on community planning, there's a broad increase of efforts on inclusive outreach and engagement that would apply to 7.1.1. but there is also a heavy focus on priority equity geoffries and how we plan working with those communities and the rezoning is heavily focused on well resourced neighborhoods. it is a both and. there is absolutely from the first action which focuses on developing implementing community engagement strat saejs that centerrentially and social equity and competency so that apply to how we do the work in 7.1.1 as the other similar actions

throughout that program. and then there are some specific actions within this program that relate to how we specifically do work in communities like our priority equity geographies disproportionately communities of color or low income. >> okay, so there is that language. it is 7.1.1 is that what you are saying? >> they work together, but it is certainly-i think it mentions- >> okay, i see it. 7.1.2. staff allocation with planning to engage with communities. okay, i think what triggers me is around the 8.1.5 in terms of the if those units are not met then-what i'm

try toog clarify from hcd is if the units are not met and trying to seek for aggressive rezoning for us in the planning department that would need a community engagement process, so and that is something that also not in 8.1.5 it only says consider outreach. these-8.1.5 how would that relate to other actions that we have in the planning that we have been discussing all along. >> we would utilize the same community engagement plans that we are doing under 4 and 7.1.1 for any potential rezoning in 8.1.5. there isn't a automatic trigger of rezoning. we got to look and come up with-just to take a

step back, this came from hcd concern that we were over relying on the pipeline, so we talked to them a lot about that. we reduced reliance on the pipeline and increased our plan rezoning on 7.1.1 but there st. still concern from hcd we were overlying on the pipeline and they are skeptical the pipeline projects will happen so theypt to make sure to meet the rena goals we under take additional rezoning. it would be the same concept as rezoning in 7.1.1 with community engagement focused on well resource neighborhood to get to those numbers. >> thank you director. and one last question-sorry. (inaudible) in the website in the planning department

website we have this site inventory list. what does that mean? sf site inventory list. are these saying these--yes they are (inaudible) residential-saying it is up for rezoning or is this up for-yeah. it is a form required by hcd. >> there are addresses and not sure if it means vacant not vacant. can you clarify that? >> there is two required tables, one is for the site inventory itself and the second is for the rezoning program. just to deal with the rezoning program again as mr. swiftky referred to,ic the rezoning program is illustrative so we included parcels that were part of the analysis to identify how we could reach the

rezoning numbers that we needed to to meet the shortfall, but none of those parcels are specifically going to be rezoned exactly as how they include in those 3 scenarios. that rezoning will be determined in the community process that follows adaungz of the housing element. going back to site inventory, as we mentioned a few times we use a model to assess likelihood of development in the future and given these very specific requirements that are in place to analyze the likeliness and capacity of development on sites that we include in the site inventory, which hcd has language saying we would check lease expirations or individual owners plans to vacate or redevelop a site things not feasible given the scale of our rena, we did this

analysis using regression based model and applied to any residentially zoned parcel in the city. and so what you get is pretty much every residentially zoned parcel in the city included in the list but you notice the number of units counted on most of those parcels is extremely small because there is very little likelihood of any development happening, and that our way of meeting that requirement to provide a likelihood of development. that is what you are seeing in the list is all most every residential parcel in the city. >> one more thing. that is probability of development so that number is not meant to be looked at the parcel level but as a macro level. when you add the parcels how much housing we can get out of san francisco. it is nench never meant to be lookedt a parcel level it is meant to be as city wide level.

that make sense? >> that makes sense. okay. yes, a lot to digest still for me and i appreciate the changes and this is-i'm not going to-tries to compromise everyone perspective, everyone's-every aspect of how we should continue with the city or how the city should be built and so this i find this a very hard task for the planning department and us in the commission on how to grapple with this and but i do want to like what precedent tanner mentioned this is not the end of the process. there is still-this is just there beginning of the process and that--it

is going to take a lot of resources for the planning department and that's what i'm nervous about is resource that it will take implementation part of it. the goal of the housing element in it self is to create this policy standard for us to go over into a direction. idants think that is something i can support. i think this is something i think the planning department has actually and staff has looked over and--i am-at the end of the day my-i do have frist frustrations with hcd, not going to lie with that and i think with the inclusion of other sections of

8.1.5 and 8.1-those are things we are trying to comply and compromise with hcd and so there is a egg and chicken thing if you don't comply we don't get the funding we need, so that's also a hard-something to hard to wrestle around but accept what it is. thank you. >> i can appreciate that challenge. it is very real. commissioner moore. >> (inaudible) this is most unusual and challenging piece of work i have seen in my entire time sitting on this commission and what is remarkable is engagement, the ability to be open and engage with the community (inaudible) and deepening of the quality of what is in front of us and again

there (inaudible) i appreciate president tanner's specific questions and i think she received details back-feedback from some commissioners-commissio ner(inaudible) very deep unease about actions 815-818 and listening very carefully of discussion that happened in the last 10, 15, 30 minutes. i would like to ask whether or not we can broaden the language under 8.15 in order to

eliminate the uncertainty which the community still reacts to this verbiage? director hillis, made a number of important comments but instead of (inaudible) if that could be done i would feel comfortable to support what is in front of us without

that being done i remain very anxious and share the community concern about the potential consequence of what this could be. >> thank you commissioner moore. did you want to respond to commissioner moore's question? >> there could be a direct way to address the (inaudible) commissioner moore and commissioner imperial raise. there is (inaudible) hcd and planning department staff have recently addressed the equity concerns. there is a bullet that says consider outreach that could be revised to say consider-shall consider community engagement, which will insure that they pull

in staff, director hillis explained this process. >> i appreciate your supportive comment. that particular engagement be timed like community engagement sometimes means (inaudible) folks come by and listen to what we have already done or does that really mean that from the very onset this will be a long and arduous study to run parallel to what else is happening that there would be engagement from the very beginning and not months later in the casual way but which we normally engage the community. >> we can also indicate shall consider community engagement as per section 4.2 which specified under a number of actions the qualities of the community planning. >> commissioner moore, if i may want to hear from commissioner-make

sure i track what she is saying. are you saying add a bullet that says shall consider or shall perform community engagement instead of outreach? >> in that bullet instead of starting with consider, we'll start with the word shall. it will say shall consider and replace the word outreach with community engagement as implementing programs 4.2, which spells out the qualities of robust and substantial community planning program. >> okay, did you capture that? shall consider engagement per section 4.2 with areas that may be and the rest of the sentence. >> yes, i understand-i hear that and can

accept that given there is enough reference to what technique. just to rephrase my question, this would be-what i am hearing is you would be committing from the beginning engagement not at the (inaudible) in the future? >> that's correct. i think that is spelled out-there are other actions that you have done indicated at the last hearing that the engagement and the collaboration start january 31 of next year. >> okay. and we would have sufficient resources identified including planning for the commission to consider in the next coming months to substantiate (inaudible) >> we have language to

aket 17 to allocate staff resources for those activities. >> thank you. i think that was my biggest concerns and nob (inaudible) time. thank you. >> thank you commissioner moore. commissioner diamond. >> question for the city attorney at the beginning commissioner tanner made reference to include language on prop i and the property transfer tax want i wanted to make sure inclusion of the language did not create unintended problems or adverse consequences for us. >> if we deputy city attorney kristen jensen. if we can circle back on-have the commissioner restate what that language was to make sure i caught it. there was a lot of language flying around. >> it would be to in

that-1.1.2 to use such as property transfer tax to indicate type of general fund resources that can be allocated towards affordable housing. yes, such as the property transfer tax. >> i'm looking at today version. let me pull up the right draft. >> it probable the implementing final revision document that i think was part of-part of today's information because it was not in the memo today. >> i think it was last night. >> yeah, last night memo.

>> thank you. my colleague was able to jump to the rescue. unfortunately because you are not talking to one of the city attorneys that deals with our tax code not sure i can give advice on the record. i think this is a item i would be concerned about including today without having a opportunity to look at possible ramifications because i don't want to include a time bomb intoday's amendment that become problematic. this might be an item that should be set aside for the possible addition. i know we are-item c is specifically creating a opportunity for further hearing if there are other changes that are required from hcd comments so it might be worthwhile to put this on the list of things to be considered at that

time if a future hearing is held but can't give advice on the record today. >> that is alright. i think we talked about the specific question a couple times in several hearings so disappointed we haven't had a chance to look at that and see if we can include the language and we had recommendations from board of supervisor and city committee to include such language. >> can we go to mrs. young? we made changes in the language to address and talked to city attorney this is general fund tax and when we can allocate. can you talk about--changes we made related to this request or do you knau off the top of your head? >> those changes are not (inaudible) because they are in the policy. but we can flag those for you in a moment there. there are several

areas where we considered that. we have considered the expansion of the affordable housing budget and that for that you have a specific action. we have included prop i as a policy as a example. this is not instructing the city to allocate this resources for future uses, but in the spirit of what president tanner has indicated, we have several (inaudible) be allocated to our affordable housing tasks. there is one more section that i'll get to you in a moment. we have addressed specific concern and we can figure what is the appropriate language in the next few minutes that we can

include. >> i will say if it is in the policy and hope we can make as the board gets it those members concerned about it see that is changed that is sufficient for me. i wanted to make sure we responded to them. >> i don't have objection to that, i just want to make sure we are not creating a legal problem. >> i don't want to do that either. >> somehow we have to amend it because we put something that creates a tax issue or some other issue we are not aware of. >> deputy city attorney, i would note that the existing language in 1.1.2 is broad enough it doesn't preclude considering those funds, so the language i think you are proposing is specifically consider them, but i don't think that it is precluded in the language as current ly phrased. >> i would agree. just trying to be

response onsive. i want to make sure when they get this we responded to the comments they made and if we did in a policy section and not hereimerapher okay with that and think to your point this is includes that by deaf fission because that is part thof general fund so part of the dish discretion. >> since you raise the point i have been rereading this language from hcd about the for these and other reasons the city pursue the most aggressive rezoning scenario and implement the midterm evaluation and consaltration with hcd. i don'ts knee what that means and so am very reluctant to start including language that says that somewhere in here when i don't know what they were getting at. i don't know if they are saying pursue in conjunction now when we do rezoning or if saying if we get to 815 and midterm

evaluation, do the most aggressive rezoning. i also don't know what is meant by the most aggressive rezoning and anxious about creating language that various groups could come back and say you didn't do what we or judge will interpret as most aggressive rezoning, so we should absolutely be pursuing language and i think it is in here and if not we should say, that says our goal is at minimum the rena numbers and exceed them. but to go further and say the most aggressive rezoning i'm worried about lack of depnition what that means and coming back to haunt us. still struggling with that language unless others or city attorney has anything to say. >> i agree and think i have been persadeed by staff. (inaudible)

>> try harder. if we have the general sense from staff that the language put satisfies them not sure we should go further because the document is not just accomplishing the rena goals but going further then that to 1.1.5 and we should use a combination of rezoning on the west side and removing constraints and trying to protect the priority geography area to accomplish that. and if we don't then there is a 815 trigger that tell us to do more. >> you have further comments commissioner diamond? not seeing anything else. staff, i wanted to come back

to-again, i apologize it is a policy or action before us and just now i was having rereading it yesterday and this morning. the 1.3.3. so, i just want to make sure the second sentence and maybe i'm being nit-picky but because the concern around protecting inclusionary program is so heightened and i share the heightened sensitivity to it this says we do assessment but the changes made it is restricting or guiding how the changes are made. changes must do the following. i don't know what it means and says the changes-if there are changes they must improve maintain the affordable of inclusionary units. what does that mean? >> i think that is a

good question. we need to refine it. >> what do you think we are trying to do? my interpretation of what we were trying to do with the language is trying to say we assess our tiers, look at it, we want to make sure that our requirements are not impeding the (inaudible) we want to reduce staff time needed for it. expertise. make it easier to do our inclusionary program. but we want to do any changes we find must improve maintain the current afford nlt of inclusionary units and don't know if that refers to the nexus or economic analysis done on the inclusionary program or what is that referring to? >> it is another action trat address that that talk about the work being done. this is just addressing (inaudible) the tiers get overly complicated because there are several tiers. it is-then there is different tiers for ownership and rental and state

density bonus comes into play there is additional tiers so we will look to simplify that. tier structure and also overall not impact the overall target of affordability generally in the project. there are other actions that reinforce the tax role to look where the inclusionary rate as far as feasibility but this is just getting at the tiers. if we did restructuring of the tiers overall affordability in a project would remain the same. the general number of units remain the same. if we had 80 percent, 60 percent, hundred percent tiers we can probably go all 80 percent of the number and maintain the same level of affordable on a project and simplify- >> got it. >> the tiers which i will say are complex.

>> i was not suggesting but having more looking to inclusionary tiers. again, it is-i think what director hillis is talking about and correct if i'm wrong is about averaging of affordability in the units or of the buildsing and that include different kinds of inclusionary tiers in the building itself. as of (inaudible) it is mostly very low income to low income and believe that is also with home ownership as well. >> maybe could change- >> home ownership is low income to middle income. >> there may be-imagine we expand the tiers to reach further and perhaps to have to figure- >> that was more legislative process. >> this [multiple speakers] >> partly because

commissioner diamond said about the other not having language in here that gets to a court and they say what does this mean and it means something we are not intending and not sure the language right now addresses it but if folks feel they know what this says i'm okay, i just don't think it says what you described to me. >> maybe changing to average affordable of inclusion units and retain or expand the number of units to get at it broader issue. changes to inclusionary tiers and requirements must approve or maintain average afford bltd och inclusion ary units. >> that- >> expand the number of units. >> i think (inaudible) changes something next current to when this analysis is performed or? maybe changes current to average affordability of inclusionary units. >> saury sorry, we want to be able to show the actions we

are discussing and-if - >> to get it in real time to accurately provide the language. >> that's great. >> so, we can edit as we go hopefully and capture it accurately. thank you sfgovtv for going to the computer. >> i will share 1.1.2 i'm okay withdrawing my suggestion based we are not sherbet the legal analysis and can include in the policy section so thank you for making the slide, but i think we'll leave it as is based on what we know today. i hope the board of supervisors it is in the policy section which is several page

document. >> apologize, technical difficulties. >> that's alright. this is great. this is the last bullet to make sure those are affordable units. the targeted number and asked around income level. commissioner moore, did you want to add in? >> i just chted to say how difficult it is to speak about things without seeing the final verbiage in front of us. making changes all of them by listen to (inaudible) exact phrases being inserted. (inaudible)

under 1.1.5 adding footnotes that reference commitment to public engagement. i want to also make sure that if 8.1.5 becomes necessary based on the assurances made, we sure we are clear on prioritizing affordable housing at that point. >> i think we-i don't know if you can see on your ends the staff created a powerpoint to show the language and go through it it. we will get to the 8.1.5 in a minute. >> (inaudible) because i'm sitting on a small screen and (inaudible) just what i see now 8.1.2 is barely readinable. >> commissioner moore, if you actually hover your cursor over that

screen there is a option to move that to the stage and it will increase the size of it. >> thank you mr. ionin. doing that i see your name. that is the only thing i see. >> the other thing we can do is once we get through all this take a short break to e-mail to you to make sure you can read it at a proper size and come back and take our vote once we are settled. >> that would be very helpful. >> also have a break. 1.1.2, is i withdraw unless anyone else feels strongly about needing to have that included. >> my one question is, do quo know where it is in the document? (inaudible) having trouble finding it so want to make sure it is addressed. >> (inaudible) >> do we know where the prop i reference

is in the policy document if in there? i know that we heard it is in there but having trouble locating it. >> i believe we'll come back somebody in staff can look for it while we go to the next one. >> perhaps add language and reference on policy. >> i note on 1.1.2 this says including regular general fund allocations. including such as real estate transfer tax but it is general fund revenue source. miriam is checking. >> thank you. why don't we go to the next one? revising to make sure it is clear we have numerical and income target as well. any questions or comments on this commissioners? okay.

this is what we were just talking about the tiers program. just trying to make. that is-i maybe misinterpreted. i waents clear of afford nlt of the units for the affordability level of the units which is now what i am understanding versus the cost to rent them or the cost to build them. and so we are talking about the ami group right? >> right. >> i wonder- >> that is my understanding as well in the original regarding the ami level. >> change to inclusionary units and requirements. you had something you said. >> i think if you just change 1.3.3 change current to affordability keep the way it is written you get at the issue you are- >> maintain affordability of inclusionary housing units. >> average

affordability. >> that is what it was average affordability. >> just note the board does have the ability to change the inclusionary rate affordability level targeted and controller is mandate today do a study every 3 year tuesday inform that process. i don'ts know we want to preclude the board from doing that. i dont know we are doing that but think we have to be careful. >> i think changing must to should makes more a suggestion that we like to maintain versus that the board must. we wouldn't to have a policy require general plan amendment because it is inconsistent with the housing element. changing to inclusionary tiers and requirement improve or maintain average affordability of inclusionary housing units. and then i do wundser changing number to fraction because it isn't typically a number, it is proportional system or maybe proportion of

units. should maintain or expand the proportion of units required. >> are ree following along? >> comments or questions? >> i have a question. in the second part where we change to inclusionary tiers and must retain or expand the units required. since we just changed the must to should in the previous sentsance and this since is going to come out from the tac and board of supervisorsdition should that also be a should retain or expand? >> i would agree. >> yeah. >> i think we concur. >> any ort comments on this one? thank

you staff this is really helpful. thes one i think also okay to rest and thank you commissioner diamond for rereading that paragraph many times as well to sigh say to we are not clear what they are referring to when they say aggressive so think we can let it go. >> let it go? >> yes. >> delete that one. >> we can just keep 7.1.1 as it is. and i think commissioner moore commissioner imperial this is addressing concerns you have related to tying the community planning in 4.2 to this action should it be needed. shall consider community engagement in alignment with area 4.2 and areas disproportionately impacted (inaudible)

>> thank you. yes. >> any other comments or questions about this commissioners? >> this is breath of government constraints. this is new sentence added since our last meeting. questions? >> i want to make sure that this language isn't going to preclude the adoption and application at the objective design standard we are aiming to move to. it is a question for you director. >> no. >> okay. thank you.

>> is this- >> got it commissioner. >> i guess my question, this is a very specific list of just three things. have we covered the full range of the constraints categories of constraints identified analysis. i don't remember if we have good coverage this way? >> to that point i suggest what we could do is instead of having it be the city impose requirement of blah blah it is at the new sentence at the end that says government constraint could be relate d to process, fees design or other aspects of city imposed-- >> you can also use the phrase, including but not limited to. >> there we go. >> someone who had been around the podium before. >> i think he has done this before.

>> should we say impact the cost of development? anyhow. that is fine. constraint (inaudible) okay with this one? and thank you for adding that specificity. >> can you back for a second. i think you are missing a comma. the end of design you need a comma. >> absolutely. this would be basically requiring sites

between 22-26 and it isn't enough or sufficient we try to boost that acquisition. 50 percent. above whatever we have acquired. any comments or questions? >> that was the end of the list of revisions. i think that covers everything that we spoke about. >> any other comments we didn't look at that commissioners had? i think that does cover everything. why don't we take-commissioner moore did you have something? >> i wanted to ask (inaudible) 8.1.5.

shouldn't we spell out that we are prioritizing the production of affordable housing in this particular step? i asked for that but don't see it spelled out. i see reference to implementation program and (inaudible) but i do not see that at that point prioritization of affordable housing production. we are only committing to program goals. >> i think director hillis because it would be a analysis performed by affordsability if we are not performingen oaffordable that is where this focus but if we are not performing on all of them it touch all income levels. >> we look at the tiers so where we are producing if over producing or producing more on the market rate level this action

would target affordable. we target where we are not producing. >> (inaudible) basically instilling that (inaudible) if you are under building on (inaudible) >> correct. >> right. >> before we take our break we were going to look where prop i is referenced or property transfer tax was referenced. were we able to identify that? >> yeah, i think we were able to identify it. >> deis it is the plan document if you have it open in section under ajective 4a, the objective is substantially expanding affordable housing for low moderate income house and there is a bullet list of potential funding list at top of

page 47 thrird bullet describe the real estate transfer tax for properties 10 milliondler or higher. >> can you repeat the page? >> page 47. >> objective 4 and goes on to list include- >> page 200 of the packet submitted. (inaudible) >> which version- >> does that satisfy you commissioner braun? you can take a look if you found the page. >> if it is in there i'm satisfied. >> alright. let's take a-10 minute break. if you can send that-the slides to commissioner moore so she can take a look at them and vote oen the 3 actions >> during the break it was pointed to me that

1.3.3 could be a little clearer if it is talking about it tiers and if you look at 1.-the other items immediately above it which is about inclusionary. i wonder if it should say inclusionary tiers instead of requirements because that made me confused. it is about the tiers of affordability that is one aspect of the inclusionary program. to assess inclusionary tiers and strike and requirements to address and it remain the same and changes to inclusionary tiers requirements would be removed. it is in 3 places if this is intended to be about

the tiers. is that in line with your understanding? >> this is about the tiers. you can say tiers requirement but think tiers is clear. 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 address inclusionary. >> that means we should remove the reference to percentage of units required since that is addressed in 1.3.1 and 1.3.2? [multiple speakers] >> the overall percentage might be addressed in the prior-- >> i think actually then what we should do is have it read, just have the second sentence changes to inclusionary tiers improve maintain

a(inaudible) rent i added a second sentence and we can get rid of that. this is about affordability tier? >> can you read that one more time? >> the new language would read, in the first sentence of 1.3.3 it would say assess inclusionary tiers and word and requirements would be struck. >> alright. >> the second sentence say changes to inclusionary tiers and strike and requirements as well should say changes to inclusionary tiers should improve or maintain average affordsability of inclusionary housing units including consideration to rents purchase prices and

hoa fees. >> that seem alright to everyone? okay. with this change then i think we are concluded. did you want to add something? >> yeah. maybe it is already covered but this is where i have a edit. with this assessment and analysis that overall this doesn't become a reduction in the number of units. if director hillis you feel we are addressing that in the other actions-- >> so, would leave in the changes to

inclusionary tiers retain or expand number of units required. you are saying if it is 18 percent it is 18 percent. if we change the tiers it remains 18 percent. you may configure things. we are at 60, 80 and hundred, 18 percent is divided make everything 80 with 18 percent you maintain the tier. i think you can strike requirements again. change to inclusionary changes retain or expand the percentage of units required. >> got it. >> i agree too because 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 they don't reference specifically maintaining the percentage requirement. >> and then if you can strike the word number that would be great. expand the percentage, not number. great. okay.

>> hold on. just to clarify, my understanding what director hillis is required tiers should be maintained so changes tiers-and requirements-i feel we should add that changes-i don't want to change-well, this will be legislative anyway, but changes inclusionary tiers and requirements should retain, because let's state density bonus there-and 5 or 10 percent low income, 5 percent middle income those are requirements of the inclusionary tiers so changes to inclusionary tiers and requirements. >> i think the problem because it is inclusionary tier requirement or broadly

inclusionary requirements and all we are-if you look at 1.3.1 and 3.2 they are addressing the broader inclusionary but this just focuses on tiers. >> changing to inclusionary tiers and their requirements. >> that is fine. >> i think that would be better. >> change it again ms. tong. >> feel i'm in a classroom. >> alright. so, the suggesting and staff maybe we should read our changes back into the record because it is pretty significant moment we are in and making changes on the fly and then we could have a motion to make the changes or should the changes be read? >> i think they should be read into the record and motion made to reflect those amendments that were read into the record.

>> great. >> could you read them slowly? i printed them out because i came in as powerpoint and want to make sure i catch everything you are saying. >> certainly. you want me to read it or staff read it? >> i'm sorry. >> we can read it. so, for 1.1.2 we decided we will not change this one. we can move on. 1.2.6 we add affordable. the city will target 500-2,000 affordable units in the rhna

planning period and revisit strategies as appropriate. 1.3.3, it will now say, assess inclusionary tiers to address financial feasibility to of housing development to increase (inaudible) housing project inclusionary requirements do fot impede or undermine state density law and reduce staff time and need for specific expertise. changes to inclusionary tiers should improve or maintain average affordability of inclusionary housing units. changes to inclusionary tiers and requiremented retain or expand the percent age of units required including with consideration to rents purchase prices and hoa fees. we decided

we are not changing 7.1.1. and for 8.1.5 we are revising the last bullet to say shall consider community engagement in alignment with implementing program area 4.2 and areas that may be disproportionately impacted with displacement risk beyond priority equity geography. 8.1.6, will say in alignment with provisions and purpose of the housing crisis act of 2019 government code 66300 any city adopted rezoning or development control shall not impose to constraints to developmentf of (inaudible) a new governmental constraint is city imposed requirement including but not

limited to process fees or design that increases the cost of development not in effect january 31, 2023. requirement adopted to specifically protect against a threat to health or safety. and this is last one, 8.1.10. the second bullet we are changing to increase the land banking strategy to accommodate 50 percent more affordable housing units then the capacity of the site acquired from 2022-2026. >> thank you staff. >> thank you very much for tracking all that. >> commissioner koppel. >> thank you to everyone involved. especially our little dream team of

instantly getting our edits up on a presentable format. great job everybody. i got 3 decision to make. i can make them in one motion though? let's do this, i move to adopt ceqa findings, mmrp and general plan consistency findings, also approve the recommendation to adopt housing element 2022 update and amendment to the general plan. as amended. >> one very small correction to the last one that we were looking at. if we could get sfgovtv to put screen up again. so, it says by january 2026 the interagency

housing element implementing committee and at the end it says the period that are looking at is sites acquired from 2022 to 2026 implying it would go through 2026 so do we want to say to beginning of 2026 or through 2025? a period that allow a committee meeting in early 2026 to be responding to the right period of time is what we are trying to correct. >> i don't know the answer to the question but i think the answer is yes. [laughter] >> can you clarify your question is for the interagency housing element implementing committee shall meet january 2025? >> i think suggesting just the change made in the last bullet. to change the time period they are looking at to be

through 2025. and therefore they meet in 2026 and look at what happened over the preceding 4 years. >> that is sensible. >> understood. >> i think that is what commissioner koppel meant when he ampd mended rchlt >> hundred percent. three, approve the initiation to make further amendments to the general plan. >> second. >> if no further deliberation, i think we landed on a motion that would adopt ceqa findings and mitigation monitoring and reporting program, adopt a resolution adopting the housing element 2022 update as amended and read into the record by staff and conforming general plan amendments. and then initiating possible amendments in the future. on that

motion- >> before we vote, i want to-before we vote because i want to recognize staff that have put in many cases years into this effort. miriam is online because she is sick today and has a broken leg and kind of got to this point where we are at but james and malena who have been there from beginning (inaudible) not here but started this effort, josh and lisa chin from our city wide division, wade, nep, deborah and liz white, reanna and liz (inaudible) (inaudible) who is not here and shelly (inaudible) and our wonderful city attorney andrea and audrey. >> let's break protocol and give

everyone a round of applause. [applause] >> any other comments? >> no. >> (inaudible) >> on the motion- [roll call] >> so moved commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0. congratulations aeb everyone. [applause] >> this will place under the discretionary review calendar forim 9, case 2022-003765drp. for property at 110 32 avenue. discretionary review that close out the 2022 hearing schedule. >> good evening.

david winslow. the item is public request for discretionary review. to construct third story horizontal addition to 3 story single family dwelling. the dr requester-sanford gar finkal the adjacent neighbor to the north is concerned the proposal will significantly impact light and privacy. the pr posed alternatives are separate the west facing roof deck from northeast facing area with short wall or parapet attached. to condition the northeast portion of the roof as on ocpayable roof deck. three, elil name doors to this portion of the roof and four use glass on the lower

floor new windows. the department has received no letters in support or in opposition to this proposal. staff confirms support for this as it not only complies with the planning code but also residential design guideline articulate building to minimize impact to light and air. the project propose s a 200 square foot rear extension to third story setback 8 feet 4 inches from the property line over existing roof deck. the remaining portion of the northeast roof deck at third floor is minimally visible by proposed addition. new guardraid proposed to be glass with distance between the edge of the deck and rear wall of the requester being approximately 20 feet. adequate to insure access to light. and the deck location and distance do not also seem to pose undo burden therefore staff recommend not taking discretionary review

and approving. thank you. >> thank you. >> dr reest requester. >> thank you commissioners for the opportunity to listen to my request for discretionary review. my name is sandy garfinkal and been in my residents for 49 years, and my connection rear yard connects to the applicants, so the back of my house, my bedroom kitchen dining room is 20-my windows are 20 feet from the north elevation of their house. talking about 3 windows, but

to get in perspective, what i'm talking about is correcting their building application. their building application states that the buildsing application expired and the planning department asked them to do a new application so they referred to the new application referred to the approved permit application numbers--the approved application numbers say replacement of all windows in kind. there 3 windows 20 feet away that face me that are fixed absecure glass. all i'm asking is stay

with these building permits, no changes, nothing extraordinary, just keep the three windows the way they are. they want to change the location or the size that's fine. but, the new application does not say that they were replaced in kind. we have a dilemma. i tried to resolve it with the owners and their architect. i hired a consultant, a frnd of mine to talk to them. she walked through with them. the architect and he seemed receptive and now they shut me down and won't discuss it. so, all i'm asking for is the status quo. the application they referred to says replace the windows in kind. there is 3 windows that face me. that is all i'm asking

for. do you have any questions about anything or-? oh, the planning department mr. winslow said that they don't enforce any private agreements between neighbors. that's fine, but the permit says replace in kind, not anything interaction and reasons why. it is permit says replace in kind. that's all i'm asking is to replace them in kind the three windows. the other stuff they can do what they want. please ask me any questions any reason why not or why. >> you have a minute left and we'll ask questions when we are have our time. thank you. >> very good. product sponsor you have a 5 minute presentation if

you need it. >> good evening. members of the commission, sam call the architect in the represent the project sponsor. this project started maybe 3 years ago before pandemic and it was a permit to add the sularium to the top of the roof and it was approved and due to the covid and everything construction didn't start until beginning of this year. and then there is a neighbor that filed a complaint and inspector came and said your permit is expired so you need to renew this entire permit. basically we resubmitted the same design as we did before and went through the whole process of doing

neighborhood notice and getting a preapp meeting with the neighbors, so we come to planner saying everything is okay accept now our neighbor decide to file a discretionary review saying that he's losing his light and shadow casting on his property, but in the package that i prepared for the commissioners, i have studied the shadow during all times of the year and i think that the planning staff sees that there is really very little impact to [no audio]

>> if you are calling in or online you need to raise your hand or press star 3. seeing no request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed. you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> i don't understand--i asked the architect to discus it. i'm not talking about anything accept 3 windows that the original permit said would be replaced in kind and i did hear him answer that question--was i wrong?

shadows the window-anything else they want to do is fine, but the original permit said replace the windows in kind and they can do anything they want but i think there are 3 windows involved and i want them replaced in kind. he can change the location and change the configuration but i want what's on the permit. that's all. i didn't hear him address any of that. thank you. >> project sponsor you have 2 minute rebuttal. >> members of commission, sam cong. i just want to say that the project sponsor application on the dr was very clear about all the issues that were brought up regarding shadow and privacy and all this.

now he is changing his argument on just windows. why spend a lot of time addressing those issues that he specifically brought up and i think that you are here to make a determination if the requester argument is justified or move on with the project so appreciate your consideration. thank you. >> thank you. mr. winslow i want to make sure i understand correctly. there is renovation to the house. you can see it is substantial. that includes sularium and also includes replacement of additional windows given the look of everything and the dr requester you are saying you replacing windows with absecure windows or not? hearing different things and not sure-i want to make sure

that-maybe ask the sponsor are you replacing the absecure windows or not >> the windows would be replaced whatever was there before, so if it is clear window it is clear window absecure window it is absecure window and we made some concession in our design to eliminate some glass rail balcony that overlooked the neighbor's property, so that he will maintain more privacy. >> i did note that. mr. winslow sounds like for the dr requesting part of the concern the way the building permit described it didn't include the specific language around like for like window replacement even though it sounds that is the intention. am i understanding that right? >> looking at the permit history there was a permit number 2021 that was probably referred to as original permit that

indicated replacement of windows in kind. that might been the permit that was expired before the work was done. you reapplied for a second permit that is 2022-o32911 whatever it is we are talking about here. that might have changed those windows from that original permit which is well within the right of somebody to apply for a new permit so the permit we are talking about is the current one regardless of the 20- >> my question does this permit-in the packet where it says the project response he says will install absecured glass and he said he intends to do like for like but it is just the permit doesn't have the same language, is that what--? >> if i look at the drawing on this permit it appears there is

replacement of windows not in kind and you can clar ify this. i'm looking at sheet- existing windows becoming enlarged. >> let me clarify. the original permit which expired was for the sularium addition only and subsequent to that we took out permits to do interior alterations and then we also took out permit to do the facade renovation and also replacement of all the old windows with new claded windows so it was a new permit that includes this new work with the window replacement. the original permit didn't have window replacement. >> okay. that is part of the confusion. there is multiple

permits and some permits have different items on it the others. i wanted to make sure what we-what we are talking about today. any other comments questions or motions from commissioners on this item? commissioner diamond. >> is there disagreement here? >> it sounds like they are disagreeing it sounds like one of the one permits does not state the windows will be replaced in kind but we just heard testimony that is the plan. >> you want 3 windows that currently have clouded glass or absecured glass replaced with absecured glass, is that your plan? >> architect-didn't catch yourf name if you can respond you intend to replace absecure windows- >> what we intend to do is whatever the glass that is on the

existing windows if it is clear glass we replace with clear fwlass, absecured glass we replace with absecured glass. >> are the windows going in the same place? >> most are in the same location. >> i still not understand what the disagreement is. >> i think it is written for like for like. >> i guess a bigger question, are there exceptional extraordinary instances that make this a dr eligibility action in the first place? i'm not seeing--they privately agree to do this but don't see this as (inaudible) >> privacy and shadow and light were for issues of the dr. is that correct? >> that is correct.

that was the- >> that is reason for the dr. other questions came up and while (inaudible) the dr requested stated he could accept everything else other then clarification on the windows. he shifted the question but question was answered so if we feel there is no issue with shadow or privacy as the department actually opined on then i think we are ready to make a motion which i'm prepared to do and that is, do not take dr and approve as proposed. >> second. >> no more further deliberation there is motion seconded to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. on that motion- [roll call]

so moved commissioners, motion passes 7-0. congratulate on a productive year and look forward to our recess and seeing you in the new year. >> happy new year and happy holiday. we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned]

calling the meeting to order. welcome to the tuesday, december 20, 2022 meeting of the san francisco entertainment commission i'm ben bleiman the president. we'll start with announcements.