Housing Element 2009 Update

2007.1275

76comments

75in person

1emails

8hearings

dashed lines mark hearings · supportopposenot recorded · dot size = comments that day · click a dot to jump to the comment

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 8 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Comments by hearing (76)

expand all · collapse all · comments with recorded text are listed first

2010-01-28 · 4 comments · no positions recorded

Robert Friese · spoken · 2010-01-28 · —

no text recorded

Calvin Welch · spoken · 2010-01-28 · —

no text recorded

Hiroshi Fukuda · spoken · 2010-01-28 · —

no text recorded

Andrew Junius · spoken · 2010-01-28 · —

no text recorded

2010-08-05 · 10 comments · no positions recorded

Calvin Welch · spoken · 2010-08-05 · —

no text recorded

Rose Wilson · spoken · 2010-08-05 · —

no text recorded

Penelope Clark · spoken · 2010-08-05 · —

no text recorded

Peter Cohen · spoken · 2010-08-05 · —

no text recorded

Sarah Karlinsky · spoken · 2010-08-05 · —

no text recorded

Peter Reitz · spoken · 2010-08-05 · —

no text recorded

Noni Richen · spoken · 2010-08-05 · —

no text recorded

Bob Friese · spoken · 2010-08-05 · —

no text recorded

John Schlesinger · spoken · 2010-08-05 · —

no text recorded

John Barbie · spoken · 2010-08-05 · —

no text recorded

2010-10-14 · 6 comments · 0 / 6

Tim Colen · spoken · 2010-10-14 · oppose

SFHAC

Sarah Karlinsky · spoken · 2010-10-14 · oppose

SPUR

Cathy Divenchengcy · spoken · 2010-10-14 · oppose

no text recorded

Rose Wilson · spoken · 2010-10-14 · oppose

no text recorded

Bernie Choden · spoken · 2010-10-14 · oppose

no text recorded

Hiroshi Fukuda · spoken · 2010-10-14 · oppose

no text recorded

2011-02-24 · 10 comments · no positions recorded

Sarah Karlinsky · spoken · 2011-02-24 · —

SPUR

Eric Brooks · spoken · 2011-02-24 · —

SF Green Party

Mark Solomon · spoken · 2011-02-24 · —

no text recorded

Rose Wilson · spoken · 2011-02-24 · —

no text recorded

Linda Chapman · spoken · 2011-02-24 · —

no text recorded

Kathy Devincenzi · spoken · 2011-02-24 · —

no text recorded

Hiroshi Fukuda · spoken · 2011-02-24 · —

no text recorded

Tim Colen · spoken · 2011-02-24 · —

no text recorded

SF Housing Action Coalition · spoken · 2011-02-24 · —

no text recorded

Judy Berkowitz · spoken · 2011-02-24 · —

no text recorded

2011-03-24 · 11 comments · 4 / 7

Tim Colen · spoken · 2011-03-24 · support

SFHAC

Sarah Karlinsky · spoken · 2011-03-24 · support

SPUR

Judy Berkowitz · spoken · 2011-03-24 · oppose

no text recorded

Linda Chapman · spoken · 2011-03-24 · support

no text recorded

Jason Henderson · spoken · 2011-03-24 · support

no text recorded

George Woody · spoken · 2011-03-24 · oppose

no text recorded

Rose Wilson · spoken · 2011-03-24 · oppose

no text recorded

Marc Salomon · spoken · 2011-03-24 · oppose

no text recorded

Bernie Choden · spoken · 2011-03-24 · oppose

no text recorded

Kathy Devincenzi · spoken · 2011-03-24 · oppose

no text recorded

Hiroshi Fukuda · spoken · 2011-03-24 · oppose

no text recorded

2014-01-23 · 26 comments · 3 / 1

Bernie Choden · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Overpriced land, seismic safety, affordable housing, money from overseas

Hiroshi Fukuda · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Data analysis very good, alternative analysis poor for all income levels

Timothy Armour · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Slow down on the plan 30-40 years ago

Reese Titlebaum · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

MUNI

Sherrie Steiner · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

MUNI, continuance Kathlee Courtney –Constituents responsibility, to continue for a minimum of 60 days

Chris Shafer · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Dormitories, MUNI

Robert Gee · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Continue to allow for review

Gene Barrish · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Continue the review

John Bardis · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Constructive notice, continue the hearing

Judy Berkowitz · spoken · 2014-01-23 · oppose

Continue for inadequate notice = Mary Eliza – Where are all the people coming from? Water shortage?

Katherine Howard · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Neighborhood appropriate development with adequate transit

Ted Ross · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Extension of time for review

Carolyn Squary · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

More time, Policy 1.6

Kathelee Rollins · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Speed of process for the document, public transit

Leonard Gregory Scott · spoken · 2014-01-23 · neutral

Request for continuance

Dan Liberthson · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Miraloma Park concerns protect RH-1 zoning

Michael Russum · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Need for transit before development, Park Merced, family flight

Charles Ferguson · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Families disappearing reopen deliberation

Kathy DeVenchenzie · spoken · 2014-01-23 · neutral

Re-circulate and extend comment period

Dave Bishell · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

Live and work here, transportation alternatives

Rose Wilson · spoken · 2014-01-23 · neutral

MUNI incapacity

Paul March Romanowski · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

did not fully understand what portions to comment on, public schools

Alex Romanowski · spoken · 2014-01-23 · support

Support for continuance

Patricia Vaughey · spoken · 2014-01-23 · —

No notice – continuance

Diane Micewhinkle · spoken · 2014-01-23 · support

Provide family oriented amenities

Steven White · spoken · 2014-01-23 · support

Support for continuance transportation

2014-03-27 · 2 comments · no positions recorded

Rose Wilson · spoken · 2014-03-27 · neutral

Concerns over housing

Kathy Devincenzi · spoken · 2014-03-27 · neutral

Set asides before considering the EIR

2014-04-24 · 6 comments · 2 / 1

Judy Berkowitz · spoken · 2014-04-24 · support

Japantown, feasible alternatives + Sarah Karlinsky – 15 member panel, urges certification and adoption

Bernie Choden · spoken · 2014-04-24 · —

State Court of Appeals, programmatic scenarios, alternative analysis

Kathy Devincenzi · spoken · 2014-04-24 · oppose

Alternatives analysis conclusory

Rose Wilson · spoken · 2014-04-24 · —

Alternative language

Robert Gee · spoken · 2014-04-24 · —

Miraloma Park

Karen Breslin · spoken · 2014-04-24 · support

Support for prior speaker

2022-07-28 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Deborah Schneider · email · 2022-07-28 · oppose · source packet

Housing Action Coalition
Dear Planning Commissioners, Attached please find the Housing Action Coalition's letter of appeal and related attachments. Thank you, Deborah -- Deborah Schneider | Pronouns: She/Her Communications Director | Housing Action Coalition 50 Otis Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Office: [phone removed] | Cell: [phone removed] [email removed] | housingactioncoalition.org Affordable Housing Production Act (BOS … Dear Planning Commissioners, Attached please find the Housing Action Coalition's letter of appeal and related attachments. Thank you, Deborah -- Deborah Schneider | Pronouns: She/Her Communications Director | Housing Action Coalition 50 Otis Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Office: [phone removed] | Cell: [phone removed] [email removed] | housingactioncoalition.org Affordable Housing Production Act (BOS File No. 220631-4) <U+2013> Environmental Impacts This table summarizes foreseeable indirect impacts on the environment that may result from the Affordable Housing Production Act (AHPA). Impact Type How It Is Now If AHPA Is Adopted Housing Element EIR Finding Foreseeable Impacts on the Environment Historic Resources Per the Housing Element EIR, impacts to potential and designated historic resources are reviewed on a project-level basis under various regulations, such as CEQA, Planning Code1 Arts. 10 and 11, and Sec. of the Interior Standards. See EIR, p. V.E-47.2 The AHPA makes projects touching designated national, state, and City historic resources ineligible for streamlining. However, projects concerning eligible historic resources, or Cat. III and IV Buildings under Art. 11 will be allowed. Projects will not be evaluated or reviewed for direct or indirect impacts to historic resources. The EIR recognizes the need to preserve historic resources through project-level review. The EIR finds potential impacts would be offset by compliance with preservation regulations. The Housing Element impact to historic resources is found less-than-significant because historic resource is most appropriate at the project level, and future projects would not be exempt from review of impacts to historic resources. Pg. V.E-48-49. The EIR assumed that historic impacts would be reviewed at the project level, and that new development would not be exempt from review. The AHPA creates new impacts because it would exempt projects from historic review that could have direct impacts on certain historic resources or result in indirect historic impacts. Sadow Section 295 requires shadow review for projects over 40 feet. Such projects are prohibited from casting new shadow on Parks and Recreation property unless the Planning Commission finds that the shadow is insignificant or not adverse. Input from Parks and Recreation is required in the review. Shadows are also reviewed during CEQA review. AHPA projects would be ministerial and subject only to objective standards. Planning Commission approval will not be required for the issuance of building permits. AHPA projects will not be subject to Section 295 or CEQA review, meaning shadow impacts will not be reviewed. The EIR states that Shadow impacts will be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; the Housing Element is too general to consider shadow impacts. Pg. V.J-29. It found that parks are <U+201C>shadow-sensitive<U+201D>, and that all open space under Parks and Recreation is protected by Section 295. Pgs. V.J-3 & V.J-6. Impact WS-2 finds that shadow impacts will be less-than-significant because new residential development would be required to comply with Section 295 and other regulations. Pg. V.J-26. The EIR found that shadow impacts would be less-than-significant on the basis that development would undergo shadow review at the project level. The AHPA results in new impacts because AHPA projects will not undergo Section 295 or CEQA shadow review, and shadows may be allowed that would have been previously disapproved. Land Use and Land Use Planning (LULUP) Chapter 35 of the SF Administrative Code regulates new Residential Uses in PDR Districts to ensure compatibility with existing PDR Uses. Chapter 35 is implemented through design review and other approval processes to ensure compatibility and protect residential and industrial uses. AHPA projects are ministerially reviewed and will not be subject to the compatibly requirements of Chapter 35. Design review of AHPA projects can only consider aesthetic aspects, while Chapter 35 is primarily implemented through review of functional design aspects. The EIR provides that new development will not impact existing land uses because development will comply with land use regulations, including Chapter 35. Pg. V.B-50. The EIR finds a less-than-significant impacts with respect to LULUP because compliance with land use regulations, including Chapter 35, will reduce incompatibility between residential and existing land uses. Pg. V.B-50, 59-60. This finding is reiterated in Addendum 1 for the 2014 update. Addendum 1, pp. 12-14. The EIR found that LULUP impacts would be less-than-significant because new development would be subject to land use regulations, including review under Ch. 35 for the compatibility of new residential uses. The AHPA results in new impacts by exempting AHPA project from Ch. 35 review and allowing uses that may not be fully compatible. 2 All page citations are to the 2004 and 2009 San Francisco Housing Element EIR unless otherwise indicated. 1 All Code citations are to the San Francisco Planning Code unless otherwise indicated. Addendum 2 <U+2013> Accessory Dwelling Units: BOS File No. 150365 <U+2013> https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2262375&GUID=E170831A-75A3-434A-A0 DA-A4054CFBEF93&Options=ID|Text|&Search=150365 BOS File No. 150585 <U+2013> https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2329930&GUID=744485A1-9441-4107-AC E5-A572C0B09215&Options=ID|Text|&Search=150585 Addendum 3 <U+2013> Affordable Housing Bonus Programs: BOS File No. 150969 <U+2013> https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2474234&GUID=C3463948-D066-4AA3-B2 7B-8887AE979436&Options=ID|Text|&Search=150969 Addendum 4 <U+2013> Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units: BOS File No. 160252 <U+2013> https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2609799&GUID=CD0C3FE5-2D56-4E5B-8 5CB-505932611161&Options=ID|Text|&Search=160252 BOS File No. 160657 <U+2013> https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2739832&GUID=5B77577A-FDF1-43FA-86 DF-ADACCE135D93&Options=ID|Text|&Search=160657 Addendum 5 <U+2013> NonDiscretionary Review of 100 % Affordable Housing and Teacher Housing Projects: BOS File No. 190437 <U+2013> https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3929687&GUID=01381811-ADD9-47B5-B1 E8-F1DFD2E60167&Options=ID|Text|&Search=190437 Addendum 6 <U+2013> 100% Affordable Housing and Educator Housing Streamlining Program: BOS File No. 200213 <U+2013> https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4345538&GUID=384D2733-9397-4FBF-B5 3F-BDE27FB1B7EA&Options=ID|Text|&Search=200213 Addendum 7 <U+2013> Dwelling Unit Density Exception for Corner Lots in Residential Districts: BOS File No. 210564 <U+2013> https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4960277&GUID=150EFEF3-F0F7-41FF-87 15-A1B40AD515BB&Options=ID|Text|&Search=210564 Addendum 8 <U+2013> Cars to Casas: BOS File No. 211092 <U+2013> https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5191195&GUID=7728F801-B610-4176-8F9 0-F310C83B0BEC&Options=ID|Text|&Search=211092 July 26, 2022 Delivered Via Email President Rachel Tanner Planning Commission [email removed] Re: Appeal Pursuant to Administrative Code Section 31.07 Affordable Housing Production Act <U+2013> BOS File No. 220631 Dear President Tanner & Commissioners: On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition (<U+201C>HAC<U+201D>), a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for building more homes at all levels of affordability, I write to directly appeal the Environmental Review Officer<U+2019>s (<U+201C>ERO<U+201D>) failure to provide notice to the Planning Commission and public before adding to the list of nonphysical and ministerial projects excluded from the California Environmental Quality Act (<U+201C>CEQA<U+201D>). Because the Administrative Code does not specify the appeal procedure or fee, I request that you inform us promptly of any fees or other requirements applicable to this appeal and confirm the hearing date. The Chan/Peskin Measure cannot be put before voters without adequate environmental review. 1. No listed category of nonphysical/ministerial exemption covers the Chan/Peskin Measure. At present, there is no category listed that covers a ballot measure like the Affordable Housing Production Act (<U+201C>Chan/Peskin Measure<U+201D>) put forward by the Board of Supervisors to increase the pace and overall amount of qualified new construction with expedited, ministerial approvals that wipe away many local and state historic and environmental protections, along with the application of any subjective zoning standards. These protections currently apply under the 100% Affordable and Educator Housing Programs. They would not only be eliminated for these two existing programs, but would make eligible a third and potentially larger group of market -rate projects with 8% more affordable housing than otherwise required. By making available to development sites that would be far costlier and time-consuming 2. Due Process, Notice, and Opportunity to be Heard Is Not Subordinate to Administrative Convenience or Political Expedience. The duty to notify the Planning Commission and public before adding to the list is mandatory under San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.07(a): The Environmental Review Officer shall maintain a listing of types of nonphysical and ministerial projects excluded from CEQA. Such listing shall be modified over time as the status of types of projects may change under applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. Any person who may consider any modification to be incorrect may appeal such modification to the Planning Commission within twenty (20) days of the 1 date of the Planning Commission agenda on which notice of such modification was posted. This serves to inform the Planning Commission and provides any member of the public the right to appeal erroneous or overbroad listings to the Planning Commission. Instead of properly noticing a new category that would encompass the Chan/Peskin Measure, the environmental clearance for the Chan/Peskin Measure simply states: Not defined as a project under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378 and 15060(c)(2), because it would not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. (Planning Department Determination dated July 14, 2022, for Board of Supervisors hearing on July 19, 2022.) As we explained in our letter to the Board of Supervisors, these conclusory statements are not supported by evidence and conflict directly with California Supreme Court precedent and the plain language of CEQA. The ERO cannot ignore a mandatory duty to inform the public and eliminate what we understand to be the sole administrative method to challenge overbroad and blatantly erroneous determinations of projects subject to CEQA review. 3. The Chan Peskin Measure Will Have Potentially Significant Impacts Not Previously Described in the Housing Element DEIR or Subsequent Addenda. The classification of the Chan/Peskin Measure as <U+201C>not a project subject to CEQA<U+201D> because <U+201C>it will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the environment<U+201D> is inconsistent with CEQA, dismisses the Chan/Peskin Measure as essentially procedural. As a Board-sponsored ballot measure, controlling law requires the City to consider whether the Chan/Peskin Measure should be reviewed for environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code Secs. 21000 et seq.; <U+201C>CEQA<U+201D>). On June 14, 2022, the Planning Department determined that the Chan/Peskin Measure was not a <U+201C>project<U+201D> under CEQA, and thus not subject to environmental review. By memorandum dated July 21, 2022, the ERO repeated this conclusion and then hedged that bet by concluding that even if the Chan/Peskin Measure were considered a project, the proposed Measure would not require further environmental review. As described in the July 19, 2022, HAC letter to the Board of Supervisors, both conclusions are incorrect under controlling law. Environmental review under CEQA is required, because, among other things, the Chan/Peskin removes barriers to the demolition and adverse alteration of historic resource. The chart attached to this document sets forth some but not necessarily all of the potential new impacts associated with substantive changes in the measure. The approach to the Chan/Peskin measure is strikingly inconsistent with the Planning Department<U+2019>s determination that other programs, for the creation of and subsequent changes to, various discretionary local affordable housing incentive program and other changes in policies, ordinances, and programs adopted pursuant to the 2004 and 2009 Housing Element Final Environmental Impact Report1 (<U+201C>Prior EIR<U+201D>), including: 1 Plan. Department Case No. 2007.1275E 2 A) Addendum 8: Cars to Casas, Board of Supervisors File No. 211092 B) Addendum 7: Dwelling Unit Density Exception for Corner Lots in Residential Districts C) Addendum 6: Amendments to the 100% Affordable Housing and Educator Housing & Educator Streamlining Program D) Addendum 5: Non-Discretionary Review of 100% Affordable Housing and Teacher Housing Projects, Board of Supervisors File No. 190437 E) Addendum 4: Construction of ADUS, Board of Supervisors File Nos. 160252 and 160657 F) Addendum 3: Affordable Housing Bonus Program, Board of Supervisors File No. 150969 G) Addendum 2: Accessory Dwelling Units, Board of Supervisors File No. 150365, 150585 All of the above materials area available on the Planning Department's Environmental Review website and are included by reference as if attached hereto in their entirety, as are the Board of Supervisors files attached to this letter. In each of these cases, the Planning Department determined the proposed ordinances (some of which were not enacted), were projects subject to CEQA, but determined that they were not subject to further environmental review as their impact were adequately covered by the Prior EIR and, prepared an addendum for each one providing substantial evidence for each of its conclusions. For example, Addendum 3 included 43 pages of analysis to demonstrate consistency with the Prior EIR. The Planning Department<U+2019>s assertion that they could have done an addendum is beside the point. A throw-away paragraph is not an addendum. When it is determined that subsequent review is not necessary, a brief explanation should be included in an addendum, the project<U+2019>s findings, or elsewhere in record. (14 CCR 15164(e)). To determine whether subsequent review is required, an agency must make a fact-based evaluation of the relevant factors under Public Resources Code Sec. 21166, including: a. Substantial changes to project which will require major revisions to EIR or Neg. Dec. due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in severity of a previously identified impact. b. Substantial change in circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions to EIR or Neg. Dec. due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in severity of a previously identified impact. c. New information, not available with reasonable diligence, showing unidentified significant impact, previously identified impact that is more severed, or previous mitigations would be infeasible. That has not been done. There is no consideration given to the pending Housing Element Update or the substantive changes identified in our July 19th, some of which would cause potentially significant impacts. Instead, the ERO is treating substantive changes that strip environmental considerations out of decision-making as purely procedural. They are 3 substantive, and as set out in the Attached Chart have the potential to cause significant impacts. The statement that the ordinance does not raise height limits, expand buildable area, or otherwise change zoning controls or affect development capacity is not correct. The Chan/Peskin initiative (a) alters and/or eliminate subjective Planning Code standards that protect broad categories of historic resources, including listed historic buildings in the Planning Code, (b) eliminate current subjective standards that exist to prevent environmental impacts, and (c) create a new category of market-rate housing with increased affordability that falls under these reduced standards. (See Attached Chart.) If zoning changes such as these are no longer considered <U+201C>projects<U+201D> then that is a major change ERO has failed to modify the listing of types of nonphysical and ministerial projects excluded from CEQA, as required by Section 31.07(a), to include the Chan/Peskin Measure and other like measures in this category. As such, the ERO has violated Section 31.07(a). We are not aware of any other provision of the Administrative Code (or the Municipal Code generally) that provides an opportunity to appeal the ERO<U+2019>s CEQA determinations concerning the Chan/Peskin Measure. Please immediately advise us if any other such appeal provision exists. Otherwise, Section 31.07(a) is the only means by which we may file the subject appeal and exercise our procedural due process rights under the California and U.S. Constitutions. We will supplement this appeal letter with additional materials once an appeal hearing date is set. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Corey Smith, Executive Director Housing Action Coalition (HAC) Enclosures cc: Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board Supervisor Connie Chan Supervisor Catherine Stefani Supervisor Aaron Peskin Supervisor Gordon Mar Supervisor Dean Preston Supervisor Matt Dorsey Supervisor Myrna Melgar Supervisor Rafael Mandelman Supervisor Hillary Ronen Supervisor Ahsha Safa 4 Planning Commission Jonas P. Ionin, Director of Commission Affairs 5show more