Housing Element 2022 Update

2019-016230

281comments

191in person

90emails

11hearings

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

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 11 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Campaign emails (41)

support more homes for all in sf's upcoming housing p — 27 emails (27 / 0)

Michael Robbins · email · 2022-01-27 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support more homes for all in SF"s upcoming housing plan
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email in reference to case number 2019-016230CWP. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has tasked San Francisco with writing a Housing Element for the 6th update cycle, illustrating how we will build 82,069 new homes between 2023 and 2031. We will have to more than double San Francisco's yearly housing production to m… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email in reference to case number 2019-016230CWP. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has tasked San Francisco with writing a Housing Element for the 6th update cycle, illustrating how we will build 82,069 new homes between 2023 and 2031. We will have to more than double San Francisco's yearly housing production to meet this target. How do we do that? The answer lies in the Housing Element: the set of goals, objectives, and programs that we write, and which HCD certifies next year. San Francisco's next Housing Element can and should commit to three simple goals: 1. Streamline housing approvals to reduce building costs and make new homes for residents available sooner. 2. Prioritize new housing for high-opportunity neighborhoods on the west side, where low- income and BIPOC communities have historically been excluded. 3. Pursue a social housing program that builds high-quality housing for people of all income levels. Housing Element law requires San Francisco to define quantified objectives, establish programs with timelines, and identity constraints to building housing. We have a lot of work to do<U+2014>San Francisco has some of the worst constraints on building housing in the state. According to a September 2021 report published by UC Berkeley, San Francisco had the highest median approval time for housing projects in the entire state between 2014-2017. Half of all housing projects took more than 26 months to receive approval. To address our housing shortage, we must expedite the process of approving housing, especially subsidized affordable housing. Unfortunately, our current housing approval process allows practically anyone to veto or delay housing projects. San Francisco must establish ministerial approval for housing projects and eliminate discretionary reviews that delay projects for months. San Francisco must also commit to adhering to state housing law, including the Housing Accountability Act, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and the Permit Streamlining Act. State law also requires San Francisco to submit sites to HCD that are capable of supporting the construction of 82,069 new homes. However, an August 2021 research paper published by UCLA Lewis Center shows that for the last seven years San Francisco has built housing on just 7.3% of all the sites we told HCD we would build new homes in our last Housing Element. The site inventory we compile this year must include the probability of development for each parcel, to ensure that we meet the letter of the law and to provide elected officials with enough information to rezone sites as needed. Further, Assembly Bill 686 (Santiago, 2018) requires that San Francisco analyze impediments to fair housing in its next Housing Element. We have plenty of those, too. The 2020 Housing Inventory shows that for the period 2010<U+2013>2020, 89% of all new housing was built in planning districts with the highest BIPOC populations in the city, on the east side. These areas have the worst pollution and overcrowding in SF. We must put a stop to this. In the next housing element, San Francisco must commit to building 50% of new housing in 2031 in high- opportunity neighborhoods which have historically excluded low-income and BIPOC communities. Many of these neighborhoods enjoy access to high quality transit, ample green space, and excellent air quality. Prioritizing these areas for housing supports the city<U+2019>s climate action plan and commitment to environmental justice. Building more housing on the west side will also comply with the state<U+2019>s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing under AB 686. San Francisco can and should also follow the lead of elected officials like California Assemblymember Alex Lee, who is working on a social housing bill (AB 387). The City has the resources to plan and execute on a program to build municipally-owned housing, and to make that housing affordable to people of all income levels in every neighborhood. Prop K, passed in November 2020, explicitly authorized this goal and City leaders should follow through. Now is the time for San Francisco Planning to embrace building housing projects faster, in greater numbers, and in all neighborhoods. We can<U+2014>and must<U+2014>meet our state-mandated obligations and alleviate our decades-long housing shortage and the crises of displacement and affordability. Michael Robbins [email removed] Berkeley, California 94702show more

Brandon Wheelock · email · 2022-01-27 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support more homes for all in SF"s upcoming housing plan
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email in reference to case number 2019-016230CWP. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has tasked San Francisco with writing a Housing Element for the 6th update cycle, illustrating how we will build 82,069 new homes between 2023 and 2031. We will have to more than double San Francisco's yearly housing production to m… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email in reference to case number 2019-016230CWP. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has tasked San Francisco with writing a Housing Element for the 6th update cycle, illustrating how we will build 82,069 new homes between 2023 and 2031. We will have to more than double San Francisco's yearly housing production to meet this target. How do we do that? The answer lies in the Housing Element: the set of goals, objectives, and programs that we write, and which HCD certifies next year. San Francisco's next Housing Element can and should commit to three simple goals: 1. Streamline housing approvals to reduce building costs and make new homes for residents available sooner. 2. Prioritize new housing for high-opportunity neighborhoods on the west side, where low- income and BIPOC communities have historically been excluded. 3. Pursue a social housing program that builds high-quality housing for people of all income levels. Housing Element law requires San Francisco to define quantified objectives, establish programs with timelines, and identity constraints to building housing. We have a lot of work to do<U+2014>San Francisco has some of the worst constraints on building housing in the state. According to a September 2021 report published by UC Berkeley, San Francisco had the highest median approval time for housing projects in the entire state between 2014-2017. Half of all housing projects took more than 26 months to receive approval. To address our housing shortage, we must expedite the process of approving housing, especially subsidized affordable housing. Unfortunately, our current housing approval process allows practically anyone to veto or delay housing projects. San Francisco must establish ministerial approval for housing projects and eliminate discretionary reviews that delay projects for months. San Francisco must also commit to adhering to state housing law, including the Housing Accountability Act, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and the Permit Streamlining Act. State law also requires San Francisco to submit sites to HCD that are capable of supporting the construction of 82,069 new homes. However, an August 2021 research paper published by UCLA Lewis Center shows that for the last seven years San Francisco has built housing on just 7.3% of all the sites we told HCD we would build new homes in our last Housing Element. The site inventory we compile this year must include the probability of development for each parcel, to ensure that we meet the letter of the law and to provide elected officials with enough information to rezone sites as needed. Further, Assembly Bill 686 (Santiago, 2018) requires that San Francisco analyze impediments to fair housing in its next Housing Element. We have plenty of those, too. The 2020 Housing Inventory shows that for the period 2010<U+2013>2020, 89% of all new housing was built in planning districts with the highest BIPOC populations in the city, on the east side. These areas have the worst pollution and overcrowding in SF. We must put a stop to this. In the next housing element, San Francisco must commit to building 50% of new housing in 2031 in high- opportunity neighborhoods which have historically excluded low-income and BIPOC communities. Many of these neighborhoods enjoy access to high quality transit, ample green space, and excellent air quality. Prioritizing these areas for housing supports the city<U+2019>s climate action plan and commitment to environmental justice. Building more housing on the west side will also comply with the state<U+2019>s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing under AB 686. San Francisco can and should also follow the lead of elected officials like California Assemblymember Alex Lee, who is working on a social housing bill (AB 387). The City has the resources to plan and execute on a program to build municipally-owned housing, and to make that housing affordable to people of all income levels in every neighborhood. Prop K, passed in November 2020, explicitly authorized this goal and City leaders should follow through. Now is the time for San Francisco Planning to embrace building housing projects faster, in greater numbers, and in all neighborhoods. We can<U+2014>and must<U+2014>meet our state-mandated obligations and alleviate our decades-long housing shortage and the crises of displacement and affordability. Brandon Wheelock [email removed] Vista, California 92081show more

George London · email · 2022-01-27 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support more homes for all in SF"s upcoming housing plan
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email in reference to case number 2019-016230CWP. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has tasked San Francisco with writing a Housing Element for the 6th update cycle, illustrating how we will build 82,069 new homes between 2023 and 2031. We will have to more than double San Francisco's yearly housing production to m… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email in reference to case number 2019-016230CWP. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has tasked San Francisco with writing a Housing Element for the 6th update cycle, illustrating how we will build 82,069 new homes between 2023 and 2031. We will have to more than double San Francisco's yearly housing production to meet this target. How do we do that? The answer lies in the Housing Element: the set of goals, objectives, and programs that we write, and which HCD certifies next year. San Francisco's next Housing Element can and should commit to three simple goals: 1. Streamline housing approvals to reduce building costs and make new homes for residents available sooner. 2. Prioritize new housing for high-opportunity neighborhoods on the west side, where low- income and BIPOC communities have historically been excluded. 3. Pursue a social housing program that builds high-quality housing for people of all income levels. Housing Element law requires San Francisco to define quantified objectives, establish programs with timelines, and identity constraints to building housing. We have a lot of work to do<U+2014>San Francisco has some of the worst constraints on building housing in the state. According to a September 2021 report published by UC Berkeley, San Francisco had the highest median approval time for housing projects in the entire state between 2014-2017. Half of all housing projects took more than 26 months to receive approval. To address our housing shortage, we must expedite the process of approving housing, especially subsidized affordable housing. Unfortunately, our current housing approval process allows practically anyone to veto or delay housing projects. San Francisco must establish ministerial approval for housing projects and eliminate discretionary reviews that delay projects for months. San Francisco must also commit to adhering to state housing law, including the Housing Accountability Act, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and the Permit Streamlining Act. State law also requires San Francisco to submit sites to HCD that are capable of supporting the construction of 82,069 new homes. However, an August 2021 research paper published by UCLA Lewis Center shows that for the last seven years San Francisco has built housing on just 7.3% of all the sites we told HCD we would build new homes in our last Housing Element. The site inventory we compile this year must include the probability of development for each parcel, to ensure that we meet the letter of the law and to provide elected officials with enough information to rezone sites as needed. Further, Assembly Bill 686 (Santiago, 2018) requires that San Francisco analyze impediments to fair housing in its next Housing Element. We have plenty of those, too. The 2020 Housing Inventory shows that for the period 2010<U+2013>2020, 89% of all new housing was built in planning districts with the highest BIPOC populations in the city, on the east side. These areas have the worst pollution and overcrowding in SF. We must put a stop to this. In the next housing element, San Francisco must commit to building 50% of new housing in 2031 in high- opportunity neighborhoods which have historically excluded low-income and BIPOC communities. Many of these neighborhoods enjoy access to high quality transit, ample green space, and excellent air quality. Prioritizing these areas for housing supports the city<U+2019>s climate action plan and commitment to environmental justice. Building more housing on the west side will also comply with the state<U+2019>s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing under AB 686. San Francisco can and should also follow the lead of elected officials like California Assemblymember Alex Lee, who is working on a social housing bill (AB 387). The City has the resources to plan and execute on a program to build municipally-owned housing, and to make that housing affordable to people of all income levels in every neighborhood. Prop K, passed in November 2020, explicitly authorized this goal and City leaders should follow through. Now is the time for San Francisco Planning to embrace building housing projects faster, in greater numbers, and in all neighborhoods. We can<U+2014>and must<U+2014>meet our state-mandated obligations and alleviate our decades-long housing shortage and the crises of displacement and affordability. George London [email removed] 3209 Peralta St Oakland, California 94608show more

Everett Young · email · 2022-01-27 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support more homes for all in SF"s upcoming housing plan
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email in reference to case number 2019-016230CWP. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has tasked San Francisco with writing a Housing Element for the 6th update cycle, illustrating how we will build 82,069 new homes between 2023 and 2031. We will have to more than double San Francisco's yearly housing production to m… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email in reference to case number 2019-016230CWP. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has tasked San Francisco with writing a Housing Element for the 6th update cycle, illustrating how we will build 82,069 new homes between 2023 and 2031. We will have to more than double San Francisco's yearly housing production to meet this target. How do we do that? The answer lies in the Housing Element: the set of goals, objectives, and programs that we write, and which HCD certifies next year. San Francisco's next Housing Element can and should commit to three simple goals: 1. Streamline housing approvals to reduce building costs and make new homes for residents available sooner. 2. Prioritize new housing for high-opportunity neighborhoods on the west side, where low- income and BIPOC communities have historically been excluded. 3. Pursue a social housing program that builds high-quality housing for people of all income levels. Housing Element law requires San Francisco to define quantified objectives, establish programs with timelines, and identity constraints to building housing. We have a lot of work to do<U+2014>San Francisco has some of the worst constraints on building housing in the state. According to a September 2021 report published by UC Berkeley, San Francisco had the highest median approval time for housing projects in the entire state between 2014-2017. Half of all housing projects took more than 26 months to receive approval. To address our housing shortage, we must expedite the process of approving housing, especially subsidized affordable housing. Unfortunately, our current housing approval process allows practically anyone to veto or delay housing projects. San Francisco must establish ministerial approval for housing projects and eliminate discretionary reviews that delay projects for months. San Francisco must also commit to adhering to state housing law, including the Housing Accountability Act, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and the Permit Streamlining Act. State law also requires San Francisco to submit sites to HCD that are capable of supporting the construction of 82,069 new homes. However, an August 2021 research paper published by UCLA Lewis Center shows that for the last seven years San Francisco has built housing on just 7.3% of all the sites we told HCD we would build new homes in our last Housing Element. The site inventory we compile this year must include the probability of development for each parcel, to ensure that we meet the letter of the law and to provide elected officials with enough information to rezone sites as needed. Further, Assembly Bill 686 (Santiago, 2018) requires that San Francisco analyze impediments to fair housing in its next Housing Element. We have plenty of those, too. The 2020 Housing Inventory shows that for the period 2010<U+2013>2020, 89% of all new housing was built in planning districts with the highest BIPOC populations in the city, on the east side. These areas have the worst pollution and overcrowding in SF. We must put a stop to this. In the next housing element, San Francisco must commit to building 50% of new housing in 2031 in high- opportunity neighborhoods which have historically excluded low-income and BIPOC communities. Many of these neighborhoods enjoy access to high quality transit, ample green space, and excellent air quality. Prioritizing these areas for housing supports the city<U+2019>s climate action plan and commitment to environmental justice. Building more housing on the west side will also comply with the state<U+2019>s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing under AB 686. San Francisco can and should also follow the lead of elected officials like California Assemblymember Alex Lee, who is working on a social housing bill (AB 387). The City has the resources to plan and execute on a program to build municipally-owned housing, and to make that housing affordable to people of all income levels in every neighborhood. Prop K, passed in November 2020, explicitly authorized this goal and City leaders should follow through. Now is the time for San Francisco Planning to embrace building housing projects faster, in greater numbers, and in all neighborhoods. We can<U+2014>and must<U+2014>meet our state-mandated obligations and alleviate our decades-long housing shortage and the crises of displacement and affordability. EVERETT YOUNG [email removed] 121 Dolores Street San Francisco, California 94103show more

Michael Holper · email · 2022-01-27 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support more homes for all in SF"s upcoming housing plan
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email in reference to case number 2019-016230CWP. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has tasked San Francisco with writing a Housing Element for the 6th update cycle, illustrating how we will build 82,069 new homes between 2023 and 2031. We will have to more than double San Francisco's yearly housing production to m… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email in reference to case number 2019-016230CWP. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has tasked San Francisco with writing a Housing Element for the 6th update cycle, illustrating how we will build 82,069 new homes between 2023 and 2031. We will have to more than double San Francisco's yearly housing production to meet this target. How do we do that? The answer lies in the Housing Element: the set of goals, objectives, and programs that we write, and which HCD certifies next year. San Francisco's next Housing Element can and should commit to three simple goals: 1. Streamline housing approvals to reduce building costs and make new homes for residents available sooner. 2. Prioritize new housing for high-opportunity neighborhoods on the west side, where low- income and BIPOC communities have historically been excluded. 3. Pursue a social housing program that builds high-quality housing for people of all income levels. Housing Element law requires San Francisco to define quantified objectives, establish programs with timelines, and identity constraints to building housing. We have a lot of work to do<U+2014>San Francisco has some of the worst constraints on building housing in the state. According to a September 2021 report published by UC Berkeley, San Francisco had the highest median approval time for housing projects in the entire state between 2014-2017. Half of all housing projects took more than 26 months to receive approval. To address our housing shortage, we must expedite the process of approving housing, especially subsidized affordable housing. Unfortunately, our current housing approval process allows practically anyone to veto or delay housing projects. San Francisco must establish ministerial approval for housing projects and eliminate discretionary reviews that delay projects for months. San Francisco must also commit to adhering to state housing law, including the Housing Accountability Act, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and the Permit Streamlining Act. State law also requires San Francisco to submit sites to HCD that are capable of supporting the construction of 82,069 new homes. However, an August 2021 research paper published by UCLA Lewis Center shows that for the last seven years San Francisco has built housing on just 7.3% of all the sites we told HCD we would build new homes in our last Housing Element. The site inventory we compile this year must include the probability of development for each parcel, to ensure that we meet the letter of the law and to provide elected officials with enough information to rezone sites as needed. Further, Assembly Bill 686 (Santiago, 2018) requires that San Francisco analyze impediments to fair housing in its next Housing Element. We have plenty of those, too. The 2020 Housing Inventory shows that for the period 2010<U+2013>2020, 89% of all new housing was built in planning districts with the highest BIPOC populations in the city, on the east side. These areas have the worst pollution and overcrowding in SF. We must put a stop to this. In the next housing element, San Francisco must commit to building 50% of new housing in 2031 in high- opportunity neighborhoods which have historically excluded low-income and BIPOC communities. Many of these neighborhoods enjoy access to high quality transit, ample green space, and excellent air quality. Prioritizing these areas for housing supports the city<U+2019>s climate action plan and commitment to environmental justice. Building more housing on the west side will also comply with the state<U+2019>s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing under AB 686. San Francisco can and should also follow the lead of elected officials like California Assemblymember Alex Lee, who is working on a social housing bill (AB 387). The City has the resources to plan and execute on a program to build municipally-owned housing, and to make that housing affordable to people of all income levels in every neighborhood. Prop K, passed in November 2020, explicitly authorized this goal and City leaders should follow through. Now is the time for San Francisco Planning to embrace building housing projects faster, in greater numbers, and in all neighborhoods. We can<U+2014>and must<U+2014>meet our state-mandated obligations and alleviate our decades-long housing shortage and the crises of displacement and affordability. Thanks, Michael Holper Michael Holper [email removed] 236 URBANO DRIVE SAN FRANCISCO, California 94127-2825show more

Kristin Tatum · email · 2022-02-03 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support more homes for all in SF"s upcoming housing plan
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email in reference to case number 2019-016230CWP. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has tasked San Francisco with writing a Housing Element for the 6th update cycle, illustrating how we will build 82,069 new homes between 2023 and 2031. We will have to more than double San Francisco's yearly housing production to m… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email in reference to case number 2019-016230CWP. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has tasked San Francisco with writing a Housing Element for the 6th update cycle, illustrating how we will build 82,069 new homes between 2023 and 2031. We will have to more than double San Francisco's yearly housing production to meet this target. How do we do that? The answer lies in the Housing Element: the set of goals, objectives, and programs that we write, and which HCD certifies next year. San Francisco's next Housing Element can and should commit to three simple goals: 1. Streamline housing approvals to reduce building costs and make new homes for residents available sooner. 2. Prioritize new housing for high-opportunity neighborhoods on the west side, where low- income and BIPOC communities have historically been excluded. 3. Pursue a social housing program that builds high-quality housing for people of all income levels. Housing Element law requires San Francisco to define quantified objectives, establish programs with timelines, and identity constraints to building housing. We have a lot of work to do<U+2014>San Francisco has some of the worst constraints on building housing in the state. According to a September 2021 report published by UC Berkeley, San Francisco had the highest median approval time for housing projects in the entire state between 2014-2017. Half of all housing projects took more than 26 months to receive approval. To address our housing shortage, we must expedite the process of approving housing, especially subsidized affordable housing. Unfortunately, our current housing approval process allows practically anyone to veto or delay housing projects. San Francisco must establish ministerial approval for housing projects and eliminate discretionary reviews that delay projects for months. San Francisco must also commit to adhering to state housing law, including the Housing Accountability Act, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and the Permit Streamlining Act. State law also requires San Francisco to submit sites to HCD that are capable of supporting the construction of 82,069 new homes. However, an August 2021 research paper published by UCLA Lewis Center shows that for the last seven years San Francisco has built housing on just 7.3% of all the sites we told HCD we would build new homes in our last Housing Element. The site inventory we compile this year must include the probability of development for each parcel, to ensure that we meet the letter of the law and to provide elected officials with enough information to rezone sites as needed. Further, Assembly Bill 686 (Santiago, 2018) requires that San Francisco analyze impediments to fair housing in its next Housing Element. We have plenty of those, too. The 2020 Housing Inventory shows that for the period 2010<U+2013>2020, 89% of all new housing was built in planning districts with the highest BIPOC populations in the city, on the east side. These areas have the worst pollution and overcrowding in SF. We must put a stop to this. In the next housing element, San Francisco must commit to building 50% of new housing in 2031 in high- opportunity neighborhoods which have historically excluded low-income and BIPOC communities. Many of these neighborhoods enjoy access to high quality transit, ample green space, and excellent air quality. Prioritizing these areas for housing supports the city<U+2019>s climate action plan and commitment to environmental justice. Building more housing on the west side will also comply with the state<U+2019>s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing under AB 686. San Francisco can and should also follow the lead of elected officials like California Assemblymember Alex Lee, who is working on a social housing bill (AB 387). The City has the resources to plan and execute on a program to build municipally-owned housing, and to make that housing affordable to people of all income levels in every neighborhood. Prop K, passed in November 2020, explicitly authorized this goal and City leaders should follow through. Now is the time for San Francisco Planning to embrace building housing projects faster, in greater numbers, and in all neighborhoods. We can<U+2014>and must<U+2014>meet our state-mandated obligations and alleviate our decades-long housing shortage and the crises of displacement and affordability. Kristin Tatum [email removed] 595 3rd Ave #1 San Francisco, California 94118show more

… and 21 more

prevent sprawl in the 2022 housing element (file 201 — 14 emails (14 / 0)

Charles Whitfield · email · 2022-06-09 · support · campaign email · source packet

Prevent sprawl in the 2022 housing element (file 2019-016230ENV)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Environmental Impact Report fails to recognize the statewide and regional environmental benefits of higher-growth alternatives. On the contrary, the report considers the No Project Alternative environmentally superior as 50,000 less housing units would be planned for (S-5). This couldn<U+2019>t be further detached from reality: According to a study by Apartment… show more

Jonathan B<U+00FC>nemann · email · 2022-06-09 · support · campaign email · source packet

Prevent sprawl in the 2022 housing element (file 2019-016230ENV)
Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, This Environmental Impact Report fails to recognize the statewide and regional environmental benefits of higher-growth alternatives. On the contrary, the report considers the No Project Alternative environmentally superior as 50,000 less housing units would be planned for (S-5). This couldn<U+2019>t be further detached from reality: According to a study by Apartment Li… show more

Jonathan B<U+00FC>nemann · email · 2022-06-09 · support · campaign email · source packet

Joseph Dimento · email · 2022-06-09 · support · campaign email · source packet

Srinivasan Vijayaraghavan · email · 2022-06-09 · support · campaign email · source packet

Roan Kattouw · email · 2022-06-09 · support · campaign email · source packet

… and 8 more

Comments by hearing (240)

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

2020-05-28 · 11 comments · 3 / 8

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2020-05-28 · oppose

Group housing Group Housing - Department should track new projects. By street address. By Area Plan. Which specific Area Plans, which zoning, specifically permits Group Housing. Code Definition? Traditional Residential Hotel unit = no kitchen. Often, no bathroom. Communal common spaces, kitchens, lounges. Current Construction - bathroom in each unit. Current pandemic has raised questions of sanitation, protecting res… show more

Peter Cohen · spoken · 2020-05-28 · oppose

Housing element process

Yonathan Randolph · spoken · 2020-05-28 · oppose

Market rate housing

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

How to find out low vacancy rate

Sara Ogilvie · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Website

Laura Fry · spoken · 2020-05-28 · oppose

Landlords vs. bad tenants

Theresa Flandrich · spoken · 2020-05-28 · oppose

A lot more detail would be helpful

Theodore Randolph · spoken · 2020-05-28 · oppose

Housing in all neighborhoods

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2020-05-28 · oppose

Red flags, housing for all

Lorraine Petty · spoken · 2020-05-28 · oppose

Outreach, 2020 balance report

Fernando Marti · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Look at own housing inventory, data

2021-04-22 · 48 comments · 12 / 33

Jessica Lehman · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Affordable calculation, seniors, people with disability

David Brockman · spoken · 2021-04-22 · support

Help produce rents

Paul Maldonado · spoken · 2021-04-22 · neutral

Racial and social equity, environmental, GHG

Betty Trainer · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Inadequacies, seniors and people with disabilities

Corey Smith · spoken · 2021-04-22 · support

Support

Jessie Oliver Sanford · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

LGBTQ needs

Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Adopt policies to protect homes in neighborhoods

Alex Lansberg · spoken · 2021-04-22 · support

Cost to build vs construction wages, labor

Lorraine Petty · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Raise target goals, more affordable than market rate

Katherine Howard · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Public comment, Parks and open space, data

Marie Sorenson · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Social housing in all areas

Reina Tello · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Affordable housing

Ben Terrall · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Permanent affordable housing, racial and social equity

David Woo · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Market based solution, new parks and rec centers

Kenneth Russell · spoken · 2021-04-22 · neutral

Fair housing, more housing in opportunity areas

Richard Skaff · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Wheelchair accessible units, ADA =Speaker – Fair housing, increase housing

Lori Liederman · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

RHNA goals, affordable housing market

Scott Connor · spoken · 2021-04-22 · support

Expanding capacity and new housing supply

Miguel Bustos · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Pause the housing element process

Sara Ogilvie · spoken · 2021-04-22 · support

Consider major rezone

Ana Lee · spoken · 2021-04-22 · support

High opportunity areas

Don Mazumi · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Streamline market rate housing, equity

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

ADUs incorrectly categorized, inaccurate data

Hope Williams · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Focus on permanent affordable housing

Theresa Flandrich · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Missing narratives, speak to homeowners

Kelly Hill · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Create major systemic change, pause element process

Peter Papadopoulos · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Concerns in the process, structure and policy

Charles Ayers · spoken · 2021-04-22 · neutral

Take the opportunity to go big, increase housing

Ramon Iglesias · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Upzone the entire city, expedite housing

Michael Nulty · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Land trust, pause the process, limit market rate housing

Angelica Cabande · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Permanent affordable housing, public amenities

Danny Campbell · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Construction workers fair wages

Theodore Randolph · spoken · 2021-04-22 · support

RHNA goals are too small, we need more housing

Larisa Pedroncelli · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Systemic racism, pause the process

Lou Buendia · spoken · 2021-04-22 · support

Ending exclusionary zoning, more housing

Calvin Welch · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Confused data, more affordable housing, more time

Jane Natoli · spoken · 2021-04-22 · support

Keep up with housing crisis, more housing of all types

Randy Tan · spoken · 2021-04-22 · support

Expedite process, increase density near transit, vouchers

Mariela Dela Mora · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Pause the housing element process

Cynthia Obregon · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Without a community process there is no equity

Ray Martin · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

A lot needs to be worked on, deeply affordable housing

Amy Chan · spoken · 2021-04-22 · support

MOHCD

Sam Deutsch · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Maximize number of affordable homes

Eric Arguello · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Create strategy centered on racial and social equity.

Tracy Rosenberg · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Affordable housing problem remains

Teresa Marquez · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

San Francisco needs to build housing for its people

Linda Chapman · spoken · 2021-04-22 · oppose

Pause the process, zoning maps

Yonathan Randolph · spoken · 2021-04-22 · support

Support increase in zoning capacity, in-law units

2021-10-14 · 12 comments · 5 / 4

Arlene Alfaro · spoken · 2021-10-14 · oppose

Attended focus group, right to housing

Charlie Sciammas · spoken · 2021-10-14 · oppose

Reflects an over emphasis on priority geographies and opportunity areas, need a housing element that plans for and prioritize for the vulnerable working class

Freddy Martin · spoken · 2021-10-14 · support

Participated in the focus groups, encourage everyone to get involved

Lyslynn Lacoste · spoken · 2021-10-14 · support

Involved in the feedback session, positive experience

Corey Smith · spoken · 2021-10-14 · support

Participated in conversation, positive step in the right direction

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2021-10-14 · oppose

Vulnerable communities should be leading the conversation to define mapping and analysis for equitable allocation of resources

Jesse Sanford · spoken · 2021-10-14 · neutral

Current draft leaves the Castro and the LGBTQ community out

Mary Travis-Allen · spoken · 2021-10-14 · support

American Indian community, need feedback and change

Linda Chapman · spoken · 2021-10-14 · support

Paper copies need to be available

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2021-10-14 · neutral

Home price vs income ratio

Robert Fruchtman · spoken · 2021-10-14 · neutral

Housing to house workers, create more housing on the west side and not on the east side

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2021-10-14 · oppose · source packet

2022 Housing Element Informational Hearing October 14, 2021 Commission Hearing, Item
No. 12, Housing Element #2019-016230CWP Dear Ms. Haddadan, Ms. Caltagirone and Ms. Leon-Farrera: Attached are comments submitted to the Planning Commission and Department two years ago linking Planning Code Section 317 and the 2014 Housing Element. The Comments are still relevant, timely and pertinent. The Demo Calcs have still not been adjusted as the Planning Commission has the legislative authority to do and… No. 12, Housing Element #2019-016230CWP Dear Ms. Haddadan, Ms. Caltagirone and Ms. Leon-Farrera: Attached are comments submitted to the Planning Commission and Department two years ago linking Planning Code Section 317 and the 2014 Housing Element. The Comments are still relevant, timely and pertinent. The Demo Calcs have still not been adjusted as the Planning Commission has the legislative authority to do and the issues highlighted from the 2014 Housing Element in these October 2019 comments are still gnawing at the public and decision makers. The Demo Calcs should be adjusted prior to approval of the new Housing Element. I am re-submitting these October 2019 Comments for your Informational Hearing on the 2022 Housing Element as new/old comments. Thank you and take good care. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttish To: SF Planning Commission From: G. Schuttish Date: October 10, 2019 Re: General Public Comments Today Good morning, President Melgar, Vice President Koppel, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Fung, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Richards and Mr. Ionin. I hope you will have a few moments to read this before the meeting today, but I will try to amplify it in the three minutes during General Public Comment. According to the Commission<U+2019>s Sta in the past two years (2017 thru mid-2019) there have been about 35 complaints related to illegal demolitions Citywide. Thirteen (13) were conrmed as demolitions. This is 38%. Based on the sample of ve Noe Valley projects requested by Commissioner Richards in December 2015, Sta said 40% should have been classied as demolitions even though they were reviewed and approved as alterations. This is interesting that the percentages are fundamentally the same. These percentages, 38% and 40%, are a fact under the existing Demo Calculations in Section 317 of the Planning Code in subsections (b) (2) (B) and (b) (2) (C). Now to shift gears a little bit. The rst sentence explaining the position of Planning Director of the City and County of San Francisco<U+2019>s HR website reads: <U+201C>San Francisco Planning Department<U+2019>s mission is to shape the future of San Francisco and the region by: Generating an extraordinary vision for the General Plan.. <U+201C> On page C.6 of the <U+201C>2014 Housing Element of the General Plan, Objective 2, Conserve and Improve Existing Stock<U+201D> it says: <U+201C>Planning shall continue to implement the recently adopted Planning Code Section 317, which codies review criteria for allowing housing demolitions, conversion and mergers, amend it when necessary<U+201D> However, the Commission has never, ever adjusted the Demo Calcs as written in Section 317 (b) (2) (D) which was: <U+201C>necessary to implement the intent of this Section 317 to conserve existing sound housing and preserve aordable housing<U+201D>. Or in other words: <U+201C>policy ecacy<U+201D>. 1 But at the same time the value in RH-1 has been adjusted at least ve times since 2013 to reect both the market and the concept of <U+201C>naturally unaordable<U+201D> and allow the administrative approval of demolitions. In fact the 2014 Housing Element recognized this issue on page I.34 writing: <U+201C>With the global recession, prices dropped between 2005 and 2011. Since 2011, the price of housing in San Francisco continues to grow and based on the trend since 2000, the price of housing is projected to surpass the high prices seen in 2005.<U+201D> In fact these high prices in the years prior to the adoption of Section 317 and the increase in demolitions was a reason Section 317 was created in order to preserve sound aordable housing while allowing for reasonable alterations in the RH-2 and RH-3 and in those RH-1 neighborhoods that were still aordable. The 2014 Housing Element Policy 2.2 reads: <U+201C>Discourage the demolition of sound existing housing, unless the demolition results in a net increase in aordable housing.<U+201D> And the 2014 Housing Element Policy 3.4 reads: <U+201C>Preserve<U+201D>naturally aordable<U+201D> housing types, such as smaller and older ownership units.<U+201D> And in further detail it goes on to say: <U+201C>A review of current sales prices reveals that new homes are generally priced higher than existing, older housing stock. This is particularly true of smaller units, such as the mid-century construction in certain lower density residential neighborhoods. These housing units provide a unique homeownership opportunity for new and smaller households. While higher density hosing generally results in more shared costs among each unit, the pre-existing investment in lower density housing generally outweighs the benets of higher density in terms of hosing aordability. To the extent that lower density older housing units respond to this specic housing need, without requiring public subsidy they should be preserved. Strategies detailed under Object 2 to retain existing housing units, and promote their life -long stability should be used to support this housing stock.<U+201D> During General Public Comment over the past 5 years the Commission has seen examples of projects, primarily in Noe Valley that have led to an average increase in sales price of $3.5 to $5 million dollars after the completion of the work allowed under the alteration permit. Granted this is a snapshot of about 50 projectsnone of which came before the Commission in a DR and with a few exceptions were all spec projects. 2 Based on the two percentages in the rst paragraph of this memo at least one-third should have been reviewed by the Commission and Sta as demolitions..and that is under the Demo Calcs that are the same values as approved in 2007 and have never, ever been adjusted since Section 317 was added to the Planning Code. Many projects have <U+201C>squishy<U+201D> Demo Calcs that are close to triggering Tantamount to Demolition. Many projects have Demo Calcs that have needed to be adjusted mid- construction and that are still <U+201C>squishy<U+201D>. Many projects cannot be assessed because your Enforcement Sta has limited tools for penalties or for the ability to access a project. Enforcement should be upgraded with increased penalty fees but the Commission needs to work with the Supervisors and the Mayor to improve and upgrade Section 176. However the Commission has the ability to use their own power, at any time to adjust the Demo Calcs per the Planning Code and to better comply with the General Plan so that when a project comes into the Department it can be fully analyzed as to whether it is a demo or not. Following along with the adjustments made in the RH-1 value, and the policies as written in the 2014 Housing Element of the General Plan it seems reasonable to wish that the Demo Calcs had been adjusted if not four times at least once these past ve years. This seems even more necessary now that the proposed Demo legislation, like the RET previously has apparently been discarded. 3show more

2022-01-27 · 26 comments · 11 / 13

Mike Chen · spoken · 2022-01-27 · support

Window of opportunity

Tess Welborn · spoken · 2022-01-27 · oppose

Who's going to pay for it

Yonathan Randolph · spoken · 2022-01-27 · support

List of sites, probability of development

Emily Crow · spoken · 2022-01-27 · support

Property goals

Steve Marzo · spoken · 2022-01-27 · support

Change the status quo

Kevin Burke · spoken · 2022-01-27 · support

Meet the housing target

Joseph Smooke · email · 2022-01-27 · oppose · source packet

Item #8, File #2019-016230CWP. Housing Element 2022 Update
Please find the attached letter dated January 25, 2022 and supplemental letter dated June 8, 2021 from the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition regarding Housing Element 2022. --joseph co-founder of People Power Media Creators of PRICED OUT See the animation that will change the way you think about housing! 25 January 2022 Planning Commission President, Rachael Tanner Planning Commission Vice President, … Please find the attached letter dated January 25, 2022 and supplemental letter dated June 8, 2021 from the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition regarding Housing Element 2022. --joseph co-founder of People Power Media Creators of PRICED OUT See the animation that will change the way you think about housing! 25 January 2022 Planning Commission President, Rachael Tanner Planning Commission Vice President, Kathrin Moore Planning Commissioners Chan, Diamond, Fung, Koppel and Imperial Planning Director Rich Hillis Re: Item #8, File #2019-016230CWP. Housing Element 2022 Update Dear Planning Commission and Director: The Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition (REP-SF) submits the following comments to the "Draft 2 of Goals, Objectives, Policies and Actions" for the Housing Element 2022 Update. Planning's "Draft 2" incorporates a lot of aspirational language around equity and historical harms done to Black, Indigenous, immigrant and people of color (BIPOC) communities in San Francisco. Unfortunately, however, this language does not even suggest changing the underlying structural issues, bureaucratic and political actions that continue to create priorities for profit-driven development and exclude the voices and needs of BIPOC and low income communities. This Draft 2, therefore, will not do anything to change equity outcomes, ensuring that the future will repeat the same traumas as the past when Redevelopment and Redlining among other systems ripped BIPOC and low income communities apart. Reviewing this Draft 2 has been extremely challenging due to the extremely tight time frame Planning gave for reviewing this 100 page document. This is a dense presentation with an extensive set of Goals, Objectives, Policies and Actions for which we need at least one week longer to review and prepare comprehensive comments. When reading through this document, however, we can see that Planning has not substantively incorporated the feedback that REP-SF provided to Planning on June 8, 2021 to its "Draft Goals of the Housing Element 2022 update"- essentially the precursor to what is before you in this Draft 2. Since we have not been provided enough time to respond to each of the components of this "Draft 2," we are attaching our June 8, 2021 letter as reference, and we will highlight some of our overall critiques of this "Draft 2" below. Disenfranchisement of BIPOC and Low Income Communities Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) We understand that this Housing Element is drafted to be in compliance with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation housing production numbers mandated as a result of Senator Wiener's SB-828. If Planning is truly "centering equity" as it claims, then it would at least prioritize two actions with respect to the RHNA production mandates: 1. Planning would recommend that the City of San Francisco advocate for either significant revisions to SB-828 or its repeal. The intention of Senator Wiener was to combine the massive increases in mandated housing production goals inflicted by SB-828 with his companion bill, SB-35 which provides automatic development approvals for housing projects that propose to build units targeted to any of the income levels for which the area is under-producing. Since the production goals are far higher than our zoned capacity, and far higher than developers will ever actually produce in San Francisco, this will lead to automatic approvals for every market rate development in San Francisco, thereby intentionally disenfranchising BIPOC and low income communities. Therefore, any land use plan, any Housing Element, that purports to prioritize equity would put at the top of its list needing to significantly amend or repeal SB-828 and SB-35. 2. During the last Housing Element cycle, San Francisco far exceeded its market rate housing production mandate. Based on the RHNA production mandates for the prior Housing Element, San Francisco produced far less affordable housing than required, and produced an excess of market rate, high-priced housing. Based on this failure, this new Housing Element 2022 should prioritize correcting this imbalance by promoting policies that result in affordable housing being built citywide first- before market rate housing. This would need to be coupled with an aggressive resource development plan that is dissociated from the production of market rate housing since these two types of development compete for the same scarce land. As we have seen for the past 8 year Housing Element cycle, over-producing market rate housing only makes housing more expensive. The only strategy for creating housing that's affordable is to build price-controlled ("affordable") housing at pricing levels that are indexed to actual incomes in San Francisco's neighborhoods. Housing Streamlining Proposals An Affordable Housing Streamlining charter amendment proposed for the June 2022 ballot threatens to remove all public comment and participation from the approval process for market-rate housing development, and would streamline 100% market rate developments. This is not the first, and will likely not be the last such proposal to come from politicians who believe in failed supply-side, trickle-down theories of housing economics. If Planning truly supports equity, it would make a statement in its Housing Element that these types of policies are antithetical to equity, because they do not provide any affordable housing, and they take away the ability for BIPOC and low income communities to engage in land use planning or project approvals that create more affordable housing, community-serving businesses, and accessible open space. Structural Inequity There is no attempt by this Housing Element to push back or question any of these structural issues that prejudice in favor of the market, and in favor of profit-driven housing. By proposing nothing that would shift the balance of power around land use decisions and land ownership away from developers and toward BIPOC and low income communities, this Draft 2 is just a blueprint for Planning to continue to enable and streamline profit-driven, market rate housing development while removing the voice of any community that might raise objections. The government actions and aggregate policies discussed and referenced in this Housing Element are just as damaging as Redevelopment and Redlining, and all of the historic atrocities that this Draft 2 recounts and references. Housing those who are Without Homes The City<U+2019>s response to those who are without homes is not based in equity when the essence of what the City is responding to is the presence of homeless people in public spaces. We will never achieve racial equity in our approach to housing by clearing sidewalks instead of prioritizing the creation of stable, affordable, dignified housing options for all San Franciscans, including those with extremely low incomes. As long as our approach is focused on making homelessness less visible or on criminalizing behaviors that homeless people can<U+2019>t help but engage in are not only ineffective, but also reinforce the racial, social and economic inequities that cause homelessness. San Francisco can not claim to be committed to the right to housing if it continues to prioritize enforcement of "quality of life" laws to clear homeless people from public view; clearing encampments without offering services that lead to stable housing; confiscating tents and homeless people<U+2019>s personal property; and displacing homeless people from one block to the next each time housed neighbors complain about their presence. An equitable response for those who are homeless requires us to produce more housing solutions for the lowest-income San Franciscans. To equitably address homelessness, we must stop: Using police or quasi-police forces to displace homeless people or push them from block to block; Relying on metrics like <U+201C>tent counts<U+201D> to measure progress in addressing homelessness and instead measure our ability to actually meet housing needs of people on the streets; Using shelters as temporary holding centers for encampment residents without offering real connections to housing and services; Relying on laws that criminalize behavior that homeless people can<U+2019>t help but engage in publicly such as sitting, resting, and seeking shelter. Four Housing Element themes that REP-SF prioritized Despite not being provided with enough time to review thoroughly and comment on all that Planning has included in this "Draft 2," we have been able to comment on some of the proposals. We have organized them below according to the four priority categories that REP-SF identified when REP-SF met with Planning regarding the first Draft. 1. Priority Geographies and Opportunity Areas a. We have concerns with how these are defined, who is left out, and what is allowable within these geographies. We are concerned that they pit communities against each other, but most importantly we feel that vulnerable communities should be leading these conversations. Comment #1: P. 9, Policy 3: The goal of increasing "investments to purchase and operate existing tenant-occupied buildings as permanent affordable housing in western neighborhoods" is currently being blocked by the Mayor and MOHCD. An allocation of funds was made by the D1 Supervisor during the 2021 budget process to support the ongoing effort to build westside affordable housing development and small sites capacity, but MOHCD has refused to issue the RFP for these funds. Comment #2: P. 47-49, Policy 20 and 26: The section under which these two policies are under, Goal 3, state <U+201C>Foster racially and socially inclusive neighborhoods through equitable distribution of investment and growth,<U+201D> with Objective 3.b specifically stating <U+201C>Create a sense of belonging for all communities of color within Well-resourced Neighborhoods.<U+201D> These policies do nothing to achieve those goals. Instead, the use of the concept of racial and social equity is twisted to promote market-based solutions that are harmful and do not benefit BIPOC communities. These are policies that promote gentrification, displacement, and evictions. These policies also promote the expansion of market-rate rate housing through rezoning, and height and density increases. The market does not create any housing that is affordable or accessible to anyone who is not wealthy. Creating more market-rate housing does the opposite of fostering <U+201C>racially and socially inclusive neighborhoods<U+201D> and does nothing to <U+201C>create a sense of belonging for all communities of color.<U+201D> Market-rate housing is out of reach to working-class and low-income BIPOC communities. The idea that this will somehow trickle down to BIPOC communities has never been supported by the reality of housing development in San Francisco. Comment #3: P. 70, Policy 21: The Housing Element proposes preventive measures to protect against future displacement based on a to-be-determined Race & Social Equity Impact Analysis; however that does not address the massive displacement experienced by vulnerable communities to date, nor does it address the displacement effects that are inherent in a market-based development approach which this Draft 2 prioritizes. 2. Amplify non Market-Based Solutions a. Centering market based strategies has been insufficient to achieve the affordability we need. We are concerned that the Housing Element has an over-reliance on market based strategies and too little emphasis on changing public policy and moving public investment towards solutions that achieve genuine affordability at the scale we need. Comment #1: P. 7, Policy 1: Expanding rental assistance programs may be helpful in the short term, but in the long term, it is just a landlord subsidy. Will landlords forfeit their "right" to evict tenants if they receive rental subsidies? There is no substitute for permanently price controlled housing. We need to invest in permanent affordability, not in subsidies to for-profit landlords. Comment #2: P. 8, Policy 1: "Pursue proactive/ affirmative enforcement of eviction protections programs including annual reporting by owners that is enforced by site inspections and confirmation of owners occupancy and funded through owner fees." What will happen if the owner is found to have moved someone in after an OMI or Ellis eviction? Will they evict the new resident so the prior resident can move back in? Will a fee be levied instead? Will the Rent Board really expand its role to take on these new enforcement duties? Comment #3: P. 8, Policy 1: Why would the city provide "incentives" to "property owners to rebuild buildings struck by fire"? The city should enforce habitability codes, and if owners are not able to make the repairs, the city should work with its nonprofit developers to purchase the properties, rehab them, and re-rent them to the original tenants as affordable housing in perpetuity. Comment #4: P. 8, Policy 1: Expanding rent control to buildings at least 25 years old works against equity. Even the flawed state rent control program under AB-1482 applies to buildings 15 years old and older. Comment #5: P.9. Policy 3: Reform of the city<U+2019>s acquisition and rehabilitation program must be done directly with organizations that work with tenants and nonprofits that acquire buildings. Part of the reform must include re-evaluating the required AMI levels to fill vacant units so that lower AMI residents can fill vacant units (instead of filling vacant units with higher AMI residents up to 120%). Comment #6: P.33. According to Figure 14, there were 120,037 applicants for the BMR program, resulting in only 602 occupants overall, which is a 0.5% placement rate. Looking at the African American community as an example, only 0.372% Black applicants successfully obtained a BMR unit. The sheer mismatch, both quantitatively and from a racial equity perspective, of the allocation of BMR units noted in Figure 14 demonstrates the failure of inclusionary housing as a strategy to respond to the affordability needs of San Francisco, and the need for the Housing Element to deprioritize market based strategies to achieve affordability. Comment #7: P. 18. The point in time count undercounts doubled up families and unsheltered homeless people and is acknowledged as an undercount. This count should not be the basis for creating targets for additional units of PSH needed in SF. The current coordinated entry assessment system should contain data on need for PSH as well as service level need. Use coordinated entry and assessments to help the City understand need rather than to prioritize the inadequate number of PSH units just for those <U+201C>homeless enough<U+201D> to qualify. should also include in home support services, nursing, and other health supports (in addition to behavioral health, case management, and childcare) evaluate the current prioritization system not just for people experiencing chronic homelessness, but for all persons experiencing homelessness. Do not tie a homeless person<U+2019>s eligibility for housing (housing referral status) to the number of available units, but to real need. Let our current assessment data be used to inform us about unmet need rather than to limit the number of unhoused people who are deemed eligible for housing. there is a big difference between traditional shelters and navigation centers. The fact that some homeless folks (based on housing referral status) can shelter in navigation centers (generally low-barrier, no curfew, no set mealtimes, you have a bed until you get housing, service rich environment) and others shelter in traditional shelters (curfew, no 24/7 access, beds last only 90 days whether you have housing to move in to after your stay or not, strict behavior rules, must give up pets or other possessions, lower level of service compared to navigation centers) is not equitable. Stop the practice of using shelter and navigation center to temporarily clear encampments by offering 7- or 30-day beds that do not connect to stable housing. No one should be exited from a shelter or navigation center back to the streets. Examine why 54% of navigation center exits are <U+201C>unstable exits<U+201D> back to the streets (https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/HSH-Nav-Slideshow-FINAL.pdf - slide 10) Comment #8: Pages 19 - 20. Include IHSS and nursing services. 3. Race, Equity and Affordability a. In order to achieve true racial and social equity, we believe the Housing Element should put forward a blueprint with key milestones and metrics that materially impact the urgency of the affordability crisis and the vulnerability of working class Black, Indigenous, Immigrant, and People of Color communities. Comment #1: P. 1, Point #3c: The areas that the Urban Displacement Project<U+2019>s displacement and gentrification analysis currently identifies as vulnerable or undergoing displacement or gentrification are based on a flawed methodology, so should not be referenced in Housing Element 2022. Comment #2: P. 28, Policy 12: Policy 12.a (this point is also repeated on P.42 policy 12.d) is vague. What type of <U+201C>housing development<U+201D> supports cultural districts and the cultures of neighborhoods? Market rate housing development is destructive to the culture and fabric of communities of color and working class communities. This should be corrected to say <U+201C>affordable housing development.<U+201D> 12.c (this point is also repeated on P.43 policy 12.f) must be expanded to include the funding of all community developed strategies in Cultural Districts, especially through the CHHESS report, and not those only specific to businesses and services that attract residents. Comment #3: P. 33, Policy 21 (also repeated on P.52 policy 21): The policies outlined here are vague and ineffective. What does it mean to <U+201C>identify levels of investment to prevent displacement<U+201D>? This policy acknowledges that upzoning (<U+201C>zoning changes<U+201D>) and private development cause displacement, evictions, and gentrification in the stated <U+201C>solutions<U+201D> of expanding tenant services. What are the <U+201C>guidelines<U+201D> that will <U+201C>avoid displacement<U+201D> in rezonings and development projects? There must be a process for the city and Planning Department where any proposed zoning change and proposed project quantitatively shows that there is no negative impact in terms of gentrification, displacement, increase rent, evictions, or negative impacts to the cultural life of the community. Comment #4: P. 63, Policy 24: The objective for this section is to <U+201C>substantially expand the amount of permanently affordable housing,<U+201D> however, the policies outlined here do nothing to do that. Instead, they substantially expand market-rate housing, not affordable housing. What is policy 24.a proposing? Inclusionary rates should not be set based on the <U+201C>financial feasibility<U+201D> of private projects. For private projects, the city considers any level above what is currently required as being <U+201C>not feasible<U+201D> because the city's goal appears to be to support developers to make as much profit as possible. Density bonus projects provide more benefits for the developer, and less process, accountability, and affordability for the public. We should not advocate for private developers to take density bonuses. Allowing height increases and increased density at <U+201C>transit nodes<U+201D> does not increase affordable housing, it increases the production of market-rate housing, and denies lower income households the ability to live near transit infrastructure they need. Further, this rezoning and increase of market-rate development serves to increase displacement, eviction, and gentrification pressures. Maximizing market-rate housing simply maximizes market-rate housing. It does not increase affordable housing. Comment #5: P. 78, Policy 32.b: Private mixed-use developments should not be given incentives such as reduction of conditional use authorizations or other entitlement <U+201C>barriers<U+201D> in order to include businesses, institutions, or services that support Cultural District needs. Private developments should be required to work with community members to provide space for small businesses, institutions, and/or services that meet the needs of the community and support Cultural District goals. Comment #6: P. 79-80, Policy 33: Existing transit infrastructure and capacity is already lacking, especially given the pandemic where neighborhoods had to demand that transit service and lines be restored simply to pre-pandemic levels and not be cut. The reality of the transportation patterns of residents that inhabit new market-rate housing must be studied and understood. There is a higher use of cars, ride-sharing and delivery services by wealthier residents, who do not rely on public transportation in the way that working-class residents do. This must be reflected in planning decisions, and has clear implications in the creation of new market-rate housing that contradict the goals of the city in reducing the use of private automobiles. 4. Genuine Collaboration to Achieve Equity a. The stakes are too high for us to be working against each other. We would like to offer a genuine partnership where we combine our power and our collective commitment to achieve real equity. That means vetting definitions and goals and centering strategies to achieve real equity in equitable partnership with impacted communities. Comment #1: The final section of the Housing Element, <U+201C>Priority Actions<U+201D> on pages 92-95 that proposes developing a list of priorities through stakeholder engagement is worth taking a look at. However, it assumes that constructs such as <U+201C>Priority Equity Geographies<U+201D> are generally accepted terminology, although BIPOC and low income communities in San Francisco have not had a voice in defining these "Priority Equity Geographies". We look forward to the next draft from Planning which we hope will be updated significantly so that it truly centers equity for BIPOC and low income communities. Respectfully, The Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition cc: Miriam Chion, Community Equity Director, Planning Department Planning Commission Clerk, Jonas Ionin Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors Legislative Aides 8 June 2021 Miriam Chion, Community Equity Director San Francisco Planning Department Dear Miriam, Please accept this letter from the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition which details all of our comments and feedback to the Draft Goals of the Housing Element 2022 update. Compiling these comments has taken a large scale coordinated effort among the REP Coalition organizations. Since Planning's online form squeezes comment and feedback into a set of binary indications of thumbs either up or down; categorically simplied rankings from "Strongly Agree" to "Neutral" and "Strongly Disagree"; and narrative feedback strictly constrained by character limits which disallows the comments to address nuance or complexity, we felt that it was important to provide our comprehensive feedback in this format. Thank you for considering the community's full equity perspective as expressed in this letter. We look forward to continuing our dialog with Planning on these very important policy proposals relating to the Housing Element 2022 update. Respectfully, The Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition cc: Rich Hillis, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of Supervisors Clickable Table of Contents Policy #1 Policy #2 Policy #3 Policy #4 Policy #5 Policy #6 1. POLICY #1: Recognize the right to housing as a foundation for health, and social and economic stability Policy 1.1 Expand permanently supportive housing and services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness 1. The notion that private developers will satisfy their inclusionary requirements by providing permanent supportive housing is misguided. Developers don't like providing BMR units to begin with- and when they do, they push the AMI levels as high as possible. 2. There needs to be a land use plan that ensures that Planning is working collaboratively with other city departments to identify sites- both publicly and privately owned- for new permanent supportive housing that will be developed, owned and managed by San Francisco-based, nonprot supportive housing providers. Policy 1.2 Increase shelters and temporary housing in proportion to permanent solutions, including necessary services for unhoused populations 1. Need to prioritize land and funding resources for permanent, supportive housing. Navigation centers are not a permanent solution, nor are Safe Parking sites. While Navigation centers and Safe Parking sites might be important short term resources, these should not be priorities especially for a long term land use and housing plan Policy 1.3 Armatively address the racial and social disparities among people experiencing homelessness by ensuring equitable access to shelter or housing 1. The "priority geographies" are unclear and have not been vetted- how were they arrived at (in 2016)- what criteria were used? REP Coalition organizations are unfamiliar with these "priority geographies," so we are not ready to accept these as a criterion for prioritization of resources. Policy 1.4 Prevent homelessness for people at risk of becoming unhoused... 1. The "priority geographies" are unclear and have not been vetted- how were they arrived at (in 2016)- what criteria were used? 2. Why are the criteria not updated per COVID and the vulnerabilities presented from COVID health issues and loss of income? 3. Where does the number 5,000 come from - "develop a regional homelessness prevention approach to prevent 5,000 households from becoming homeless in San Francisco"? This seems incredibly low. 4. What is this "regional" approach to homelessness prevention? Is there any additional information about this so we can evaluate it further, or have input? Policy 1.5 Prevent eviction of residents of subsidized housing or SROs 1. Expanding case management services and removing barriers to housing stability such as assigned counselors regardless of where the resident lives are positive steps that need to be taken. However, many of the case managers and other support services are not provided with adequate funding or training and have unsustainably high caseloads all of which cause high turnover for these positions. These systemic deciencies cause instability for residents regardless of the program design. 2. The housing retention requirements for non-prot providers are already fairly high on paper. The issue is enforcing and implementing them in a meaningful way so tenancies are actually maintained. Policy 1.6 Elevate direct rental assistance as a primary strategy to secure housing stability and reduce rent burden. 1. Rental assistance is great but should not be a "primary strategy" for housing stability or for reducing rent burden. Rental assistance is primarily a way to subsidize landlords' prots. 2. This section doesn't seem to acknowledge COVID. The economic impacts on tenants - obligations for past and current rent obligations- will be with us for some time. Seems like this should be a priority. 3. What are the funding strategies for expanding these rental assistance programs? 4. Is this strategy really sustainable? It seems like this just supports the market. We need real, affordable housing where tenants are not vulnerable to eviction and speculation. Policy 1.7 Preserve affordability of existing subsidized housing, gov't or coop owned housing where affordability req's are expiring. 1. Unclear what "use RAD models" means here. What about that model would help to preserve affordability? Bring in Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)? That seems unacceptable as it represents a privatization of public housing, the inclusion of private equity, and all the affordability and management problems that LIHTCs present. 2. We should instead be encouraging the increased public investment in affordable housing. 3. We should be investing in expansion of limited equity cooperative housing models. 4. We need a clear strategy for how the city will armatively seek to create additional subsidized, gov<U+2019>t, and coop housing when affordability requirements are expiring. Policy 1.8 Preserve remaining affordable SROs 1. Increasing nes for illegal conversions seems weak. We need to further dene what illegal conversions are- for instance expand the denition of Intermediate Length Occupancies (ILOs) and tighten up the denition of Short Term Rentals (STRs), put a tighter cap on both, and expand our enforcement of both with real investment and proactive enforcement. 2. We should also not be prioritizing master leasing. It's a much better investment to purchase SROs to be owned by nonprots rather than paying master leases to for-prot owners that have no long term commitment to affordable, stable housing for low income tenants. Policy 1.9 Minimize evictions for no-fault and at-fault 1. Require a public "change of use" hearing at Planning Commission for all Ellis Act lings so public comment can be heard. No action can be taken because of State preemption, but at least there would be a public disclosure of who is being evicted and why. 2. Fully fund the tenant right to counsel program and prioritize ALL tenants, not just "Vulnerable Groups". 3. Ellis Act reform should be a priority, but the minimum holding period of ve years should not be what we're striving for. If a landlord wants to go out of business, they should sell the apartment building to someone who wants to continue that building in operation as an apartment building. It doesn't make sense that tenants should be kicked out of a building so a landlord can make more money by selling off the units as TIC's. If they want to pursue a different business model, they should sell the apartment building and go pursue a different business model at a different location. 4. Costa-Hawkins reform should be a priority, but why extend rent control to 25 years old buildings? Why not 15? It should be extended to the most recent allowable under law (ref AB1482). Policy 1.10 Eliminate discrimination and advance equal housing access based on race, ethnicity 1. There needs to be a commitment to increased resources for enforcement of equitable housing access. Policy 1.11Improve access to BMR units 1. Housing counseling and readiness will not signicantly increase the number of BIPOC who are accepted to BMR units. There aren't very many units, and the rents and purchase prices are too high. Price and availability are the most signicant barriers. BMR units are important as a strategy to compel for-prot developers to provide a community benet, but BMR units are not in any way a signicant component of an affordable housing strategy or an equity strategy. 2. One critical strategy that's missing from this section is to gure out a legislative strategy for decreasing HOA fees. We know that this is an issue at the State level, but this means that Planning should work with the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor's oce and the City Attorney on a political and legal strategy for decreasing HOA fees, otherwise BMR ownership units will continue to be a farce. 3. Planning staff needs to encourage developers to provide BMR units on-site and not fee-out or defer to off-site units. 4. Increasing neighborhood preference doesn't necessarily make sense given that the trigger for BMR's is a market rate development of at least 10 units. Because the threshold is so high, and much of the development in lower density neighborhoods and zoning areas is less than 10 units, residents in these parts of the city who need BMR housing would never have a chance of getting in. 5. There shouldn't be an expansion of the Senior Operating Subsidy to provide public subsidies to developers. These units should be priced at lower levels so extremely low and very low income seniors can actually afford them. 6. Planning should work with the Board of Supervisors to increase the inclusionary requirements for projects that take either the State or Local density bonus, and make sure that these BMR units which should be on-site are targeted to low and very low income households. AMI levels for BMR units should also be signicantly lowered to meet the primary demand and need for these units. 7. There needs to be a stronger standard to ensure that the future residents reect the demographics of the surrounding area. There are countless examples of how the cities' lottery process fails local working class communities and communities of color, those most in need, and yet often last in line, to benet from these new developments. Therefore, the Housing Element should establish a racial equity metric in the lottery process. Policy 1.12 During emergencies, allow for emergent policies that address housing insecurity and economic hardship 1. The goal "Support affordable housing by providing small-scale landlords with subsidy for unpaid rent" is confusing. Providing small landlords with nancial support in order to address their economic insecurity caused by decreased rent revenues is important- in exchange for rent relief and an eviction moratorium- but it's very important to note that this is NOT affordable housing. 2. Instead of focusing resources on emergency shelter, we need to be providing permanent, supportive housing for all. 3. There should also be a delay on any substantial rehab requests that would cause tenants to be relocated for any signicant duration. 4. There should be immediately available affordable housing for tenants that are displaced as a result of habitability violations and res to no fault of their own. Landlords should be held accountable to address violations and habitability issues so tenants can be housed in a stable and healthy manner. 5. No need to continue to prioritize permits for new market rate housing. All prioritization should be on land use strategies that create greater stability and affordability. RETURN TO THE TOP 2. POLICY #2: Repair the harms of historic racial, ethnic, social discrimination for American Indian, Black and other People of Color. Policy II.1: Reframe the narrative of housing challenges to acknowledge and understand the discrimination against Communities of Color as a root cause for disparate outcomes. 1. This all sounds good but the level of condence in this reframed narrative cannot be very high when the new narrative originates from the creators of the old. This perspective must come from those communities that have been harmed by governmental abuse. Policy II.2: Embrace the guidance of community leaders representing American Indian, Black, and other People of Color throughout the planning and implementation of housing solutions. 1. What does this actually mean? Who gets to decide who community leaders are? This is meaningless unless this is a commitment to a process that allows communities to be empowered to determine who their leaders<U+2019> are. The guidance that is provided must be a legitimate representation of the interests of that community. We have seen too many instances of the City making the determination of who represents a community, and what results is a coincidental alignment with plans that serve developer (not community) interests. 2. Budget allocations to city departments and agencies that support implementation of an equity framework will be suspect unless coming from the city<U+2019>s general fund and not from fees derived from developers. The fact that Planning's staff capacity is funded from fees paid by developers creates an inherent conict of interest that drives the creation of prot incentives to facilitate revenue generation. 3. We question the legitimacy of appointed advisory bodies that have not been subject to vetting by the community. REP organizations have deep roots in our respective communities and are authentic voices among others to represent the city<U+2019>s underserved populations. Policy II.3: Amplify and prioritize voices of American Indian, Black, and other People of Color in the City<U+2019>s engagement processes 1. Who gets to determine the voices that are heard? Our voices are not empowered if our communities do not get to determine who speaks for us, and how our input will be used. We have seen how surveys and focus groups and funded partnerships have been utilized by Planning to make it seem as though they are listening to the community. We have seen how only select people are allowed entry into these discussions and how voices may be listened to but not actually heard. 2. The REP coalition has gone to great lengths to include all our various communities and all the stakeholders that are concerned with equity in planning and we are uniquely positioned to represent our own interests. Having a parallel process of seeking representative voices that is carried out by Planning raises serious questions about whether Planning is truly interested in equity or more concerned with a process that they can control. Policy II.4: Measure racial and social equity in each step of the planning process for housing to assess and pursue ways to achieve benecial outcomes for American Indian, Black, and other People of Color. 1. This should be a given but it does relate to oversight of the planning process. This oversight is not dened here but should be the primary means of ensuring accountability to this endeavor, and therefore, the most important aspect of a race and equity policy. If the task of determining milestones and assessing performance is at the discretion of Planning then we are not changing any of the practices that have historically harmed our communities. If Planning<U+2019>s measuring stick is incremented by microns while ours is incremented by meters, then we have incompatibly different perspectives on outcomes. Policy II.5: Bring back People of Color displaced from the city by strengthening racial and cultural anchors and increasing housing opportunities in support of building wealth. 1. The REP coalition supports these policy statements, but the measures of achievement must be subject to scrutiny by our collective communities. We should be able to assess whether these policies are being carried out in a way that suciently redresses the historic harm that has been done. Policy II.6: Prioritize health improvement investments within Environmental Justice Communities to ensure that housing reduces existing health disparities. 1. Culturally competent outreach is important, but there also must be a process where impacted communities have the ability to determine how remediation is conducted, and enforcement that is accountable and responsive to impacted communities. RETURN TO THE TOP 3. POLICY #3: Foster racially and socially inclusive neighborhoods through distinct community strategies Policy III.1: Eliminate community displacement of American Indian, Black, and other People of Color in Priority Geographies. - <U+201C>Dedicate a minimum budget for permanently affordable housing in priority geographies within the 10-year Capital Planning to support funding for planned affordable housing in these areas and with a goal of 50% of RHNA permanently affordable housing targets within the next two cycles (by 2038) in priority geographies.<U+201D> - Comments: - The term Priority Geographies is a term that is <U+201C>imposed<U+201D> and has not been thoroughly vetted. It assumes that it includes all and is agreed upon by vulnerable communities. - Specic Questions: - Has the community signed off on these priority geographies? What communities and neighborhoods are missing? Why is eliminating displacement limited to priority geographies? How will vulnerable pockets of people outside of priority geographies be protected? Example: Half of the Latino Cultural District is not even covered. Chinatown? Westside? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Where geographic lines are drawn, it must be a transparent process that centers equity with vulnerable communities at the decision-making table - Avoid policies that concentrate/focus on upzoning, permit streamlining and other development incentives disproportionately in communities of color and low income communities at risk of or facing gentrication and displacement pressures. - Prioritize protections against displacement, 100% affordable, public, and nonprot housing for development incentives like increased density and accelerated permitting in vulnerable communities. - The budget for permanently affordable housing should be as large as possible (maximum instead of "minimum") in the 10-year Capital Planning. - Develop and implement community-developed strategies in Cultural Districts to retain and grow culturally associated businesses and services that attract residents back to the area. - Comments: - This should not just be about attracting residents but about protecting existing residents and existing small businesses - Specic Questions: - What or who does this keep out? What or who does it keep in? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Price points that are affordable to local residents and local families - People of color businesses that come from within the community - <U+201C>Support non-prot developers of new permanently affordable housing developments in Priority Geographies through dedicated funding from GO BONDs or other eligible funding resources to include affordable neighborhood serving uses such as grocery stores, healthcare clinics, or institutional community uses such as child-care facilities, community facilities, job training centers, social services as part of their ground oor use programming.<U+201D> - Comments: - Agreed. - Specic Questions: - Has the community signed off on these priority geographies? What communities and neighborhoods are missing? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - At affordable price points. - <U+201C>Support the development of businesses owned by American Indian, Black, and other People of Color in affordable housing buildings.<U+201D> - Comments: - All non prot developers approach this work differently. There is a need to uphold a common goal and standard. - Specic Questions: - What specic policies above and beyond what currently exists will help achieve this goal? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - These people of color-owned businesses should be locally rooted by people who have authentic relationships to their local communities. - Support development of worker-owned businesses. - Price points that are affordable to local residents and local families - <U+201C>Continue and expand efforts to target education and housing readiness counseling programs, including in-language trainings, to support the neighborhood preference program.<U+201D> - Comments: - These neighborhood preference programs have not lived up to their promise. Too few neighborhood residents are able to benet from new affordable housing units. - Specic Questions: - What are the metrics that ensure that demographics of residents who move into affordable housing units reect demographics of surrounding low income communities? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Apply and implement metrics to ensure that demographics of residents who move into affordable housing units reect demographics of surrounding low income neighborhoods. - Strong community collaborations and partnerships with community based organizations - <U+201C>Explore increasing neighborhood preference allocation for Below Market Rate units in Priority Geographies if possible per the Federal Fair Housing regulations.<U+201D> - Comments: - These neighborhood preference programs have not lived up to their promise. Too few neighborhood residents are able to benet from new affordable housing units. - Specic Questions: - What are the metrics that ensure that demographics of residents who move into affordable housing units reect demographics of surrounding low income communities? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Ensure that there is equitable investment and 100% affordable housing development in all districts, so that certain communities are not at a disadvantage because their neighborhoods don<U+2019>t get a lot of 100% affordable housing built. - Apply and implement metrics to ensure that demographics of residents who move into affordable housing units reect demographics of surrounding low income neighborhoods. - Strong community collaborations and partnerships with community based organizations - <U+201C>Increase housing affordable to extremely low and very low-income households in Priority Geographies through modications in inclusionary requirements and prioritizing approval for development projects that serve these income groups.<U+201D> - Comments: - We don<U+2019>t agree with relaxing inclusionary requirements or streamlining the approval process for these market rate developments - Specic Questions: - How can we increase affordability and target lower AMI levels in BMR units, while strengthening processes for community input and participation to ensure that all development is responsive to the needs of BIPOC and low income communities? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Market rate developers need to provide as many BMR units targeted to as low incomes as possible. - For-prot developers must be held accountable by Planning to proactively engage BIPOC and low income communities early on in their development process, and shape their developments to be responsive to the needs of BIPOC and low income communities. - <U+201C>Identify and support development of opportunity sites including publicly-owned underutilized sites and large privately-owned sites to respond to both housing needs and community infrastructure especially within Priority Geographies.<U+201D> - Comments: - Need to do away with top down planning processes at these private and public sites and replace with bottom up processes - Specic Questions: - How can REP and Planning work together to create processes that honor the voices and vision of BIPOC and low income communities to determine how these sites are developed? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Publicly owned sites, regardless of location, must be 100% affordable. - Area Median Incomes (AMI) in these projects should reect local neighborhood incomes not regional MOHCD thresholds - <U+201C>Continue to support and expedite delivery of the permanently affordable housing projects in Redevelopment Areas led by the Oce of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII).<U+201D> - Comments: - None - Specic Questions: - None - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Ensure strong standards of environmental health and safety - <U+201C>Continue to support implementation of HOPE SF projects without displacement of the current residents.<U+201D> - Comments: - None - Specic Questions: - None - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Publicly owned sites, regardless of location, must be 100% affordable. - Any increases in density on these publicly owned sites should be 100% affordable Policy III.2: Expand investments in Priority Geographies to advance equitable access to resources while ensuring community stability. - <U+201C>Develop equity metrics and criteria to identify the necessary infrastructure improvements to guide all investment decisions made through a variety of policies and procedures including: Capital Planning, General Plan Elements, Interagency Plan Implementation Committee or Citizen Advisory Council review.<U+201D> - Comments: - The Housing Element shouldn<U+2019>t just say that metrics will be developed but actually spell them out following an authentic community vetting process. - Specic Questions: - How will Planning work with REP to create this community-led process? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Equity metrics need to be vetted through authentic community organizations and coalitions - <U+201C>Prioritize Priority Geographies in investments to improve transit service, as well as other community infrastructure improvements to parks, streetscape, and neighborhood amenities.<U+201D> - Comments: - Improving infrastructure typically leads to increased land and housing speculation, leading to displacement of BIPOC and low income residents. - Specic Questions: - Has the community signed off on these priority geographies? What communities and neighborhoods are missing? - How will we ensure stability and affordability for existing BIPOC and low income residents so they can be the beneciaries of these community improvements? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Public investments must be accompanied by strong anti-displacement protections, in order to prevent speculation and gentrication. - <U+201C>Increase funding for community-based organizations serving American Indian, Black, and other People of Color, and Priority Geographies for anti-displacement services, such as legal services, code enforcement outreach, tenant counseling, mediation, and housing-related nancial assistance.<U+201D> - Comments: - We believe a reparations framework is necessary here. - This area should also include community development organizations and organizations doing community planning work. - Specic Questions: - Where will this funding come from? Will Planning work with REP, the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor to identify a revenue generating strategy, or a strategy for allocating existing funds for these purposes? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - There should be a specic standard for increase in funding, for example, increase funding x10 for these investments - <U+201C>Support and expand indigenous community leadership navigation of services and systems to provide tenants<U+2019> rights education, similar to the existing Code Enforcement Outreach Program that is offered within the Department of Building Inspection; consider expanding this culturally competent program to other People of Color (American Indian, Black, and other People of Color).<U+201D> - Comments: - This program is already accessible to BIPOC and low income tenants throughout San Francisco, through the network of community based organizations, all of which are in REP. - The impediments for holding landlords to standards of habitability are the City's bureaucratic and legal processes. - Specic Questions: - Can Planning work with DBI and other city departments and the Anti-Displacement Coalition and other organizations that participate in CEOP to create greater accountability for landlords? - Maybe we can also consider a landlord licensing program as exists in many other cities? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Landlords should be held at least to the California State standards of habitability for all properties they own. Policy III.3: Prioritize the City<U+2019>s acquisition rehabilitation program to serve Priority Geographies and neighborhoods with higher rates of eviction and displacement. - Esta lucha es bastante grande - Que bajos recursos sean verdaderos, la burocracia es cruel y humillante - muchas veces se excluyen la gente que incluyen a las formas/processo de creacin - Muchos requisitos debido a la burocracia - Also discussed that this can divide communities/orgs given there might be a protagonist complex of who can purchase/make impact - should be a multi org effort - Also discussion about who is eligible (people below extremely low, undocumented, wage-earners?) - <U+201C>Prioritize purchases for the acquisitions and rehabilitation program that serve extremely low income and unhoused populations.<U+201D> - Comments: - The small sites acquisition program is not expansive enough to meet this need. - Debe ver algo ms claro sobre las organizaciones que pueden comprar edicios - clausuras sobre l % y que requisitos existen para que la gente pueda moverse - no ms barreras para tener vivienda - We need to be prioritizing land acquisitions as well, to ensure that we have a pipeline of sites ready to be developed for 100% affordable housing. - Specic Questions: - How can Planning and REP work together to convene strategic meetings with MOHCD to create an aggressive land banking and small sites acquisition program to meet the city's goals for increasing stability and affordability? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Implement a robust land banking program with signicant dedicated funding, scaled around a list of priority sites identied by . - <U+201C>Increase capacity building investments for non-prots in neighborhoods on the west side of the city with high rates of evictions and displacement.<U+201D> - Comments: - These organizations should be supported to build capacity in many areas, including organizing, community planning, community development, tenants rights, eviction defense, etc. - Toda las comunidades y organizacin tiene que estar en la misma pgina - todas trabajando juntas, no separadas - Specic Questions: - What is Planning's role with respect to this capacity building work? For instance, the request from Westside organizations to continue funding for this capacity building work into 2021-22 was not included in the Mayor's budget. - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - There should be a specic standard for increase in funding, for example, increase funding x10 for these investments - <U+201C>Provide incentives for private owners to sell to non-prots affordable housing developers similar to the exemption for the Real Estate Transfer Tax passed in 2020 (Prop I) when selling properties to non-prots.<U+201D> - Comments: - Buena idea de apoyar el comprar en la comunidad pero ms cambios y cuidado en cmo participar. - Specic Questions: - How can these programs provide opportunities for tenants to purchase these buildings they reside in? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Enable tenants, not just non prots, to be able to purchase these buildings through a limited equity, nonprot, cooperative model. Policy III.4: Increase homeownership opportunities for American Indian, Black, and other People of Color especially within Priority Geographies to allow for wealth building and reversing historic inequities within these communities. - Target increased investment in the Down Payment Assistance Loan Program to households who live in Priority Geographies. - Comments: Ownership is absolutely essential, for short and long term stability. However, the concept of wealth creation through real estate is one of the causes of growing inequality and displacement. Using the DALP and other assistance for BIPOC and low income San Franciscans to be able to purchase homes will lead to greater long term stability, but we should be prioritizing long term affordability as well- not just for the initial purchaser, but for subsequent owners as well. Then, providing services to help these homeowners build their wealth through means other than through their homes will provide a greater long term benet for both the homeowners and the community at large. - Specic Questions: - Has the community signed off on these priority geographies? What communities and neighborhoods are missing? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - There should be a specic standard for increase in funding, for example, increase funding x10 for these investments - Increase targeted outreach and nancial readiness education including in-language trainings to American Indian, Black, and People of Color. - Comments: - None - Specic Questions: - None - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - There should be a specic standard for increase in funding, for example, increase funding x10 for these investments - Create new homeownership programs to enable the Black community to grow and thrive by maintaining and expanding their property ownership including mixed-use buildings. - Comments: - We do not understand this strategy which is focused solely on homeownership for "the Black community" and "mixed-use buildings". - Specic Questions: - What is meant by "mixed-use buildings"? and why is this mentioned as a specic strategy only for the Black community? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - There should be a specic standard for increase in funding, for example, increase funding x10 for these investments Policy III.5: Ensure equitable geographic distribution of new multi-family housing throughout the city to reverse the impacts of exclusionary zoning practices and reduce the burden of concentrating new housing within Priority Geographies. - Establish a goal of building 50 percent of the regional housing targets at each income-level, increasing over the long-term, to be built in High Opportunity Neighborhoods within the next two RHNA cycles (by 2038) through zoning changes, streamlining approvals, and encouraging the use of state and local density programs. - Comments: - REP rejects both the notion that market rate housing will solve our issues of segregation, un-affordability, gentrication and displacement. Our only experience with market rate housing is that it makes each of these destabilizing factors worse. - Streamlining approvals means taking power and agency away from communities, especially BIPOC and low income communities, and therefore, work directly against racial and social equity. - Specic Questions: - Has the community signed off on these "High Opportunity Neighborhoods"? What communities and neighborhoods are missing? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Use typology in Urban Displacement Project - In geographies susceptible to displacement, at risk of displacement, ongoing displacement, ongoing gentrication - Market rate housing works against racial and social equity. - 100% affordable with deep affordability should be prioritized - In geographies that are characterized as stable moderate/mixed income - Market rate housing works against racial and social equity. - All AMIs below market rate should be addressed - Engage with communities in the new expanded Priority Development Areas in Sunset Corridors, Forest Hill/West Portal, Balboa Park & Southwest Corridors, Richmond Corridors, Lombard Street, 19th Avenue, Central City Neighborhoods to ensure community stability and increased housing choice within these areas. - Comments: - Priority Development Areas and priority geographies are not competent equity mapping. - Priority Development Areas haven<U+2019>t been vetted by vulnerable communities - Priority Development Areas contradict sensitive communities - Specic Questions: - What does increased housing choice actually mean? - What strategies do you propose for community stability? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Focus resources, land use planning, and interdepartmental coordination to identify, purchase and develop sites in all neighborhoods for 100% affordable housing. - Limit zoning changes within Priority Geographies to the specic needs of American Indian, Black, and other Communities of Color. - Comments: - It is unclear whether American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color led the process to dene and select these "Priority Geographies." - The process for engaging American Indian, Black and ther Communities of Color in dening these zoning changes limitations is crucial. These identied communities need to lead these conversations and be the decision makers. - Specic Questions: - It's unclear what zoning changes are being proposed and what limitations are being proposed for these zoning changes. - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Need to incorporate lenses around economic class in addition to race/ethnicity lens so that low income and working class communities are also centered in these planning processes. - No market rate housing in sensitive communities. - Truly inclusive, community-led, community based planning processes should determine development priorities. - Priority Development areas and Priority Geographies are not competent equity mapping. Policy III.6: Increase housing choice along Rapid bus and rail corridors and near major transit stops in High Opportunity Neighborhoods through zoning changes and streamlining approvals. - Increase capacity for residential development through changes to height limits, removal of density controls, and other zoning changes to improve feasibility of multi-family buildings especially midrise buildings along SFMTA<U+2019>s Rapid networks and major nodes such as Geary blvd., Judah Street, 19th Ave, Lombard Street, Ocean Ave, Taraval Street, West Portal Ave, and Van Ness Ave. - Comments: - Unlike new, wealthier residents, the existing residents vulnerable to displacement through this gentrication rely on these transit corridors for actual transit -- and they should be prioritized for their use. - We are concerned that "increasing housing choice" means that Planning intends to prioritize new market rate housing. Since BIPOC and low income residents rely on these transit corridors and infrastructure, all new housing near this infrastructure needs to be 100% affordable, otherwise BIPOC and low income communities will be forced out and priced out by the new market rate housing and accompanying speculation. - Specic Questions: - From the Needs Assessment: the majority of the 85,000 households that came to San Francisco between 1990-2018 are over 200% of AMI. Why are we prioritizing market-rate housing for these wealthier newcomers who will not be taking many of these Rapid Network routes such as the 14R bus. - What is the equity lens that will prevent these wealthy new residents from gentrifying and displacing low-income BIPOC residents who live along many of these routes? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - <U+201C>High Opportunity<U+201D> is not a competent measure of safety - <U+201C>Highest Resource<U+201D> coupled with exempting current UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project <U+201C>Sensitive Communities<U+201D> is an at least improved level of safety to build MR housing. - Identify community benets that would allow streamlined approval of midrise multi-family buildings within High Opportunity Areas, such as units serving middle-income households, inclusionary requirements, land dedication for permanently affordable housing, or ground oor space for neighborhood serving community facilities or businesses. - Comments: - No streamlined approval of new market rate housing. No pre-identication of "community benets". These should be part and parcel of a project- and not a condition leading to streamlined approval. - Specic Questions: - Has the community signed off on these high opportunity geographies? What communities and neighborhoods are missing? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Streamlining project approvals does not advance racial or social equity. - Explore the possibility of high-rise towers at major transit nodes along Rapid bus and rail corridors within High Opportunity Neighborhood parallel with needed infrastructure improvements. - Comments: - Unlike new, wealthier residents, the existing residents vulnerable to displacement through this gentrication rely on these transit corridors for actual transit -- and they should be prioritized for their use. - We are concerned that Planning intends for these high-rise towers to be market rate housing. Since BIPOC and low income residents rely on these transit corridors and infrastructure, all new housing near this infrastructure needs to be 100% affordable, otherwise BIPOC and low income communities will be forced out and priced out by the new market rate housing and accompanying speculation. - Specic Questions: - From the Needs Assessment: the majority of the 85,000 households that came to San Francisco between 1990-2018 are over 200% of AMI. Why are we prioritizing market-rate housing for these wealthier newcomers who will not be taking many of these Rapid Network routes such as the 14R bus. - What is the equity lens that will prevent these wealthy new residents from gentrifying and displacing low-income BIPOC residents who live along many of these routes? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - <U+201C>High Opportunity<U+201D> is not a competent measure of safety - <U+201C>Highest Resource<U+201D> coupled with exempting current UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project <U+201C>Sensitive Communities<U+201D> is an at least improved level of safety to build MR housing. Policy III.7: Increase housing choice by allowing and facilitating small multi-family buildings in low-density areas within High Opportunity Neighborhoods. - Transition to using building form and scale(e.g.Height and bulk requirements)and unit minimums to regulate development instead of lot-based unit maximums in low-density zoned residential districts in High Opportunity Neighborhoods. - Comments: - This entire section seeks to nd incentives for market rate development which will never solve the affordable housing problems that communities across San Francisco face. For-prot developers will always seek to maximize prots- they will never have equity or affordability as their goals or as features of their business plans. - Specic Questions: - How would this change impact the incentives to build family-sized units? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - <U+201C>High Opportunity<U+201D> is not a competent equity measure - <U+201C>Highest Resource<U+201D> coupled with exempting current UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project <U+201C>Sensitive Communities<U+201D> is an at least improved level of safety to build MR housing. - Identify community benets that would allow streamlined approval of small multi-family buildings in High Opportunity Areas such as units serving middle-income households, affordable housing fees, or ground oor space for neighborhood serving community facilities or businesses. - Comments: - No streamlined approval of new market rate housing. Community benets should be part and parcel of a project- and not a pre-identied list that allows for streamlined approvals. - Specic Questions: - Has the community signed off on these high opportunity geographies? What communities and neighborhoods are missing? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - <U+201C>High Opportunity<U+201D> is not a competent equity measure - <U+201C>Highest Resource<U+201D> coupled with exempting current UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project <U+201C>Sensitive Communities<U+201D> is an at least improved level of safety to build market rate housing. - Streamlining project approvals do not advance racial equity. - Improve nancial feasibility of small multi-family buildings by promoting appropriate construction types, nancing, or incentives to small-scale developers - Comments: - It's unclear why Planning feels that the role of our Planning department should be to help for-prot developers with implementing their market rate housing developments. These developments only increase housing priced, speculation, displacement and gentrication. We need to focus our city resources on solving the challenge of increasing housing that is affordable for BIPOC and low income people. - Specic Questions: - How do you dene small multi-family buildings? - What kinds of incentives do you mean? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - We need to focus our city resources on creating opportunities for affordable housing, and providing resources to stabilize and develop affordable housing at all scales. Policy III.8: Enable low and moderate-income households particularly American Indian, Black, and other People of Color to live and prosper in High Opportunity Neighborhoods through increasing units that are permanently affordable. - Increase housing affordable to extremely and very low-income households in High Opportunity Areas through City funded permanently affordable housing projects. - Comments: - Affordable housing should be increased in all neighborhoods. - Specic Questions: - Why is affordable housing only focused on "High Opportunity Neighborhoods"? Were these neighborhoods dened by American Indian, Black and other People of Color? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Prioritize 100% affordable housing throughout San Francisco to achieve desegregation, affordability and stability. - Create a funded land banking program to purchase sites that could accommodate at least 50 units on each site in High Opportunity neighborhoods, such as church sites and partnership with interfaith council. - Comments: - This strategy will need to be coordinated with MOHCD as they have fought against land banking efforts for many years. - Specic Questions: - Why is this strategy only conned to "High Opportunity Neighborhoods"? and why is this strategy only targeted at sites that can accommodate 50+ units? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Publicly owned sites, or sites acquired with public monies, regardless of location, must be 100% affordable. - Expand ministerial review to smaller sized residentially zoned parcels to improve feasibility of developing permanently affordable housing on these sites. - Comments: - Ministerial review should only be available for 100% affordable housing. - Specic Questions: - What is the denition of "affordable housing" as proposed in this section? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Community process to decide how to prioritize affordable housing investments in local communities - Pursue public private partnerships on public sites to deliver a maximum number of permanently affordable units on those sites by leveraging private investments in market-rate units with public funding permanently affordable. - Comments: - Public sites must be developed as 100% affordable housing. - Specic Questions: - How is the city dening "public private partnerships"? How will these partnerships ensure that we develop public sites with 100% affordable housing? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - Publicly owned sites, regardless of location, must be 100% affordable. - No sell-off of public land - Establish a goal of dedicating 50 percent of the City<U+2019>s permanently affordable housing budget within 10-year capital planning cycles for High Opportunity Neighborhoods while dedicating a minimum budget to support funding for planned affordable housing in Priority Geographies. - Comments: - See standard below - Specic Questions: - Has the community signed off on these priority geographies? What communities and neighborhoods are missing? Why is eliminating displacement limited to priority geographies? Example: Half of the Latino Cultural District is not even covered. Chinatown? Westside? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: - <U+201C>High Opportunity<U+201D> is not a competent measure. - 100% affordable with deep affordability should be prioritized - Create and expand funding for programs that offer case management, nancial literacy education, and housing readiness to low-income American Indian, Black and other People of Color households who seek housing choices in High Opportunity Areas, along with providing incentives and counseling to landlords to offer their unit. - Comments: - These programs should be directed by these vulnerable communities. - Specic Questions: - What will the process be for creating and expanding this funding - and for selecting the programs that will be supported? - Specic standards that we believe will enable the city to achieve racial and social equity: RETURN TO THE TOP 4. POLICY #4: Increase housing production to improve affordability for the city's current and future residents Issue #1: The assumption that increasing housing production increases affordability. There is no evidence that this strategy has ever worked. Issue #2: This current policy is not designed to support the city<U+2019>s current population. Rather, it intends to replace current residents with those who are increasingly auent. Issue #3: There is no clear denition of "affordable housing" so the concern is that affordable housing will become out of reach for those who need it most. Issue #4: No strategy identied for increasing local sources of funding for housing that's affordable for extremely low income households. IV.1 Create a dedicated and consistent local funding stream and advocate for State and Federal funding to support building permanently affordable housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households that meets the Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets. Identify local bonds and consistent sources of funding for permanently affordable housing in the City<U+2019>s Capital Planning process. Comment: Bonds require vote to pass as do other dedicated sources of new revenue. They are worthwhile pursuing, but can be challenging to pass. Designing these revenue measures and prioritizing their uses need to be led by BIPOC and low income communities. Develop and deploy public nancing tools to leverage the City<U+2019>s co-investments such as an Infrastructure Finance District or expanded tax programs for affordable homeownership and workforce housing (e.g., nancing products that lower direct City subsidy for affordable housing). Comment: Sources of revenue for affordable housing should not be dependent on increasing property values or other speculative schemes. Funding affordable housing through land speculation will perpetuate the problems that have already been created. Create an implementation plan for the annual funding through the new gross receipt tax to increase supportive housing and take advantage of the State- wide streamlining opportunities for this type of housing. Comment: Communities are not in favor of removing community engagement through state pre-emptions. Develop and support alternative and philanthropic funding sources to deliver permanently affordable housing faster and at a cheaper per unit cost through tools such as the Housing Accelerator Fund or creating a Land Equity Fund. Comment: Support the Bay Area Housing Financing Authority to propose a regional progressive tax as a permanently affordable housing funding source. Advocate for federal legislation to increase Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and Private Activity Bonds, or advocate for voter approvals to reduce the minimum thresholds for tax exempt bond nancing (currently at 50 percent) and to help unlock more Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Comment: The Low Income Housing Tax Credit program has been devastating for tenants, and has extraordinarily high xed costs leading to developments needing to be at least 75 units in size before they are nancially feasible. This excludes most sites in the city from affordable housing development. In order to expand the possibilities for developing new affordable housing in every neighborhood, we need to generate signicant sources of local revenue, and use the LIHTC only on larger sites that yield sucient units. Advocate for State legislation to change the voter approval threshold for General Obligation Bonds from two-thirds to 55 percent. Comment: None Advocate for State legislation to expand non-competitive permanently affordable housing funding sources. Comment: None Advocate for voter approval paths to create new sources of funding such as Proposition 13 reform for commercial property tax, to support local jurisdictions in delivering their permanently affordable housing targets. Comment: None IV.2 Maintain sucient development capacity to respond to the increasing housing need and the scarcity of housing supply within San Francisco and the region. Continue to maintain sucient development capacity that accommodates the San Francisco<U+2019>s Regional Housing Needs Allocations determined by the State and regional agencies as well as long term housing need projections. Comment: We need to dene "sucient" and "development capacity". For instance, does this refer to zoning capacity? Or does it refer to our nonprot affordable housing developer network? Another concern is that we don't know what affordable housing development capacity we need, because this city has never been able to keep up with its RHNA goals for affordable housing. We, however, have far too much capacity constantly over-producing market rate housing. Pursue zoning changes to increase development capacity that accommodates equitable distribution of growth throughout the city particularly in High Opportunity Neighborhoods and new Priority Development Areas Comment: Since SF has over-produced market rate housing through the prior RHNA period, the only equity approach would be to focus housing production on 100% affordable strategies. Market rate housing increases housing and land speculation and yields only upward pressure on housing prices. Collaborate with regional agencies and other jurisdictions within the region to coordinate on strategic policies that respond to the relationship between commute patterns and types of housing needed Comment: Yes, but we should be clear that our Bay Area neighbors need to pull their weight in producing and maintaining affordable housing. IV.3 Reduce development constraints such as high construction cost and lengthy City- permitting timeline to increase housing choices and improve affordability. Comment: These are extremely vaguely phrased. What are "development constraints" and how will they be "reduced"? How is the city going to reduce construction costs? Require that construction workers be paid less? Somehow reduce the price of lumber? What housing choices do not exist that the city feels it needs to create? How will any of these ill-dened strategies lead to improved affordability? Expand the use of cost-ecient construction types such as modular and materials such as cross laminated timber. Comment: Typically, if developers cut their development costs, they don't pass those savings on in the form of reduced rents or sales prices. Rather, they pocket the difference as prot. If Planning is going to expend city resources to enable cost eciencies in the development industry, it must demand long term price concessions in return. Support a more ecient construction process by increasing exibility of lot size limits for allowing lot consolidation. Comment: Questionable policy. We need to abandon the notion that creating an oversupply of market rate housing units will generate sucient housing to address the long term housing needs of vulnerable communities and communities of color. Expand Impact Fee exemption to a broader range of permanently affordable housing projects including those with units affordable up to 120% of AMI on projects that rely on philanthropic subsidies. Comment: it's unclear what "permanently affordable housing projects" are charged impact fees. Where does this apply? And what affordable housing projects target up to 120% of AMI? It's unclear what problem this strategy is trying to solve. Reduce the per unit cost of publicly funded permanently affordable housing through streamlining the implementation of associated development approvals such as the PG&E requirements in accommodating Public Utilities Commission (PUC) provided low-cost electric service, or the multi-agency review of disability access. Comment: This seems very specic and technical, and therefore, needs further explanation so people can understand what the problem is and how this proposed solution addresses that problem. Expand the construction workforce through training programs in partnership with non-City apprenticeship programs and expand the Local Hire program to allow more projects to participate. Comment: None Reduce approval time and process by eliminating Planning Commission hearings for State Density Bonus project applications that do not otherwise require them. Comment: Absolutely do not eliminate Planning commission hearings for State Density Bonus project applications. This is a developer giveaway. The public has to have the opportunity to weigh in on projects that potentially impact them and affect their communities. The fact that these projects inict even greater physical and economic impacts on communities than non-density bonus projects means that there should be increased public participation and input rather than less. Streamline permitting review and approval process for large master planned projects to accelerate construction timelines of infrastructure improvements. Comment: Given the fact that there are tens of thousands of units that Planning has already approved that have not started their building permit process, it is unclear what problem this is trying to solve. Planning has already been incredibly ecient with reviewing and approving new development projects, including large master planned projects like Parkmerced and Balboa Reservoir. The impacts of these large master planned developments are so large that public input and participation are vitally necessary especially in order to have any hope of equitable outcomes. Expand projects types that are eligible for streamlined or ministerial review (relying on Prop E models or SB35) beyond projects with 50-100 percent permanently affordable housing. Comment: As stated above, there should be no "streamlined" approval for market rate housing. This strategy works against equity goals and outcomes. Continue to implement the Mayoral Executive Directives to accelerate creating new housing (Mayor Breed's Executive Directive 18-01 and Mayor Lee's Executive Directive 17-02). Comment: As stated above, there should be no "streamlined" approval for market rate housing. This strategy works against equity goals and outcomes. Develop Objective Design Standards that reduce subjective design review of housing projects while ensuring that new development in existing neighborhoods adheres to key urban design principles. Comment: All neighborhoods must benet from high quality design. As stated above, however, there should be no "streamlined" approval for market rate housing. This strategy works against equity goals and outcomes. Pursue California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Streamlining for projects through Community Plan Exemptions or by adopting Housing Sustainability Districts where possible. Comment: As stated above, there should be no "streamlined" approval for market rate housing. This strategy works against equity goals and outcomes. Prioritize Planning Department staff resources on review of Discretionary Review applications that contain tenant protection issues and those within Priority Geographies over applications in High Opportunity Neighborhoods that do not involve tenant considerations. Comment: As stated above, the REP Coalition does not understand these references to Priority Geographies and High Opportunity Neighborhoods- why should tenant protections only be focused on these areas? IV.4 Maximize the number of permanently affordable housing units constructed through private development without public subsidy. Comment: The REP Coalition does not understand this strategy. Market rate developers have demonstrated that they want to provide the minimum number of BMR units and at as high AMI levels as they are able. Through the Inclusionary Technical Analysis Committee, review the inclusionary rates on a regular basis to ensure development projects maintain nancial feasibility in all neighborhoods in order to maximize total number of below- market rate units delivered without public subsidy. Comment: Whenever politicians re-open the discussion of feasibility of inclusionary units, developers cry poor, and we end up with a reduction of the number of units required and an increase in the AMI targeting. Therefore, it seems like this strategy will only increase market rate housing and decrease the number of affordable units, and make the BMR units less affordable. Prioritize maximum permanently affordable housing as a major benet of new development agreements alongside other benets such as community facilities or transit investments. Comment: Other strategies advocate for reduction in community benets and "streamlining" which reduce leverage for increasing community benets and affordable housing. Rather than requiring development agreements, Planning should put BIPOC and low income communities in leadership roles for determining how their communities should develop, requiring public facilities and transit investments which would then be explicitly required of developers rather than being negotiated without the community having any leverage. Support and streamline the approval process for development projects that maximize the total number of below-market rate units via State Density Bonus or other density bonus programs, or other Code complying regulatory paths. Comment: As stated above, there should be no "streamlined" approval for market rate housing. This strategy works against equity goals and outcomes. Expand density bonus programs to allow additional below market rate unit in exchange for Planning Code modications or exemptions. Comment: As stated above, there should be no "streamlined" approval for market rate housing. This strategy works against equity goals and outcomes. Density bonus projects only serve to accelerate displacement, speculation and gentrication. IV.5 Maximize the use of publicly-owned sites for permanently affordable housing in balance with community infrastructure and facilities needed that can be accommodated on those sites. Support maximum number of permanently affordable housing units as well as improved transit facilities on SFMTA owned sites slated for development such as the Presidio Bus Yard, and the Potrero Bus Yard, through leveraging private investment in market-rate units with public funding. Comment: All publicly owned sites must be developed as 100% affordable housing. For every public site we sell to a for prot developer for market rate housing, we will need to purchase new sites at market rate for affordable housing. This is an incredibly inecient use of public resources. If the concern is not having enough money to develop all those affordable housing units, then consider those developments on large public sites as being phased developments. Identify City-owned surplus sites and other underutilized publicly-owned sites and prioritize city resources to plan for and develop housing on those sites. Comment: All publicly owned sites must be developed as 100% affordable housing. IV.6 Require new commercial developments and large employers, hospitals, and educational institutions to help meet housing demand generated by job growth. Evaluate feasibility of utilizing a portion of existing or future growth in fees and taxes generated by large employers to fund affordable housing on an ongoing- basis, in order to complement the one-time jobs housing linkage fees assessed on developers of commercial space. Comment: None Encourage and provide opportunities for large commercial developments to build housing or dedicate land in lieu of their jobs housing linkage fee. Comment: Tying an affordable housing requirement to commercial developments is encouraged. REP has not determined whether it is acceptable to allow a land dedication in lieu of paying a jobs housing linkage fee. Provide paths for large employers to contribute funding in partnership with non- prot developers to provide homeownership opportunities. Comment: REP does NOT support this proposal which then creates a quid pro quo for nonprot developers to support these employers' expansions and development ambitions. Employers should pay fees to the city, and nonprot developers should then apply for those funds. Maintain the jobs housing linkage program and adjust the fee levels based on an updated nexus study on a regular basis. Comment: This seems like a good idea, as long as the updates happen on a regular basis, and the process is transparent and not inuenced by lobbying by the businesses that pay, or might have to pay the fee. Explore expanding jobs housing linkage fees to large employer institutional developments (medical and educational) who are currently not subject to jobs housing linkage fees. Comment. Yes. And expand the jobs housing linkage fees to large employers that might have multiple locations - each of which has just a few employees, but in the aggregate have hundreds or thousands of employees in San Francisco such as certain formula beverage and food service and retail businesses. Pursue partnerships such as institutional master plans where large employer institutions that are not subject to job housing linkage fees (hospitals and educational institutions) to plan for the housing demand of their employees (such as the 2021 Memorandum of Understanding with the University of California, San Francisco). Comment: We do not understand the rationale for excluding large employer institutions from jobs housing linkage fees. Why have an MOU with these institutions? Why not require them to pay a jobs housing linkage fee? IV.7 Address the impediments to constructing approved housing that is already approved, especially large master plans and development agreements such as Treasure Island, Candlestick Park, Hunters Point Shipyard, Parkmerced, HOPE SF projects, Schlage Lock. Comment: It is not up to the Planning Department to facilitate construction of market rate housing. Equitable outcomes necessitate the government doing everything it can, mobilizing all resources, to facilitate construction of 100% affordable housing. If developers have received entitlements, and are not able to move those projects forward into construction, the city should have a program for purchasing those sites so they can be developed as 100% affordable housing. Explore public-private partnership solutions for front-ending the necessary funding for infrastructure investments, such as direct City investment in infrastructure, allocation of public nancing for infrastructure improvements, or issuance of other public debt to fund infrastructure improvements. Comment: Public private partnerships always favor the private, for-prot entity. These lead to outcomes that work directly against equity. The infrastructure is required to add value to private, for-prot enterprise rather than providing equitable outcomes where people with low incomes benet from the new infrastructure investment. No private (for-prot) entity is interested in equitable outcomes- they will only pursue a public-private partnership where they stand to prot from the actions of government. Advocate for regional and State funds through the existing infrastructure bank or other paths to help nance the infrastructure needs of large urban inll and redevelopment projects. Comment: We do not understand this strategy. What is an "existing infrastructure bank"? What "other paths to help nance" are there? Please clarify so we can evaluate what this strategy is proposing. IV.8 Maximize the use of existing housing stock for residential use by discouraging vacancy, short-term use, and speculative resale. Explore legislating a vacancy tax for residential units that stay empty for long periods of a year or used as secondary or vacation homes. Comment: A tax requires a ballot measure while a fee can be implemented legislatively. It would be best to explore both possible strategies. Explore regulatory paths, including a tax or other regulatory structures, for speculative resale of residential units, particularly those which seek to extract value out of evicting tenants, or rapid reselling to more lucrative markets. Comment: This proposal is confusing. A tax is not a "regulatory path"- so it does not make sense to "explore regulatory paths, including a path or other regulatory structures". It would be better to have a taxation strategy, and another strategy that looks at regulatory paths and structures- and to be clear about what those regulatory paths and strategies might be so we can evaluate their equity impacts. On a conceptual level, however, diminishing or disincentivizing speculative, extractive activities seems to makes sense. Continue to improve compliance, enforcement, and restrictions on short-term rentals Comment: This makes sense, but Planning still has not implemented the Intermediate Length Occupancy program. ILOs are causing a larger impact on gentrication, speculation and displacement than STRs at this point because there is no enforcement of the caps and restrictions. IV.9 Preserve the affordability of unauthorized dwelling units while improving safety and habitability. Provide more paths for legalizations through nancial support such as low- interest or forgivable loans for property owners. Comment: Yes. And include outreach to homeowners so they are aware of the program. Update the Conditional Use ndings requirements for removal of unauthorized dwelling units to account for tenancy, and to identify alternative ndings to the current nancial hardship analysis to measure the cost burden of legalization. Comment: None Provide more paths for legalization by removing requirements that are not critical for health or safety (such as minimum ceiling heights) and would help reduce the costs of legalization. Comment: No. Minimum ceiling heights should remain required. IV.10 Encourage provision of the maximum number of units when existing housing stock is proposed for major expansions or demolition. NO Continue to apply the requirements of State Law to replace any affordable or rent-controlled units demolished with permanently affordable units at equivalent affordability rates of the unit prior to demolition (SB330). Comment: We do not support codifying SB 330 into the Housing Element 2022. SB 330 expires in 2025. This would be terrible for tenants who will be displaced without adequate protections, or provisions including relocation compensation, or somewhere to move to. Equivalent affordability rates does not mean at the same affordable (rent controlled rent). Pursue code and policy changes to encourage new housing projects and major expansion projects build to maximum allowable unit density and discourage major expansions of existing single-family homes where additional units are otherwise permitted. Comment: This is the antithesis of good planning- and also works against equity goals. Pursuing the proliferation of market rate units and tenant displacement works directly against equity. Increasing market rate housing production only does one thing- it increases the stock of unaffordable housing. It does nothing to improve affordability or equity. RETURN TO THE TOP 5. POLICY #5: Increase housing choices for the city's diverse cultures, lifestyles, abilities, family structures, and income levels. V.1: Promote and facilitate aging in place for seniors and multi-generational living. Create or support nancing programs that help low and moderate income homeowners upgrade their homes for age-related disability issues or build ADUs to age in the same building. Comment: None Increase permanently affordable senior housing along transit corridors to improve mobility of aging adults and seniors. Comment: None Identify and address the challenges faced by residential care facilities to prevent their loss, such as increasing exibility in how the use is dened under the Planning Code. Comment: None Support and explore expanding the Home Match Program to match seniors with people looking for housing that can provide in-home care support in exchange for affordable rent. Comment: This program needs to be carefully managed in order to safeguard seniors against elder abuse- nancial and/ or physical. V.2: Prevent the outmigration of families with children and support the needs of families to grow. Encourage provision of child-friendly amenities within new buildings through tools such as a design review checklist. Comment: Development of any design review checklist(s) must be led by BIPOC and low-income residents. Allow exibility in the development of ground oor rooms in Single Family Homes to accommodate changing family needs such as additional bedrooms, full bathroom, or laundry. Comment: None Continue the multi-bedroom unit mix requirements Comment: It's unclear what these requirements are since there is no reference. Therefore, we are unable to evaluate this strategy. Support and incentivize housing, especially permanently affordable housing with multiple bedrooms for families, near existing high-rated public schools. Comment: There should be no incentivizing of market rate housing. The market can take care of itself. Permanently affordable family housing near public schools is critical, but we shouldn't be prioritizing "high-rated" schools. We should encourage equitable investment in all our schools, and support our families' children attending them and succeeding. Collaborate with the SFUSD to identify priority in the school assignment process for low-income families and those living in permanently affordable housing. Comment: These decisions should be led by BIPOC and low income residents. V.3: Retain and increase the moderate and middle-income households through building permanently affordable workforce housing. Continue to support educator housing programs and seek to expand its application to other public-sector essential workers such as transit operators and hospital workers. Comment: We should prioritize permanently affordable housing accessible to a range of incomes rather than creating enclaves by employment sectors. The market will not provide affordable housing. We need a land use plan that recognizes this and plans strategically for affordable housing - price restricted housing. Pursue new partnership models to allow non-City nancing of moderate and middle income homeownership through parallel development of smaller sized lots that are scattered (such as Habitat for Humanity models). Comment: It's unclear what a "new partnership" model is that's being referenced. The Habitat model is clear- that's for homeowners who both are physically able to provide much of their own construction labor, and are also able to pay the mortgage for their new home. But we cannot comment on this strategy because the partnership concept is not clear. Pursue partnership models to purchase privately-owned entitled sites where construction may be stalling. Comment: Same as the prior strategy- it is not clear what a "partnership model" is and how that addresses feasibility issues for projects that have stalled. Continue funding to the First Responders Down Payment Assistance Loan Program and the SFUSD Educators Down Payment Assistance Loan Program. Comment: None V.4: Facilitate small multi-family buildings as a prominent housing type that private development can deliver to serve middle income households. Identify and promote construction types, nancing and design that would make small multi-family buildings feasible. Comment: Why would Planning expend resources to help developers build more market rate housing? If our housing policies and strategies are truly centering equity, all resources would be focused on developing strategies for producing affordable housing. Identify and adopt incentives that could make small multi-family buildings possible, such as exemptions from some fees, modied inclusionary requirement, streamlined approval and demolition review. Comment: Why would Planning expend resources to help developers build more market rate housing? If our housing policies and strategies are truly centering equity, all resources would be focused on developing strategies for producing affordable housing. As noted above, streamlining and fee exemptions are disempowering to communities and lead to perpetuation of inequitable outcomes. Transition to using building form and scale (eg Height and bulk requirements) and unit minimums to regulate development instead of lot-based unit maximums in the low-density zoned residential districts in High Opportunity Neighborhoods. Comment: We are not understanding how "unit minimums" would be applied. Is this a strategy to make sure that developers don't develop 9 units to avoid inclusionary requirements? We are also not clear which parts of the city are targeted by the language "low-density zoned residential districts in High Opportunity Neighborhoods", so it is impossible for us to evaluate this strategy. Identify certain community benets that would allow streamlined approval of small multi-family buildings in High Opportunity Areas such as units serving middle-income households, affordable housing fees, or ground oor space for neighborhood serving community facilities or businesses. Comment: Market rate housing will never be affordable, or at least not permanently affordable. Market rate, for-prot developers operating without any price restrictions will always charge as much as they can. There should be no streamlining or relaxation of fees or BMR obligations. This strategy shifts even more power away from BIPOC and low income San Franciscans and gives more power and prot to for-prot developers which is unacceptable. V.5: Promote group housing as an entry-level housing option for moderate income households, particularly single-person households. Allow conversion of existing single-family homes to group housing units. Comment: The REP Coalition rejects strategies that encourage new group housing or conversions to group housing until there is an inclusive, BIPOC and low income community led conversation about what group housing actually is, and its impacts on our communities. Set minimum quality of life standards for group housing such as access to common open space. Comment: The REP Coalition rejects strategies that encourage new group housing or conversions to group housing until there is an inclusive, BIPOC and low income community led conversation about what group housing actually is, and its impacts on our communities. Allow group housing as a principally permitted use where residential use is allowed. Comment: The REP Coalition rejects strategies that encourage new group housing or conversions to group housing until there is an inclusive, BIPOC and low income community led conversation about what group housing actually is, and its impacts on our communities. V.6: Continue to support and expand the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) program. Continue to streamline the permit process through interagency coordination (eg Roundtable Review) implement an integrated online permitting system to support permit streamlining and government transparency. Comment: It is not clear what a "roundtable review" is, who it involves, who it empowers, but streamlined permitting seems to cancel the voices of BIPOC and low income communities and works against equity and transparency. Provide advanced notice to existing tenants when adding an ADU in a building, minimize the conversion of existing shared spaces and amenities such as in-building laundry, and ensure the Rent Ordinance provides protections if such removals take place. Comment: It's unclear whether this strategy is recommending changes to the Rent Ordinance or if it is just asking that the Rent Board process reduction in services or unlawful eviction complaints (which they already do). This strategy is confusing and unclear, but it seems to want to protect tenants from having their parking or storage or other common area uses taken away? Create an affordable ADU program to serve low-income households. Comment: As long as these ADUs are permanently affordable, price restricted, this seems like a great strategy. Encourage Junior ADUs as an effective and low-cost way of adding habitable space within existing single-family homes Comment: It's unclear how small JADUs are. These units should meet habitability standards. They should also be restricted as permanently affordable, price restricted units, otherwise, over time, landlords will increase the prices of these units to the point where they are no longer "affordable" for low income households. Advocate for State legislation to provide more exibility for detached ADUs in denser cities with smaller lots. Comment: What is a "denser city"? Isn't this the plan for San Francisco? Or are other cities incorporated into this strategy? And what's a "smaller lot"? Smaller than what? Please clarify this strategy so we can understand it and comment on it. Continue to expand public outreach for the ADU program including virtually accessible information and in-language materials. Comment: None V.7: Strengthen homeownership programs to allow upward mobility for families Evaluate opportunities for greater wealth building within the City's existing homeownership programs. Comment: Wealth building through property is one of the reasons we've gotten to this point of BIPOC and low income communities being displaced by for-prot development and speculation. We need to start looking at homes as providing stability and anchoring communities. Wealth creation then happens through being paid a decent wage, and not having that wage siphoned off by extraordinary housing costs. Advocate for State Legislation that would allow for scaled Homeowners Association fees for BMR homeowners in mixed income buildings in order to ensure equal access to shared building services and amenities at equitable prices. Comment: This is an extremely important strategy, to advocate for State legislation that allows for scaled HOA fees for BMR homeowners. But, to be clear, the reason this is important is not so low income homeowners can go to the gym. The reason this is important is that the HOA fees make the monthly payments so high that low income purchasers of BMR units cannot afford BMR ownership units. BMR ownership units are typically a farce, because the sales prices are set to comply with the BMR program, but the HOA fees are so high that qualifying households are still unable to purchase the units. It's not about being able to go to the gym for a lower monthly fee; it's about being able to have an affordable home. Include scaled fees for any building services or amenities in rental or homeownership projects with Below Market Rate households. Comment: None Continue to provide legal representation and other support services that are culturally competent for BMR unit owners and residents to avoid foreclosures and/ or address discrimination. Comment: None Create an exception to the requirement for rst-time homebuyers of BMR units allow households to purchase another BMR unit and sell their current unit in cases where household size changes or another reasonable accommodation is required, in order to respond to changing housing needs. Comment: None RETURN TO THE TOP 6. POLICY #6: Promote neighborhoods that are well connected, healthy and rich with community culture. Policy VI.1: Facilitate neighborhoods where proximity to daily needs promote social connections, support the City<U+2019>s sustainability goals, and advance a healthy environment. <U+201C>Incentivize and support new housing developments that include affordable and essential neighborhood serving uses such as grocery stores, childcare centers, healthcare clinics on the ground oor through programs such as streamlined approval for community benets, or rental subsidies.<U+201D> Comment: We cannot rely on private development to provide the necessary components of complete and healthy neighborhoods. Private development at a minimum should already be required to provide community serving uses, there should be no additional incentives or streamlining for community benets or rental subsidies. And "community benets" should not be predetermined, but should be responsive to the needs of BIPOC and low income communities. The network of cultural districts should also be empowered to lead on these decisions. Support mixed-use buildings during regulatory review process and encourage commercial space or other compatible uses on the ground oor. Comment: BIPOC and low income communities, and especially the network of cultural districts should be empowered to establish what ground oor uses should be encouraged and should lead the "regulatory review process". Incentivize new permanently affordable housing developments to include below market rate commercial leases for community-based organizations serving the neighborhood community. Comment: BIPOC and low income communities, and especially the network of cultural districts should be empowered to establish prioritization of commercial and services uses. Plan for and dedicate funding for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety improvements to encourage walking and biking when accessing to daily needs. Comment: None Create and fund an interagency working group to plan and design for walkable neighborhoods and proximity to daily needs. Comment: This must also be led by advocates for seniors, people with disabilities, youth and families. Expand and allow neighborhood serving uses, such as retail, restaurants, and hair salons within areas that are primarily residential especially on corner parcels. Comment: BIPOC and low income communities, and especially the network of cultural districts should be empowered to establish prioritization of commercial and services uses. As we have seen very clearly during the pandemic, we need to encourage public health clinics that are physically and culturally/ linguistically accessible especially in BIPOC and low income areas across the city. <U+201C>Improve exibility on allowing home-based businesses and activities and work from home.<U+201D> Comment: This should be more thoroughly discussed - what does this look like in the context of planning, development, and approvals? How will this be sensitive to and inclusive of non traditional, culturally distinct, or informal work and the associated permission required to conduct business at home? Policy VI.2: Ensure transportation investments and new housing are planned in parallel to advance well-connected neighborhoods and equitable access to transit. General Comments to this Policy: a. Upzoning and removing density controls do not provide more <U+201C>housing choices.<U+201D> These tactics create more unaffordable luxury market-rate housing that does not meet the needs of current residents, especially the needs of BIPOC and low income residents. b. With the increase in ride-sharing, especially during COVID when there has been a signicant dip in transit ridership, the city must study the transit patterns of wealthy residents. Are occupants of new market-rate housing going to be waiting for a crowded bus, or use ride-sharing services? 100% affordable housing near transit infrastructure must be prioritized. c. There is no current transit infrastructure that can support the type of <U+201C>transit oriented development<U+201D> that is being proposed. There is not even a plan in place to increase transit capacity to meet even current levels of demand. Increasing the burden on transit and other city infrastructure without the capacity to meet it is bad city planning. Increase housing choice through changes to height limits, removal of density controls and other zoning changes to improve feasibility of multi-family buildings along SFMTA Rapid Lines. Comment: Removing density controls works against the goal of increased family housing along transit lines as stated elsewhere. We are already seeing how removing density controls leads to proliferation of micro-units and group housing which are tiny, unaffordable units that are not family friendly. It is confusing that this strategy refers both to removing density controls and "multi-family" buildings. These are two entirely different typologies. Establish a goal of building 50% of the regional housing targets at each income level to be built in High Opportunity Neighborhoods within the next two RHNA cycles (by 2038) through zoning changes, streamlining approvals and encouraging use of state and local density programs. Comment: As stated above, REP is against any streamlining, or other strategies that disempower BIPOC and low income communities while empowering for-prot developers who will use whatever advantage conferred to them to build more unaffordable housing. Plan for and dedicate funding to transportation infrastructure improvement to support areas slated for increased housing choice. Comment: What is an area that is "slated for increased housing choice"? This isn't dened anywhere, but seems to be a euphemism for areas that will be zoned for greater density of market rate housing. In order to build a more equitable city, development along and proximate to transportation infrastructure must be all permanently affordable. Plan and dedicate funding for improved transit services by enhancing operating revenues for the SFMTA. Comment: None Prioritize transit service improvements, such as increasing frequency of service, in Priority Geographies and Environmental Justice Communities to support equitable mobility. Comment: We question the methodology that has targeted this strategy to Priority Geographies. Pursue interagency coordination to plan for improvements to transit, pedestrian and bike infrastructure and service, and providing those improvements before housing projects are completed. Policy VI.3: Advance equitable access to high-quality amenities, and resources as part of a healthy and equitable environment and in parallel with planning for increased housing. Plan for community facilities citywide, such as parks, rec centers, schools, libraries in a manner that secures equitable resources in Priority Geographies, Environmental Justice Communities, and areas slated for growth, building on processes such as the Community Facilities Framework, Interagency Plan Implementation Committee. Comments: a. Access to public parks, rec centers, and schools is essential to a healthy and complete neighborhood. However, this objective is directly countered by the proposed upzonings, removal of density controls, and deregulation of planning's processes. This is seen for example in the South of Market where housing production is greatly increased, yet there is no concurrent increase in parks, rec centers, school and other necessary amenities. Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS) don't count as providing "equitable access to high-quality amenities" as BIPOC and low income residents are not in control of how these spaces are designed or used, and either feel excluded or are excluded in practice by the oce or luxury housing developments they're associated with. b. Private development should not be allowed to shadow existing parks, rec center open spaces, or schoolyards. c. Allocating resources for vulnerable communities to pursue and leverage cooperative approaches to entrepreneurship. d. How will <U+201C>high-quality amenities<U+201D> be dened? If they are truly "equitable" it would seem that BIPOC and low income communities and the network of cultural districts would dene what "high-quality amenities" means. Pursue interagency coordination to facilitate planning for and providing equitable access to community facilities. Comments: No additional comments Policy VI.4: Advance equitable access to a healthy environment through improved air quality, and resilience to natural hazards and climate change impacts, particularly in Environmental Justice Communities. Comments: These proposed design standards must incorporate input from BIPOC and low income communities and the network of cultural districts. Policy VI.5: Apply urban design principles to ensure that new housing enables neighborhood culture, safety, and experience, connects naturally to other neighborhoods, and encourages social engagement and vitality. Comments: David: is making me think about how gentrication works visually, Question about the phrase <U+201C>The private development process must be opened up and led by communities on the ground. <U+201C> and what <U+201C>open up means<U+201D>. Who has the power to shape those decisions and how do we broaden up that process, how do we make it as much grass roots as possible Hernan: If we think about the Mission, a lot of people have moved out and the current residents are not the same residents who used to be here 5 years ago, they are not the same as the natives. When saying safety is a double edge sword and is usually at the expense of one community. Ex: article on the undocumented community and how if you were undocumented you were worthy of being tortured/suffering, the idea that someone <U+201C>looks<U+201D> stereotypically undocumented deems them of mistreatment, so when they say safety what does that mean Francisco: how are we structuring ourselves to get our members to be active participants in this process. Also discussed - how is <U+201C>safety<U+201D> dened and for who when creating urban landscape, who can participate in what spaces given society stereotypes a. Urban design should be culturally relevant and responsive to the existing community and cultures. b. All aspects of development, including design, should be led by residents and community members. The private development process must be opened up and led by communities on the ground. Policy VI.6: Sustain the dynamic and unique cultural heritage of San Francisco<U+2019>s neighborhoods through the conservation of their historic architecture and cultural uses. Comments: a. Cultural districts must be incorporated and supported, including the implementation of the Cultural Heritage, Housing, and Economic Sustainability Strategies (CHHESS). b. The city must evaluate policies, plans, developments, and projects against the goals of historic cultural communities, and cultural districts, to ensure that no harm is being inicted on existing communities. c. Intangible cultural heritage and history must also be incorporated as part of the Planning review process. RETURN TO THE TOPshow more

Laura Foote · spoken · 2022-01-27 · support

People are ready for next level of technicality

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2022-01-27 · oppose · source packet

Comments for January 27th on Items 8 and 9a & 9B (aka #2019-016230CWP/#2018-
016522CWP/#2022-00447CWP Dear President Tanner, Vice President Moore and Commissioners Chan, Diamond, Fung, Imperial and Koppel: Attached are my comments on SB-9, both on the Financial Feasibility Study and the Objective Design Guidelines. They are in two separate pdfs right below. Also with regard to the Informational Hearing on the Housing Element: It is unfortunate that there was never a separate pu… 016522CWP/#2022-00447CWP Dear President Tanner, Vice President Moore and Commissioners Chan, Diamond, Fung, Imperial and Koppel: Attached are my comments on SB-9, both on the Financial Feasibility Study and the Objective Design Guidelines. They are in two separate pdfs right below. Also with regard to the Informational Hearing on the Housing Element: It is unfortunate that there was never a separate public hearing on the "Housing Affordabilities Strategies". It was suppose to be heard in March of 2020 but wasn<U+2019>t because of COVID. I have attached the Summary from the Department website. I hope that this study (which was apparently budgeted at $50K per the 2020-2022 Budget) can be truly incorporated into the Housing Element policies, along with the "Housing Our Workers<U+201D> study. The <U+201C>housing affordability crisis<U+201D> needs a very large spotlight in the new Housing Element. Additionally information on actual full-time occupancy of all the market rate housing from the past decade or so could be very useful in projecting how much market rate housing San Francisco really needsthat is why I want to mention again the Water Bills as a way to measure full time occupancy in the large multi-unit, market rate buildings (condominiums) built in this time period. (See my comments for January 6th Minutes which are attached below) I know everyone is working hard and it must be a Herculean task, especially complicated by two years of COVID, so thank you for having this hearing and for the Staff<U+2019>s perseverance . One final thought concerning preservation of existing housing: In October 2017, the Planning Commission approved the Residential Flat Policy in response to loss of this typology of housing that was being absorbed in major Alterations due to the loophole allowed by Section 317 (b) (7). Please consider an assessment of this Policy and an update to make sure that flats are being preserved per the Policy. I recently corresponded with Staff about this and a pdf of my email to Staff is attached. This is pertinent not only in the context of the State Bills, but also in the preservation goals/actions in the Housing Element. Thank you and thank you to the Staff. I hope I didn<U+2019>t leave anyone out on the cc. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttish https://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/Housing_Affordability_Strategies_S ummary.pdf Comments on Financial Feasibility of SB-9 per the Study From reading the Sta Memo (Exhibit D) and the actual Study (also at Exhibit D), increased housing under SB-9 sounds a little iy. However even if the Study found that the nancials will not pan out, that does not preclude some sort of <U+201C>irrational exuberance<U+201D> since SB-9 projects can be approved ministerially. The Study and the Sta Memo seems to be an honest and thorough assessment. It is obvious a great deal of time and work was spent on them. But both also seem to down play the role that developers have and that speculation has in the San Francisco housing aordability crisis. For example under the heading ,<U+201C>Key Findings<U+201D> in the Sta Memo, there is an assumption that single family home buyers can outbid a developer. But given that my neighborhood, Noe Valley, has been called <U+201C>an epicenter for de factor demolition<U+201D> and so many homes have had extreme Alterations, skirting the Tantamount to Demolition rules of Planning Code Section 317 and been ipped by developers, it is hard to believe that is so. Also under the heading, <U+201C>Project Funding<U+201D> in the Sta Memo, it would seem logical to think that construction loans are easier for a developer with several, or even many projects under their belt to obtain than a homeowner looking for a one time loan. And this is probably particularly so if a developers are able to use SB-9 on several projects simultaneously, something that a homeowner wouldn<U+2019>t being doing, it they were just looking to add a unit or two or three to their property based on their existing home<U+2019>s equity. The legislators in Sacramento did not envisioned an analysis like the analysis in this Financial Feasibility Study. And like the authors of they Study and like the Sta in their Memo, no one has accounted for <U+201C>irrational exuberance<U+201D>. Plus it is hard to imagine RH-1 neighborhoods like Pacic Heights ever having an SB-9 project, but who knows? And perhaps most importantly there is still a need for protection for homeowners and their neighbors from speculators as the concern was written by Sta in their October 21, 2021 Executive Summary (pages 13-14), that is attached in the packet on page 30-31, so that if homeowners do want to expand their property and its potential for increased housing using SB-9, they can do it themselves if they can get funding and reap any potential benets, minus speculative fever. Comments for the Minutes General Public Comment January 6, 2022 G. Schuttish 150 words Given the debate about whether SF has a <U+201C>housing crisis<U+201D> or <U+201C>an aordable housing crisis<U+201D> and the three market rate projects Supervisor Mar mentions in the Richmond Review it seems necessary to understand how much housing is occupied full time. But in terms of occupancy of all the market rate, multi-unit housing built and approved in the past decade plus, it would be really good to construct a study of the water bills to gauge whether or not all this market rate housing is occupied full time. .with people living in these units, not just that units are bought as investments, or a place to stash some cash. Water bills show usage. Usage can reveal whether or not there is full time occupancy. Department Sta has quantitative skills that could analyze water bills in bulk to understand and estimate how much of this housing is lived in full time. Comments on Objective Standards for SB-9 Below I have inserted (cut and paste) from the Introduction to the Residential Design Guidelines, which because they have a <U+201C>LEGAL BASIS<U+201D> as noted below would seem to meet the denition of <U+201C>objective<U+201D>. Perhaps because they have been used by the Public in Requests for Discretionary Review throughout the years they have the appearance of subjectivity to some legislators in Sacramento and their supporters. Discretionary Review allows for an inclusive San Francisco planning process. And the RDGs are used by the Sta in their review of projects so this animosity on the part of some seems misplaced. They should not be discarded just because the process of Discretionary Review has become an easy targetreally a whipping boyand it is peculiar because the SF Planning Commission doesn<U+2019>t really <U+201C>hear<U+201D> all that many DRs on a yearly basis. Anyways However my comments on the SB-9 Objective Guidelines are: The breezeway or Tradesman entrance is already in place in many homes built throughout the City particularly in the great swath of RH-1 zoned houses in the southern and western portions. These existing Tradesman entrances and the houses that have then could easily be adapted to meet the <U+201C>Objective Guidelines<U+201D> in adding units to the existing housing. The window requirements are very good. Light wells should be larger than 75%, if the SB-9 project is a oor or greater higher than the adjacent home. There is no discussion of excavation. Excavations to contain living space, particularly bedrooms should explicitly not be permitted. This is an objective issue of egress for the typical San Francisco lot, that is being worked on currently and will be before the Commission within the next few months. There should be a quantiable amount of permeable ground within the Rear Yard Open Space, particularly due to the fact that SF ground water is mixed with the water supply from Hetch Hetchy. Also important: Natural (trees, plants, etc) Rear Yards capture carbon. Both are be objectively quantiable. It is not clear that a minimum of 25 feet is enough to meet these two objective standards. If the structure on the front of the lot only has one unit, a stair penthouse should not be permitted, it should be a hatch, as has been the Commission<U+2019>s standard. WHY DO WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES? San Francisco is known for its neighborhoods and the visual quality of its buildings. From the Victorians of the Western Addition to the stucco-clad Mediterranean-style homes in the Sunset neighborhood and contemporary inll homes found throughout the City, the architecture is diverse, yet many neighborhoods are made up of buildings with common rhythms and cohesive elements of architectural expression. These neighborhoods are in large part what make San Francisco an attractive place to live, work, and visit. In order to maintain the visual interest of a neighborhood, it is important that the design of new buildings and renovations to existing buildings be compatible with nearby buildings. A single building out of context with its surroundings can be disruptive to the neighborhood character and, if repeated often enough, to the image of the City as a whole. The Residential Design Guidelines (Guidelines) articulate expectations regarding the character of the built environment and are intended to promote design that will protect neighborhood character, enhancing the attractiveness and quality of life in the City. The Guidelines address basic principles of urban design that will result in residential development that maintains cohesive neighborhood identity, preserve historic resources, and enhances the unique setting and character of the City and its residential neighborhoods. The Guidelines also suggest opportunities for residential designs to further San Francisco<U+2019>s goal of environmental sustainability LEGAL BASIS Section 311(c)(1) of the Planning Code provides that Residential Design Guidelines shall be used to review plans for all new construction and alterations. Specically, it states: <U+201C>The construction of new residential buildings and alteration of existing residential buildings in R districts shall be consistent with the design polices and guidelines of the General Plan and with the <U+201C>Residential Design Guidelines<U+201D> as adopted and periodically amended for specic areas or conditions by the City Planning Commission. The Director of Planning may require modications to the exterior of a proposed new residential building or proposed alteration of an existing residential building in order to bring it in to conformity with the <U+201C>Residential Design Guidelines<U+201D> and with the General Plan. These modications may include, but are not limited to, changes in siting, building envelope, scale, texture and detailing, and landscaping.<U+201D> The Planning Commission adopted the rst Guidelines on November 2, 1989. This version of the Guidelines was adopted by the Planning Commission on December 4, 2003. In developing these Residential Design Guidelines, the Department referred to the General Plan, and to the Planning Code. The General Plan is San Francisco<U+2019>s adopted guide for coordinated and harmonious development in accordance with its present and future needs. The Residence and Urban Design Elements of the General Plan include objectives and policies that guide housing supply and residential development, and encourage a quality living environment. The Residential Design Guidelines support and implement these objectives and policies. The Planning Code establishes standards for the maximum and minimum dimensional requirements for a building. The standards include height, the size of rear and side yards, and front setbacks, as well restrictions on the size and location of certain building components. Section 101.1 of the Planning Code establishes priority policies to conserve and protect existing neighborhood character. This section of the Code is the result of a November 1986 voter initiative (known as <U+201C>Prop. M<U+201D>) that arose out of a concern for the visual quality of the neighborhoods. The Residential Design Guidelines implement these policies. HOW ARE THE GUIDELINES USED? Applicability The Residential Design Guidelines apply to all residential projects in RH (Residential House) and RM (Residential Mixed) zoning districts. They do not apply to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Districts or to commercial or institutional buildings within residential districts. Application of the Guidelines is a mandatory step in the permit review process and all residential permit applications must comply with both the Planning Code and the Residential Design Guidelines. I was cleaning up some papers and looking at some old real estate ads and I had one for 1029-1031 York Street. The York Street project was reviewed in November 2021 by Edgar Oropeza and it has notations that it was checked to comply with the Residential Flat Policy on both the PIM and on the DBI Tracking. Looking at the York Street ats led me to the Redn Ad of similar sales and that led me to the sale for $1.5 million of the ats at 1153-1155 Florida which led a project permit that was also reviewed by the Department last September 2021. But in looking at the DBI Tracking and the SFPIM for this address there was no similar notation regarding the Flat Policyand in fact the description on the DBI Tracking Description includes, <U+201C>Modication to Interior Layout at 2nd and 3rd Floor<U+201D>, as well as some work on the 1st Floor while the SFPIM just refers to windows and the excavation in the garage area. (This permit has been issued, while the one for York Street has not.) This made me curious, because the notations were so different. Were the Florida Street ats reviewed as theYork Street Flats apparently were reviewed for compliance with the Residential Flat Policy? The modication to the second and third oors for the Florida Street ats are curious as well. Regardless of these two pairs of ats, I have been thinking about the Residential Flat Policy lately and how it will t in with everything shaking out with the State Bills. I also thought that maybe it would be good to have an Informational update for the Commission and the public on how the Policy is working since it has now been in affect since October 12, 2017 and to learn about the number of ats reviewed under the policy and how consistency is maintained in the review, even during COVID. I was also wondering how tenant issues or if there were past evictions were handled when these ats came in to 49SVN for review and approval? Given the difference in Mr. Oropeza<U+2019>s entry on the York Street project, with the entry on the Florida Street project, I wanted to bring this to your attention and hope that this project on Florida Street is <U+201C>kosher" with the Commission<U+2019>s action regarding Residential Flats. I attached the screenshots from the SFPIM and DBI Tracking for both Florida Street and York Street. Florida Street York Streetshow more

Robert Fruchtman · spoken · 2022-01-27 · oppose

The city is in violation of state law, comply with Streamlining Act

Eric Arguello · spoken · 2022-01-27 · oppose

Plan needs to be updated to support communities of color

Kenneth Russell · spoken · 2022-01-27 · support

Use this opportunity to make our city better

Sheryl Evans Davis · spoken · 2022-01-27 · neutral

Comments

Larisa Pedroncelli · spoken · 2022-01-27 · oppose

Blueprint to streamline profit-driven market rate housing development, allow 3 weeks to review draft

Zachary Wiesenberger · spoken · 2022-01-27 · oppose

Make significant changes so it centers equity for BIPOC and low-income communities

Corey Smith · spoken · 2022-01-27 · support

Housing is coming to the western side of SF

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2022-01-27 · oppose

Promote policies that result in a supply of affordable housing being built city wide

Dave Alexander · spoken · 2022-01-27 · support

Move forward

Eric Shaw · spoken · 2022-01-27 · neutral

Comments

Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2022-01-27 · oppose

Rent control housing

Peter Papadopoulos · spoken · 2022-01-27 · oppose

Use of maps, loss of blue-collar space

Ira Kaplan · spoken · 2022-01-27 · support

Climate change and impact

Lorraine Petty · spoken · 2022-01-27 · oppose

Community input section, number of affordable housings

Bruce Cole · spoken · 2022-01-27 · oppose

Center equity to BIPOC and low-income communities

James Natoli · spoken · 2022-01-27 · support

We need to build more homes

Eileen Boken · spoken · 2022-01-27 · oppose

City survey, vacant units

2022-02-03 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Annemarie Donjacour · email · 2022-02-03 · support · source packet

More homes in the housing plan!
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am sending this email about case number 2019-016230CWP, specifically about the Housing Element portion that talks how we are supposed to build 82,069 new houses between 2023 and 2031. This is double what we've been doing. How can we do that? I support the Housing Element ideas publicized by SF YIMBY. San Francisco should commit to three basic goals. These are: 1. S… show more

2022-04-07 · 23 comments · 4 / 15

Sheryl Davis · spoken · 2022-04-07 · neutral

Human Rights Commission

Eric Shaw · spoken · 2022-04-07 · neutral

MOHCD

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Rezoning Program will take three years. Commission should use their legislative authority in Section 317(b)(2)(D). Adjustment/Reduction of Demo Calcs would act as Interim Controls. The Commission has the legislative authority to implement Interim Controls which are needed to restrain speculation during three years. Draft highlights fact most of SF population is over 65. People in this age cohort seem to live mostly i… show more

Zack Weisenburger · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Equity for bipoc, reduced cost for renters

Sharaya Souza · spoken · 2022-04-07 · support

American Indian data highlighted

Kathy Lipscomb · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Elimination vs Reduction

Lorraine Petty · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Concerns, rent controlled units

Eileen Boken · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Serious flaws

Reina Tello · spoken · 2022-04-07 · support

Costa Hawkins

Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Misguiding

Emily Cohen · spoken · 2022-04-07 · neutral

Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing

Katherine Howard · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Threatens the preservation of rent control units

Dennis Hong · email · 2022-04-07 · support · source packet

SFPD Meeting 4.7.2022 Agenda item #10.
Good evening Honorable members of the SF Planning Commission and everyone. I trust you are all doing well. Dennis Hong here, I regret I will be unable to attend your Thursday meeting of 4/7/2022. Having said that, lets try my initial comments as follows: Dennis here. A Native and resident of San Francisco. Retired. Living in District 7, formally from District 3 Chinatown/North Beach. I would be remiss if I did not … Good evening Honorable members of the SF Planning Commission and everyone. I trust you are all doing well. Dennis Hong here, I regret I will be unable to attend your Thursday meeting of 4/7/2022. Having said that, lets try my initial comments as follows: Dennis here. A Native and resident of San Francisco. Retired. Living in District 7, formally from District 3 Chinatown/North Beach. I would be remiss if I did not take the opportunity in chime here on item #10. I hope I'm in time for your review and consideration when it comes up for your review in today's meeting and in Phase III come May 2023 per this Case. But then there's still time and I will submit more comments for the RTC - after I had a chance to review the hard copy of this document. I have been trying to read this Document on line but the quality of my online service is not clear and the graphics are poor. I have been waiting for a hard copy of this Document. As I glanced over this doc this morning it has been very clear that the SFPD and many others their have done an another excellent job here. I also have been relying on the YIMBY organization and folks to do more research here. As usual they have done the necessary research and has been spot on. With the current on going pandemic, getting down to 49 South Van Ness has been a bit challenging and I'm requesting a hard copy of this document to be sent to me at 101 Marietta Drive, SF 94127. In closing I too hope for your support at this Projects phase I. I would like for my email here to be part of the Projects file with my full support and would like a confirmation that this email has been received and of this email will be part of the Project file. Bare with me here, this request just came up to me this morning. Item #10on your agenda below: 10. 2019-016230CWP (K. HADDADAN: [phone removed]) HOUSING ELEMENT 2022 <U+2013> Informational Presentation <U+2013> The Housing Element 2022 Update of the General Plan is San Francisco's first housing plan centered on racial and social equity. This plan will express the city<U+2019>s collective vision and values for the future of housing in San Francisco. It will also identify priorities for decision makers, guide resource allocation for housing programs and services, and define how and where the city should create new homes for San Franciscans, or those who want to call this city home. This update is due late 2022 and it will need to accommodate the creation of 82,000 units by If any one has any comments to my email, please feel free to get back to me, good and or bad, would like to hear your thoughts. All the best, Dennisshow more

Corey Smith · spoken · 2022-04-07 · support

Step in the right direction

Lydia Ely · spoken · 2022-04-07 · neutral

MOHCD response to comments and questions

Eric Arguello · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Private mixed-use development

Dan Robinson · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Market rate housing

Peter Papadapoulos · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Mapping, population vulnerable for displacements

Robert Fruchtman · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Pipeline data

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Rental units

Charlie Sciammas · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Rent Coalition and PODER, issues and concerns

Mitch Mankin · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

Costa Hawkins and Ellis Act

Angelica Cabande · spoken · 2022-04-07 · oppose

BIPOC

2022-04-14 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Jessica Nguyen Cruz · email · 2022-04-14 · support · source packet

Housing Element Written Statement
Dear Commissioners, The District 4 Youth and Families Network would like to submit a statement of support for the Housing Element heard at the Planning Commission on Thursday, April 7th (agenda item 2019-016230CWP HOUSING ELEMENT 2022 <U+2013> Informational Presentation). It was brought to my attention that the audio from my call-in did not come through very well so I've copied the written statement below… Dear Commissioners, The District 4 Youth and Families Network would like to submit a statement of support for the Housing Element heard at the Planning Commission on Thursday, April 7th (agenda item 2019-016230CWP HOUSING ELEMENT 2022 <U+2013> Informational Presentation). It was brought to my attention that the audio from my call-in did not come through very well so I've copied the written statement below and cc'd the Steering Committee members of the D4YFN. _____ Hello. My name is Jessica, here representing the District 4 Youth and Family Network, a collective of community based non-profit agencies serving over 32,000 San Francisco children, youth and families, providing a range of services - including child care, school-aged after school programs, drop in play groups, parent education and support groups, tenant rights, health services and education workshops, and services for systems involved and transitional aged youth. Much of our collective work supports low and moderate income families with limited English proficiency in the Sunset community on the west side of San Francisco. The D4 Network members and particularly its lead agency, Wah Mei School has worked for over two years with the Planning Department on the Sunset Forward community Needs Assessment & Planning process and on this year<U+2019>s Housing Element Plan. The Sunset Forward community needs assessment surveyed hundreds of west side families and shows that in fact, housing affordability is the highest priority need. We know that people do want and need affordable housing. The District 4 Youth & Family Network is here on behalf of historically marginalized communities who don<U+2019>t typically have the ability or accessibility to attend these public forums and/or have their voices heard. We stand in support of the Housing Element and its focus on ensuring more affordable housing is available on the Westside of the City so that families and children can stay in the neighborhood. Housing affordability is critical to sustaining active and engaged neighborhoods. Thank you for your time, Jessica Nguyen D4YFN Coordinator Wah Mei School | wahmei.org 1400 Judah Street. San Francisco, CA 94122 [phone removed] Connect With Us! Facebook | Instagramshow more

2022-06-09 · 28 comments · 1 / 27

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2022-06-09 · oppose

Preservation alternative, CUs for demolitions

Charles Ayers · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Item 2019-016230ENV: plan for 10,000 homes per year by 2031
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Environmental Impact Report is an impact report for outdated housing targets. The report studies alternatives based on Mayor Lee<U+2019>s 2017 goal of building five thousand units per year by 2050, but former Mayor Lee<U+2019>s goal predates our RHNA and even predates the bill that outlined the parameters for calculating RHNA, that bill being Senator Wien… show more

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2022-06-09 · oppose

Thoroughly evaluate the impacts of policies

Robert Fruchtman · spoken · 2022-06-09 · oppose

Not a realistic EIR

Zack Weisenberger · spoken · 2022-06-09 · oppose

Encourages demolition and displacements, report is inadequate

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2022-06-09 · oppose

Gentrification, should have more days to comment

Francisco Da Costa · spoken · 2022-06-09 · oppose

Focus on quality of life issue

Angelica Cabande · spoken · 2022-06-09 · oppose

Evaluate the impacts of policies

Tes Welborn · spoken · 2022-06-09 · oppose

Must be explored further

Bruce Cole · spoken · 2022-06-09 · oppose

Evaluate the impacts

Eileen Boken · spoken · 2022-06-09 · oppose

Mandatory water rationing, increase weather conditions

David Kanter · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Item 11 this week: infill housing is GOOD for the environment
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzpkNjMxOWMxNDcwYThhMGU4YTQzYjE0NWRiMmJlMTM3Mzo2OmU4Y2U6N2Y5ODIyNzJhODFhYjJiNjRiN2NiNzM1ZDUyNGFjZjAwMmMwYTM5YWJmNmE2ZDI3NDAyNDllMjhlNGVmNWYzMDp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. David Kanter [email removed] 633 Grand View Avenue, Apt 4 San Francisco, California 94114show more

James Webb · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Item 11 this week: infill housing is GOOD for the environment
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo4M2Q0OTVhYzM5NTdmMmJjNmE2YTE2NWQ1MjJiYmUyZTo2OjIzMzU6ZWE4YTc0MTBmYTViNWYwNDc3MWFiNjFmOWY3OWExOWMyMDI0OGZhNjM4ZDk1OTUxZWRhNGFjODY5ZDVhODBkNjp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. James Webb [email removed] 455 25th Avenue, Apt 2 San Francisco, California 94121show more

Cliff Bargar · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Item 11 this week: infill housing is GOOD for the environment
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzpkNmJkMjg3NTJkOGZkMDE0NGQ1MGM1ZmYwODhkOTIyMjo2OjdmNTk6NTc0NzM1MDMyZGRhN2Y3ZjMxYzlhMjY4Mzc3ZGY2OTZlMzRiYzg5NDYxMTQzNjFkNzcxZTg4MmNhOGNhYmZhZjp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. Cliff Bargar [email removed] 160 Connecticut St San Francisco, California 94107-2442show more

Dennis Hong · email · 2022-06-09 · support · source packet

Re: CPC.HousingElementUpdateEIR@sfgov. - 2019-016230ENV
Dear, Miss. Elizabeth White and everyone. It's Dennis here and its June 9, 2022, 8:30am. I trust this email follow up gets to you all in time for today's - San Francisco Planning Commissions hearing at 1PM. This is my initial response here. 1. Another spot on Doc, 2. Received the hard copy last night. My quick overview here meets today's requirement for the "adacecy(?) of this DEIR and I'm … show more

Dennis Hong · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

CPC.HousingElementUpdateEIR@sfgov. - 2019-016230ENV
Good morning Miss White and everyone, Dennis here. Its 6/4/2022 and I trust you and all are doing well over there. I'm following up on this DEIR and was requested to make my comments on this DEIR and its adequacy. As of this morning I have been unable to find this document online and or download it. Given the past few meetings both at the SF Board and the SF Planning Commission, is there a direct link to this d… show more

David Ivan · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Item 11 this week: infill housing is GOOD for the environment
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I agree with all of the below statement, however it is very technical. I will say more plainly, its not clear how it is possible to think that building a denser city would be be worse for the environment than encouraging sprawl across the bay area and the state. To think this requires a severe lack of critical thinking skills. I know the language is harsh, but it is the t… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I agree with all of the below statement, however it is very technical. I will say more plainly, its not clear how it is possible to think that building a denser city would be be worse for the environment than encouraging sprawl across the bay area and the state. To think this requires a severe lack of critical thinking skills. I know the language is harsh, but it is the truth. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzpkMzkxZjRhOGEwMWJmOTMwNzU4NWQ1MTJjMGU5MmI3Zjo2OjgwYWQ6Mzc3Zjk0YTMzNDFlODVkMTZmYTFlM2MxZGRiZDNmZWNjYWY3ZDBiNWRkYmU4NjVlMDY4YzUyOWM1OTNlNjJkOTp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. David Ivan [email removed] 630 Alvarado Street, Apartment 202 San Francisco, California 94114show more

Bobak Esfandiari · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Item 2019-016230ENV: plan for 10,000 homes per year by 2031
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, SF Planning's current approach to the Housing Element is laughably inadequate. You all need to seriously revise and rethink what you're doing before you cost San Francisco millions of dollars in state grants because you're unwilling and unserious about meeting our housing requirements as required by state law. Fix this. Now. Make the changes that Chris Elme… show more

Elliot Schwartz · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Matthew Klenk · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Corey Johnson · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Item 2019-016230ENV: plan for 10,000 homes per year by 2031
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, San Francisco's climate and environment make it one of the most climate friendly places for urban development. In city government, we can't change things at a global level, but we can start making changes locally to help curb climate change. Let's start today so my children can live an a better, healthier San Francisco. It all starts with the Environmental … show more

Sarah Rogers · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Robert Fruchtman · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Item 11 this week: infill housing is GOOD for the environment
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzpiNDU1NGI4ZjhkMTc5YjlkNDY5YTQ4MWRhODIwNzM4Njo2OmJmNDk6MDczYjAzYWI0NzYyZDUzY2I0MWE2NjdiYjk5NTZiYzNkYzI1NDUyNTQxMDk0ODhmYjQzNzQ2NmEzYjUyNWNmNjp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. Robert Fruchtman [email removed] 616 Page St San Francisco , California 94117show more

Scot Conner · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Jeremy Besmer · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Sarah Boudreau · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Item 11 this week: infill housing is GOOD for the environment
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzphOGRiNDZlYzIxMmMwZGUzZjYzNzcyMmUxODA1Yzg3OTo2OjE4YmM6ZjIyZTI3Y2I0OTFmMDU0NTFhNDg0ODIzMTgwMGE5ZjRhNjg1ZTk5NzE0MDM0NDM1YzA5YjI1ZmUyNjM4ZjdjMzp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. Sarah Boudreau [email removed] 455 25th Avenue, #2 San Francisco, California 94121show more

Jeremy Rose · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

Scott Simmons · email · 2022-06-09 · oppose · source packet

2022-06-16 · 17 comments · 2 / 15

Jeremy Rose · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Item 2019-016230ENV: plan for 10,000 homes per year by 2031
Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, This Environmental Impact Report is an impact report for outdated housing targets. The report studies alternatives based on Mayor Lee<U+2019>s 2017 goal of building five thousand units per year by 2050, but former Mayor Lee<U+2019>s goal predates our RHNA and even predates the bill that outlined the parameters for calculating RHNA, that bill being Senator Wiener&… show more

Cliff Bargar · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Item 11 this week: infill housing is GOOD for the environment
Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+… Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo3M2FhNDkxMWZkYTY1NzVmMDgzMDJjNDhhYTU5MDQwODo2Ojk4NjA6YTBlNDIwOTRhNjYzYThiOWE4YjE5YTY5OTM5ZDNlZDYxZGI1YzI4MTM4NDI5ZTA0NmQyOGE5N2I4NWY4OWZjZTp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. Cliff Bargar [email removed] 160 Connecticut St San Francisco, California 94107-2442show more

David Ivan · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Item 11 this week: infill housing is GOOD for the environment
Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, I agree with all of the below statement, however it is very technical. I will say more plainly, its not clear how it is possible to think that building a denser city would be be worse for the environment than encouraging sprawl across the bay area and the state. To think this requires a severe lack of critical thinking skills. I know the language is harsh, but it is the trut… Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, I agree with all of the below statement, however it is very technical. I will say more plainly, its not clear how it is possible to think that building a denser city would be be worse for the environment than encouraging sprawl across the bay area and the state. To think this requires a severe lack of critical thinking skills. I know the language is harsh, but it is the truth. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo3NmE1YjI2YThkNzI0ZDIxZjI2Mjg1MTA5ZWRiZGE5OTo2OmE5OTI6MWUyMDBiMmVlOGIxMjYyODkyYTJiY2FlYmQ4YTIzMDM4Y2EzNDljMWUwYzFjYjVhMjhkMmIwN2NjMWY2OTUzYTp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. David Ivan [email removed] 630 Alvarado Street, Apartment 202 San Francisco, California 94114show more

Matthew Klenk · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Scot Conner · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

David Kanter · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Item 11 this week: infill housing is GOOD for the environment
Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+… Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo1YTljMGRkODczOWY1Mzg1MWJlMjU2MTk0M2FiZWM5NTo2Ojc0NDQ6NmMwMjkzNjBlOTYxNzhiNTc1YmMxNjdjYjk3ODVkOGQ0NWQwMzg0ZjQwMWFlODUxNTNmNGZiNGMxMDkzNmQ4Yzp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. David Kanter [email removed] 633 Grand View Avenue, Apt 4 San Francisco, California 94114show more

Elliot Schwartz · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

James Webb · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Item 11 this week: infill housing is GOOD for the environment
Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+… Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo0MTc0N2Y5NTE4MWUzN2I4NzVhN2IwODI2NjU3MjI3ZTo2OjVmOGI6ZDZjNjRlY2U3NTIxZTJiOTU5MWZjMmNkNWY5MWQzNWRiNDk1YjgxMmEzYjE0ODkxZTFkNDAwYWM1MDg4MzU1Nzp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. James Webb [email removed] 455 25th Avenue, Apt 2 San Francisco, California 94121show more

Jeremy Besmer · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Charles Ayers · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Robert Fruchtman · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Item 11 this week: infill housing is GOOD for the environment
Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+… Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzowZGRhM2YyN2JjYmVlMjhlNzZlMDhjZGNlM2ZhOTA0Mjo2OmYxZWE6MzRjMTlkZWZiODE1YTRiZjQxOGUyMzZhNjQ1Y2EwMjQ2YTNjNTAyZTc3Y2ZkZTNkMmM0YjUzYzQ3MDJiZDg0NDp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. Robert Fruchtman [email removed] 616 Page St San Francisco , California 94117show more

Sarah Rogers · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Sarah Boudreau · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Item 11 this week: infill housing is GOOD for the environment
Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+… Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo5YTU1YzBhMjkxZTA1MWNlY2JjMTBkYzU1ZjIxMmExZTo2OjM3NGU6ZTM1ZWU4OGExMGE3Y2MxZThiOGY0YzY5NzZhNjRlMmM0NWYwNzU4YTAwN2M0ZjFjOGMwM2ZhMzUwMWJlMzEyMzp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. Sarah Boudreau [email removed] 455 25th Avenue, #2 San Francisco, California 94121show more

Stacey Randecker · email · 2022-06-16 · support · source packet

Item 11 this week: Build infill housing. Save the planet.
Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, I<U+2019>m using a template because it<U+2019>s GOOD. My personal add is that as a single mom of two teens, I want to be able to afford to stay in the city that I love. I also want them to be able to live here in the future if they want. That will NEVER happen unless there are massive amounts of all types of dense housing built. True affordability comes from havi… Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, I<U+2019>m using a template because it<U+2019>s GOOD. My personal add is that as a single mom of two teens, I want to be able to afford to stay in the city that I love. I also want them to be able to live here in the future if they want. That will NEVER happen unless there are massive amounts of all types of dense housing built. True affordability comes from having enough so that prices are not driven up. Build infill. Build on parking lots and gas stations. Build on our EIGHT (inequitable and environmentally damaging) golf courses. Build like our lives depend upon it. Because dense cities reduce reliance on cars, Increase funding for transit, and help cool the planet. 82,069 is THE FLOOR, not the ceiling. BUILD!! **** The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzplNjljYjhjNmMxY2M4Y2YzMmI2ZTlkN2M0ZjhlYjA3NDo2OjU5YmM6ZWM3ZjIzMjAzOGY2N2VlMDA1MjM0ZGRlNzdhZGExMzI1MWJmZDM3ZjRiYThmMzgwZTY3YmRlYWRlZDJhZmFhYjp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. Stacey Randecker [email removed] 481 Mississippi St San Francisco, California 94107show more

Stacey Randecker · email · 2022-06-16 · support · source packet

Item 11 this week: Build infill housing. Save the planet.
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I<U+2019>m using a template because it<U+2019>s GOOD. My personal add is that as a single mom of two teens, I want to be able to afford to stay in the city that I love. I also want them to be able to live here in the future if they want. That will NEVER happen unless there are massive amounts of all types of dense housing built. True affordability comes from h… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I<U+2019>m using a template because it<U+2019>s GOOD. My personal add is that as a single mom of two teens, I want to be able to afford to stay in the city that I love. I also want them to be able to live here in the future if they want. That will NEVER happen unless there are massive amounts of all types of dense housing built. True affordability comes from having enough so that prices are not driven up. Build infill. Build on parking lots and gas stations. Build on our EIGHT (inequitable and environmentally damaging) golf courses. Build like our lives depend upon it. Because dense cities reduce reliance on cars, Increase funding for transit, and help cool the planet. 82,069 is THE FLOOR, not the ceiling. BUILD!! **** The Draft Environmental Impact Report (topic 2019-016230ENV) does not adequately address the transportation impacts of building more housing, especially on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transportation is an important topic because <U+201C>San Francisco has many more jobs than homes; as a result, workers must commute into San Francisco each day to reach their jobs<U+201D> (4.1-68). The DEIR further states that <U+201C>on average, people living or working in San Francisco have lower levels of VMT per capita than people living or working elsewhere in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region<U+201D> (4.4-12). The message is clear that SF commuters impact the environment less than other residents and workers in the Bay Area region. This means that any environmental analysis should also consider the impact of a project and alternatives on the nine-county Bay Area as a whole. However, the DEIR fails to reflect regional VMT in its analysis of which alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR claims that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior because it would construct fewer housing units (S-5); this claim is at odds with the impact of GHG emissions from the No Project Alternative. The DEIR determines that <U+201C>although regional total daily VMT would increase because of the additional housing, the percentage increase would be less than what would be anticipated if the additional housing were located in an area with per capita VMT that is higher than the regional average.<U+201D> In other words, the No Project Alternative would lead to higher regional VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions because it would not decrease the number of workers who commute into San Francisco from areas with higher VMT per capita. UC Davis Professor Chris Elmendorf has written a letter to the city detailing these concerns in more detail, and I support his comments: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://drive.google.com/file/d/10plS1Sd6T7FdKBkgd5DD1MbOsEnJgbE1/view___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo5ZDI3MjIwYjVhY2M1ZTM0NzgzOGE0MGE3YjIxODE1Yzo2OjNiYWU6NDAwNzgxZWRiODc3ZjMzMTU1YmYzMjU4MjQ3OWVjMGFjYmZlYmY5OTRhMmQzZmNmYjZlMTYyNTQyMWEzMGRkNzp0OlQ The EIR should therefore not refer to the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as doing so fails to recognize the GHG emissions which would result from it. Instead, the DEIR should plan to accommodate over 10,000 new housing units per year to address the climate crisis. Stacey Randecker [email removed] 481 Mississippi St San Francisco, California 94107show more

Scott Simmons · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Corey Johnson · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

Item 2019-016230ENV: plan for 10,000 homes per year by 2031
Planning Commission Secretary Jonas Ionin, San Francisco's climate and environment make it one of the most climate friendly places for urban development. In city government, we can't change things at a global level, but we can start making changes locally to help curb climate change. Let's start today so my children can live an a better, healthier San Francisco. It all starts with the Environmental Imp… show more

2022-07-21 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Dennis Hong · email · 2022-07-21 · support · source packet

We need your help
Dear Honorable members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and everyone. Last night I was able to see what was on your agenda for July 19, 2022. I trust you are all doing well and that my email here makes it in time for your 7/19/2022 meeting. But as always they are just some of my rambling notes I had on my 2do list. But we need your help. So lets get started. Most of this is below is a copy and paste from y… Dear Honorable members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and everyone. Last night I was able to see what was on your agenda for July 19, 2022. I trust you are all doing well and that my email here makes it in time for your 7/19/2022 meeting. But as always they are just some of my rambling notes I had on my 2do list. But we need your help. So lets get started. Most of this is below is a copy and paste from your 7/19/2022 Agenda: Please support the following, its good business: 46. 211232 [Administrative Code - Housing Innovation Program] Sponsors: Melgar; Mar and Mandelman Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to create the Housing Innovation Program to develop, finance, and support certain additional housing opportunities for low-income and moderate-income residents, including loans and technical assistance for certain low-income and moderate-income property owners to construct accessory dwelling units or other new units on their property, subject to certain conditions, loans for certain low-income and moderate-income tenants who are at risk of displacement and licensed childcare providers, and grants for organizations to create marketing and educational materials about wealth-building and homeownership for residents who have been historically disadvantaged and to develop creative construction design prototypes for low-income and moderate-income residents. Question: Shall this Ordinance be PASSED ON FIRST READING? 57. 220631 [Charter Amendment, Initiative Ordinance, and Policy Declaration - Affordable Housing Production Act] Sponsors: Chan; Walton, Peskin, Preston, Ronen and Mar Charter Amendment (Fourth Draft) to amend the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco to provide for accelerated review and approval of eligible 100% affordable housing projects, educator housing projects, and market-rate projects that provide significant increased affordability, and providing for Planning Department ministerial review in lieu of approvals by or certain appeals to City boards and commissions; to make corresponding amendments to the Planning Code and the Business and Tax Regulations Code; to amend the Administrative Code to provide for an Annual Affordable Housing Allocation Report as part of the City<U+2019>s budge 63. 220636 [Charter Amendment and Ordinance - Additional Density and Height; Rent-Control] Sponsors: Peskin; Chan, Preston and Walton Charter Amendment (Third Draft) to amend the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco to set forth a requirement that when the City amends the Planning Code to allow for additional residential numerical density or height, that developers agree to subject the new residential units in the development, other than Affordable Housing Units, to rent control; to amend the Administrative Code to establish as the residential numerical density and height limits those controls in effect as of November 8, 2022, and to allow the Board of Supervisors to amend the Planning Code to exceed those limits if the ordinance requires a regulatory agreement to subject all dwelling units in development projects, other than Affordable Housing Units, to rent control; to from your 7/12/2022 mtg: What is the scope of work covered in the fund and accountability/s? 220690 Sponsor: Mayor Resolution approving the Fiscal Years (FYs) 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 Expenditure Plan for the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing Fund. Supervisor Walton, seconded by Supervisor Melgar, moved that this Resolution be CONTINUED to the Board of Supervisors meeting of July 19, 2022. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: 11 - Chan, Dorsey, Mandelman, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton My Current issues: One Oak Project: I mention to the SF Planning Commissioners on 7/14/200 in support of the One Oak project: a. I have been in support of this since mid 2017 and still do. b. Because of both recent articles in the SF Business times, the SF Chronicle and the YIMBY, including several other reports. It was confusing as to what's next. If and When it comes up on your agenda again, please keep in mind its a wonderful housing project that we all need and I hope you will all support it. I do not know much about all the CA SB's and AB's, etc. referencing these all too many complicated Housing rules/legislation, etc but I do know, we need all the housing we can get and because as I understand it doing nothing here may cause some heavy fines. Please understand these items when voting with the housing issues. They are great tools in your box to use. c. In my opinion, the current population explosion that needs all the housing is not really our fault. But some how it needs our support. d. But the One Oak seems to have part of this nailed, its apartments and not (really) housing pe/se. Its a two way issue. e. Please continue to support all the CA, fed etc. housing mandates, etc. or suffer the recoil/s. f. We need your support with the SF Plannings DEIR - Housing Element 2022 when it comes to you for your approval, case no 2019-016230CWP, think there was another case no. to this original one. g. As requested, I have had a chance to chime in on the DEIR (both volumes I and II (2022) and to send in my comments, which I did, you were cc'd on my email of June 9, 2022. The DEIR was another professional spot on Document. Several other interesting issues <U+2013> my opinion: a. Fining, penalizing, taxing property owners on vacant houses, store fronts, housing is not a way to go, but be fixable. Why blames the property owners? Business' are having a hard time justifying doing business in SF, including living in the city. b. Now I hear that there is even the possibility of expediting these business, permit process may not be passed and it may be part of the Nov ballot (TBD). If that were the case that is a real shame. That is a key part of this process that is needed for the SBA folks. These folks really need help with this process. As it is now it is to hard to navigate the current process. They are not really tech savvy. Hold their hand. c. Thanks for the legislation on the Mental Health program. I have not read it fully yet, but it was long over due and in my opinion is the part of the root cause of homeless. d. What ever happened to that wonderful SF Homeless Connect program that our former Mayor Gavin Newsom started? It was a good program. Well it looks like it has lost some steam. Why keep reinventing the wheel? Dennis is a native of San Francisco, (seventy five+ years). Property owner in District 7. Worked in the city for fifty+ years. Had many years in District 3. In closing, thanks to all for reading my rambling emails. Sorry for my redundant comments. My current system and access to the internet has been weak at best, with even all the large pdf/down loads. Would really like it if anyone could respond here with your thoughts good or bad. Lets see who will be the first to respond to me. Too be continued. All the best BXXSafe Dennis is at [email removed].show more

2022-09-29 · 8 comments · 0 / 8

Zack Weisenberger · spoken · 2022-09-29 · oppose

Put affordable first, commit to land use/resource plan

Robert Fructhman · spoken · 2022-09-29 · oppose

In dire straits, revise schedule for recertification

Tes Welborn · spoken · 2022-09-29 · oppose

Where's affordable housing money and land banking?

Jake Price · spoken · 2022-09-29 · oppose

Schedule in January not March, status quo is not equitable

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2022-09-29 · oppose

Where's the money from, affordable housing first

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2022-09-29 · oppose

Constraints of lot sizes in San Francisco

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2022-09-29 · oppose · source packet

Informational Hearing on Housing Element September 29, 2022 # 2019-016230CWP
Dear Vice President Moore and Commissioners Diamond, Imperial, Koppel and Ruiz and Ms. Chion and Ms. Caltagirone: In the Appendix to the August 8, 2022 letter to Director Hillis from HCD, the planners in Sacramento want the planners in San Francisco to use the Housing Element to identify sites for housing. The majority of San Franciso lots in the RH neighborhoods are constrained by their average size which is usually… Dear Vice President Moore and Commissioners Diamond, Imperial, Koppel and Ruiz and Ms. Chion and Ms. Caltagirone: In the Appendix to the August 8, 2022 letter to Director Hillis from HCD, the planners in Sacramento want the planners in San Francisco to use the Housing Element to identify sites for housing. The majority of San Franciso lots in the RH neighborhoods are constrained by their average size which is usually around 25<U+2019> x 114<U+2019>. (Sometimes more, sometimes less) Above is a pdf of my comments sent regarding the Mandelman Four Plex legislation when it was before the Planning Commission in November 2021. This of course was prior to this legislation being vetoed by the Mayor and prior to the current attempt by the Supervisor to revive this legislation in some form. Regardless of whether Supervisor Mandelman is successful in crafting legislation that could survive another veto, the Planning Commission has an immediate role to play in using a tool already available to the Commission under their legislative authority to deal with the housing crisis per Section 317 (b) (2) (D). Adjusting the Demo Calcs is a <U+201C>horse" I keep <U+201C>beating" because I do not believe it is <U+201C>dead", nor should it be. I agree with former Commissioner Fung<U+2019>s suggestion that corner lots offer a good opportunity for densification due to the additional egress and exposure that naturally occurs on a corner lot and that potentially allows for more units.and especially units that are more livable for the people who will be living in them. The projects on these two corner lot in the pdf show how there could be two outcomes in adjusting the Demo Calcs that could have a positive affect on housing: One outcome is by preserving multi-units and the other outcome is creating multi-units. Both have the potential to increase the number of units on a corner lot. The two corner lot addresses in the pdf are : 1647 Sanchez/290 Day Streets and 3790-3792 21st Street. Here is a quick update on each corner lot project since submitting the pdf nearly one year ago. The Sanchez/Day Street project went back on the market in the past year at an asking price of nearly $14 million dollars and despite lowering the price to around $10 million, it has not sold. This mega-mansion has been basically unoccupied, not lived in full time, since the CFC was issued and since the previous sale at $9.1 million in 2020. Although the Demolition Calculations for this project were accepted and were very close to the the thresholds at the time of the original review by the Department, the Staff recently re- determined and confirmed that in their opinion the project did not exceed them. However, this project was approved in 2017 and the Section 317 Demolition Calculation values were set by March 26, 2009. The Calcs should have been adjusted at least once, if not twice within those eight (8) years so the developers/speculators could not have used the Demo Calcs as a loophole to create a mega-mansion, rather than actually tearing down a decrepit building to expand housing. And if this adjustment per Section 317 (b) (2) (D) had happened, rather than the City having an unoccupied, high end, mega-mansion, it is possible that three or four units could have been built at the sitecreating additional housing that could now be occupied. The 21st Street project is scheduled for a CUA hearing to legalize the illegal demolition when it was found after the CFC was issued and the 2022 sale finalized to have actually exceeded the Demo Calcs. However, the original two units, two <U+201C>naturally affordable units<U+201D> or <U+201C>relatively affordable<U+201D> units that were exceedingly livable were permanently lost due to use of the Demo Calcs as a loophole by the developer/speculator of this project. Additionally there is the issue of the <U+201C>absorption<U+201D> of the original second unit as part of the <U+201C>Alteration<U+201D>. If the loophole of the Demo Calcs had not been used for this project, beyond preserving the two original units there was always the potential to add an ADU or a JADU at this corner lot. The project was finally completed after several years construction and sold in 2022 for $6.5 million. Thank you. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttishshow more

Charlie Siamas · spoken · 2022-09-29 · oppose

Put affordable first

2022-11-03 · 12 comments · 0 / 1

Kenneth Russell · spoken · 2022-11-03 · neutral

Realistic plan to build

Lorraine Petty · spoken · 2022-11-03 · neutral

Community opposition as an obstacle to building, DRs

Mike Schiraldi · spoken · 2022-11-03 · neutral

Eastern part of Glen Park

Mitch Mankin · spoken · 2022-11-03 · neutral

Rezoning program, can't rely on federal funding

Robert Fruchtman · spoken · 2022-11-03 · neutral

Major components still missing, very poor feasibility, social housing rents and revenues from the city

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2022-11-03 · neutral

Present a more compelling strategy

Jake Price · spoken · 2022-11-03 · neutral

Needs metrics and accountability

Christopher Roach · spoken · 2022-11-03 · neutral

Remove barriers and streamline implementation

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2022-11-03 · neutral

Written comments on 10/13/2022 on SB 9

Tom Radulovich · spoken · 2022-11-03 · neutral

Focus more on sustainability, climate and health, form based codes, commitment to neighborhood planning

Yonathan Randolph · email · 2022-11-03 · oppose · source packet

Re: Housing Element October draft comments
Hello. I emailed this comment on the deadline for Housing Element 2nd Submittal public comments 10/14/2022, but it is missing from <U+201C>Public Input Received during the Oct 6 <U+2013> Oct 14<U+201D> in 11/3/2022 Planning Commission Packet 2019-016230CWP_4. Can you make sure it is included in the AB 215 compilation of comments? On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 4:59 PM Yonathan [email removed]> wrote: He… show more

Alex Lansberg · spoken · 2022-11-03 · neutral

Multi family infill, housing sustainability in the west side, labor capacity, equity strategies

2022-11-10 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2022-11-10 · oppose · source packet

Responses to Comments Case No. 2019-016230ENV
In the Responses to Comments Document posted online it says to write to the Commission but I also wanted to include the Staff cc<U+2019>ed here because of previous correspondence which is included above. Here is my follow up comment: On page 4-53, Response ENS-7, in the fifth paragraph it says the following: The comment incorrectly states that the criterion for applying the Slope and Seismic Hazard Protecti… In the Responses to Comments Document posted online it says to write to the Commission but I also wanted to include the Staff cc<U+2019>ed here because of previous correspondence which is included above. Here is my follow up comment: On page 4-53, Response ENS-7, in the fifth paragraph it says the following: The comment incorrectly states that the criterion for applying the Slope and Seismic Hazard Protection Zone requirements, particularly those related to geotechnical investigations, was revised from 20 percent to 25 percent. The building department has not used 20 percent as a criterion for requiring geotechnical investigation. The requirements are described in Building Code section 1803 as well as in the building department<U+2019>s information sheet, S-05, Geotechnical Report Requirements. The requirement regarding the scope of geotechnical investigation for a project is determined by the scope of the proposed work as well as subsurface geologic conditions. The criterion for an average slope that exceeds 4H:1V (25 percent) is the screening threshold that is used by the building department to determine the applicability of the Slope and Seismic Hazard Protection Act to a project. The comment was from me on June 9, 2022 asking about the change from 20 percent to 25 percent on the CatEx form. Here is that comment: <U+201C>Seventy-two percent chance of an earthquake is mentioned in here. What are the rebuilding plans if there's something truly catastrophic in these next 30 years? How will ownership and occupancy records be maintained to facilitate rebuilding? And the seismic slope and hazard zone? That was changed from 20 percent to 25 percent? That is on page 4.1- 162. I think the 20 percent is more prudent.<U+201D> (Georgia Schuttish, June 9, 2022, [I-Schuttish- 3]) However I am confused. Maybe I phrased the comment poorly and should have emphasized the issues with densification and an impact from construction with the potential of multi- unit buildings located on the steep streets. It just seemed that the more conservative number of 20 percent slope or greater as a trigger for a Geotechnical Study would be more prudent than the number of 25 percent slope or greater as the requirement. Nevertheless based on the CatEx forms above (two versions of a CatEx for the same property from 2014 and 2019 and two separate CatEx for two immediately adjacent properties on the same steep hill, but one from 2017 and one from 2021) and my correspondence with Environmental Review Staff it seems there has been a change over the past several years and since the last Housing Element in 2014, related to when a Geotechnical Report is required to satisfy the Categorical Exemption. I wasn<U+2019>t commenting on the Building Department, or any changes or requirements under the Building Code, but rather commenting on the change to the CatEx Document (to = or > 25%, from = or > 20% for the <U+201C>Slope<U+201D> checkbox) which is from the Planning Department and is necessary for approval under CEQA when reviewing projects and could take on more importance in the proposed rezoning/densification. Please see the attachments above and thank you for your time and all the work. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttish On Dec 9, 2021, at 10:11 AM, Dwyer, Debra (CPC) [email removed]> wrote: Thank you for your patience. The Cat Ex Checklist is developed by Environmental Planning staff for use in documenting categorical exemptions. The Cat Ex Checklist includes environmental topic screening criteria that are used by PIC, Current Planning , and Environmental Planning staff to assist in determining which projects qualify for a categorical exemption. The Cat Ex checklist is periodically revised to reect changes. For the section you reference regarding slope, there are a couple of categorical exemption classes for which 20% slope is one threshold or criterion for determining of the cat ex is applicable: CEQA Guidelines section 15305, Minor alterations in Land Use limitations (Class 5), cannot be used in areas with average slope 20% or greater; and CEQA Guidelines section 15315, Minor Land Divisions (Class 15) also cannot be used in areas with average slope 20% or greater. DBI did not recommend a switch from 20% to 25% in the Cat Ex Checklist. Planning revised the checklist based on amendments to the Slope and Seismic Hazards Zoning Protection Act (local building Code 106A.4.1.4) as well as clarication of geotechnical report requirements in DBI Information Sheet S-05. This ensures that Planning is considering site conditions - including below grade and the scope of the project in conrming the applicability of an exemption class. Many exemptions for smaller projects are determined to be Class 1 (existing facilities - used for additions) or Class 3 (new construction of limited numbers of small structures). Neither of these classes is precluded by the percent slope at a site. Environmental screening is conducted to understand if environmental topics require further review. The average slope of a project site is one feature that is considered in environmental review. In terms of geotechnical investigation required for a project, slope is one factor but it is looked at in relation to the scope of the project and other project site conditions (geologic units - presence of expansive soils or ll, depth to groundwater, depth to bedrock, seismic hazard zones: state designated landslide hazard potential or liquefaction hazard, SF local Slope Protection Act). The Building Code (section 1803) species the contents of a geotechnical report. DBI has Information Sheets that provide clarication for permit submittals. In particular, Structural Information Sheet S-05 claries the scope of work for which DBI requires a geotechnical report be provided. The current version of S-05 is dated May 2019, but the prior version is dated Jan 2017, and the one before that was 2015. In terms of timing, San Francisco amended Slope Protection Act (the local building code Section 106A.4.1.4) several times in 2017 and 2018. The geotechnical report requirements were also amended in that time. The Cat Ex checklist was revised to be consistent with these changes. Other topics also revised in the checklist for clarity. The other thing to note regarding the data for slope is that the 20% slope and 25% slope maps were created in GIS. A parcel gets agged if any portion of it shows on the slope map - however, neither map provides the average slope of a parcel. These are screening tools that indicate further review is needed. Both 20% and 25% slope layers are visible under the Environmental information tab in PIM. Please let me know if you have further questions about the above information. Kind regards, Debra Dwyer, Principal Environmental Planner Environmental Planning Division 653 28th Street CatEx 2017 649 28th Street CatEx current COUN SAN FRANCISCO di PLANNING DEPARTMENT CEQA Categorical Exemption Determination PROPERTY INFORMATION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Address Block/Lot(s) 374 Valley St 6613/021 Case No. Permit No. Plans Dated 2014.1478E 9/12/14 Addition/ Alteration [iDemolition (requires HRER if over 45 years old) E]New Construction []Project Modification (GO TO STEP 7) Project description for Planning Department approval. Expand existing basement; add new basement level; add garage; remodel facades. STEP 1: EXEMPTION CLASS TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER *Note: If neither class applies, an Environmental Evaluation Application is required . * Class 1 - Existing Facilities. Interior and exterior alterations; additions under 10,000 sq. ft. Class 3 - New Construction/ Conversion of Small Structures. Up to three (3) new single-family residences or six (6) dwelling units in one building; commercial/office structures; utility extensions; change of use under 10,000 sq. ft. if principally permitted or with a CU. El Class_ STEP 2: CEQA IMPACTS TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER If any box is checked below, an Environmental Evaluation Application is required. Transportation: Does the project create six (6) or more net new parking spaces or residential units? El Does the project have the potential to adversely affect transit, pedestrian and/or bicycle safety (hazards) or the adequacy of nearby transit, pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities? Air Quality: Would the project add new sensitive receptors (specifically, schools, day care facilities, LI Does hospitals, residential dwellings, and senior-care facilities within an Air Pollution Exposure Zone? the have the to backup diesel project potential emit substantial pollutant concentrations (e.g., generators, heavy industry, diesel trucks, etc.)? (refer to EP _ArcMap .<U+2019> CEQA Catex Determination Layers.> Air Pollution Exposure Zone) Hazardous Materials: If the project site is located on the Maher map or is suspected of containing hazardous materials (based on a previous use such as gas station, auto repair, dry cleaners, or heavy manufacturing, or a site with underground storage tanks): Would the project involve 50 cubic yards or more of soil disturbance - or a change of use from industrial to residential? If yes, this box must be checked and the project applicant must submit an Environmental Application with a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Exceptions: do not check box if the applicant presents documentation of enrollment in the San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) Maher program, a DPH waiver from the SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT8 8O i Maher program, or other documentation from Environmental Planning staff that hazardous material effects would be less than significant (refer to EP_ArcMap > Maher layer). Soil Disturbance/Modification: Would the project result in soil disturbance/modification greater than two (2) feet below grade in an archeological sensitive area or eight (8) feet in a non-archeological sensitive area? (refer to EP_ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Archeological Sensitive Area) Noise: Does the project include new noise-sensitive receptors (schools, day care facilities, hospitals, El residential dwellings, and senior-care facilities) fronting roadways located in the noise mitigation area? (refer to EP_ArcMap> CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Noise Mitigation Area) Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment: Does the project site involve a subdivision or lot line adjustment El on a lot with a slope average of 20% or more? (refer to EPArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers> Topography) Slope = or> 20%:: Does the project involve excavation of 50 cubic yards of soil or more, square footage expansion greater than 1,000 sq. ft., shoring, underpinning, retaining wall work, or grading El on a lot with a slope average of 20% or more? Exceptions: do not check box for work performed on a previously developed portion of site, stairs, patio, deck, or fence work. (refer to EP_A reMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers> Topography) If box is checked, a geotechnical report is required and a Certificate or higher level CEQA document required Seismic: Landslide Zone: Does the project involve excavation of 50 cubic yards of soil or more square footage expansion greater than 1,000 sq. ft., shoring, underpinning, retaining wall work, J grading including excavation and fill on a landslide zone - as identified in the San Francisco General Plan? Exceptions: do not check box for work performed on a previously developed portion of the site, stairs, patio, deck, or fence work. (refer to EP ..A reMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Seismic Hazard Zones) If box is checked, a geotechnical report is required and a Certificate or higher level CEQA document required Seismic: Liquefaction Zone: Does the project involve excavation of 50 cubic yards of soil or more, square footage expansion greater than 1000 sq ft, shoring, underpinning, retaining wall work, or grading on a lot in a liquefaction zone? Exceptions: do not check box for work performed on a previously developed portion of the site, stairs, patio, deck, or fence work. (refer to EPArcMap> CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Seismic Hazard Zones) If box is checked, a geotechnical report will likely be required Serpentine Rock: Does the project involve any excavation on a property containing serpentine rock? El Exceptions: do not check box for stairs, patio, deck, retaining walls, or fence work. (refer to EPArcMap> CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Serpentine) *If no boxes are checked above, GO TO STEP 3. If one or more boxes are checked above, an Environmental Evaluation Application is required, unless reviewed by an Environmental Planner. Project can proceed with categorical exemption review. The project does not trigger any of the CEQA impacts listed above. Comments and Planner Signature (optional): Jean Poling Archeo clearance STEP 3: PROPERTY STATUS - HISTORIC RESOURCE TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER PROPERTY IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: (refer to Parcel Information Map) Category A: Known Historical Resource. GO TO STEP 5. Category B: Potential Historical Resource (over 45 years of age). GO TO STEP 4. Category C: Not a Historical Resource or Not Age Eligible (under 45 years of age). GO TO STEP 6. SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8/18/2014 STEP 4: PROPOSED WORK CHECKLIST TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER Check all that apply to the project. 1. Change of use and new construction. Tenant improvements not included. 2. Regular maintenance or repair to correct or repair deterioration, decay, or damage to building. D 3. Window replacement that meets the Department<U+2019>s Window Replacement Standards. Does not include storefront window alterations. 4. Garage work. A new opening that meets the Guidelines for Adding Garages and Curb Cuts, and/or replacement of a garage door in an existing opening that meets the Residential Design Guidelines. 5. Deck, terrace construction, or fences not visible from any immediately adjacent public right-of-way. 6. Mechanical equipment installation that is not visible from any immediately adjacent public right-of- way. 7. Dormer installation that meets the requirements for exemption from public notification under Zoning Administrator Bulletin No. 3: Dormer Windows. U direction; 8. Addition (s) that are not visible from any immediately adjacent public right-of-way for 150 feet in each does not extend vertically beyond the floor level of the top story of the structure or is only a single story in height; does not have a footprint that is more than 50% larger than that of the original building; and does not cause the removal of architectural significant roofing features. Note: Project Planner must check box below before proceeding. jf Project is not listed. GO TO STEP 5. Project does not conform to the scopes of work. GO TO STEP 5. F] Project involves four or more work descriptions. GO TO STEP 5. [J Project involves less than four work descriptions. GO TO STEP 6. STEP 5: CEQA IMPACTS - ADVANCED HISTORICAL REVIEW TO BE COMPLETED BY PRESERVATION PLANNER Check all that apply to the project. U 1. Project involves a known historical resource (CEQA Category A) as determined by Step 3 and conforms entirely to proposed work checklist in Step 4. LI 2. Interior alterations to publicly accessible spaces. 3. Window replacement of original/historic windows that are not "in-kind" but are consistent with existing historic character. El 4. Faade/storefront alterations that do not remove, alter, or obscure character-defining features. 5. Raising the building in a manner that does not remove, alter, or obscure character-defining features. L 6. Restoration based upon documented evidence of a building<U+2019>s historic condition, such as historic photographs, plans, physical evidence, or similar buildings. L 7.Addition(s), including mechanical equipment that are minimally visible from a public right-of-way and meet the Secretary of the Interior<U+2019>s Standards for Rehabilitation. SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 8. Other work consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (specify or add comments): 9. Reclassification of property status to Category C. (Requires approval by Senior Preservation LIN Planner/Preservation Coordinator) a. Per HRER dated: (attach HRER) b. Other (specify): g i-b O?J3J3 Note: If ANY box in STEP 5 above is checked, a Preservation Planner MUST check one box below. D Further environmental review required. Based on the information provided, the project requires an Environmental Evaluation Application to be submitted. GO TO STEP 6. Project can proceed with categorical exemption review. The project has been reviewed by the tP Preservation Planner and can proceed with categorical exemption review. GO TO STEP 6. Comments (optional): Preservation Planner Signature: ....... STEP 6: CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION DETERMINATION TO BE COMPLETED BY PROTECT PLANNER Further environmental review required. Proposed project does not meet scopes of work in either (check all that apply): Step 2 CEQA Impacts Step 5 - Advanced Historical Review STOP! Must file an Environmental Evaluation Application. No further environmental review is required. The project is categorically exempt under CEQA. Planner Name :f\ Signatur fl Protect Approval Action: Se One Commission is requested, the Discretionary Review hearing is the Approval Action for the project. Once signed or stamped and dated, this document constitutes a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and Chapter 31 of the Administrative Code. In accordance with Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, an appeal of an exemption determination can only be filed within 30 days of the project receiving the first approval action. SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 811812014 STEP 7: MODIFICATION OF A CEQA EXEMPT PROJECT TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER In accordance with Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, when a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempt project changes after the Approval Action and requires a subsequent approval, the Environmental Review Officer (or his or her designee) must determine whether the proposed change constitutes a substantial modification of that project. This checklist shall be used to determine whether the proposed changes to the approved project would constitute a "substantial modification" and, therefore, be subject to additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA. PROPERTY INFORMATION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Address (If different than front page) Block/Lot(s) (If different than front page) Case No. Previous Building Permit No. New Building Permit No. Plans Dated Previous Approval Action New Approval Action Modified Project Description: DETERMINATION IF PROJECT CONSTITUTES SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION Compared to the approved project, would the modified project: Result in expansion of the building envelope, as defined in the Planning Code; fl Result in the change of use that would require public notice under Planning Code Sections 311 or 312; Result in demolition as defined under Planning Code Section 317 or 19005(f)? Is any information being presented that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the original determination, that shows the originally approved project may no longer qualify for the exemption? If at least one of the above boxes is checked, further environmental review is requiredATEX FORF DETERMINATION OF NO SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION The proposed modification would not result in any of the above changes. If this box is checked, the proposed modifications are categorically exempt under CEQA, in accordance with prior project approval and no additional environmental review is required. This determination shall be posted on the Planning Department website and office and mailed to the applicant, City approving entities, and anyone requesting written notice. Planner Name: Signature or Stamp: SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8, 18/2014 ID COUIVI,~~ SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRESERVATION TEAM REVIEW FORM ervii Meng I Date:Of Form Com!pletln 1 3/10/2015 ________ Marcelle Boudreaux 374 Valley Street Block/Lct 6613/021 Noe/Sanchez CEQAC 1 <U+2019>Art jEW, 4t ii FBPA/CaseNo 3 B 201410219516 jUi<U+2019>..f I<U+2019>f<U+2019>7?E- PURPOSE OF REy PROJEcT DESCRIPTION: <U+2019>. *! (9- CEQA I C<U+2019> Article 10/11 C Preliminary/PlC (i<U+2019> Alteration C<U+2019> Demo/New Construction 9/12/14 Is the subject Property an eligible historic resource? El If so, are the proposed changes a significant impact? Additional Notes: - RENOVATION & ADDITION(LOWER BASEMENT) TO SFD. EXPANSION OF (E)BSMT. (N)EXCAVATED REAR YARD & (N) LOWER BASEMENTW/(N) GARAGE.(N) BEDROOMS, BATHROOMS, LIVING ROOM, LAUNDRY & COURTYARD. (N) INTERNAL & EXTERNAL STAIRS. (E) 1/FL ENVELOPE<U+2019>S OUTLINE TO REMAIN. W/ (N) DOORS & WINDOWS. PRESER!Q YIEW Historic Re1Ereen (<U+2019>Yes (-No * (<U+2019>N/A Individual Historic District/Context Property is individually eligible for inclusion in a California Register under one or more of the Property is in an eligible California Register Histonc District/Context under one or more of following Criteria: the following Criteria: Criterion 1 - Event: C<U+2019> Yes (<U+2019> No Criterion 1 - Event: C Yes ( No Criterion 2-Persons: (<U+2019>Yes R No Criterion 2 -Persons: C<U+2019> Yes ( No Criterion 3 - Architecture: (<U+2019> Yes (<U+2019> No Criterion 3 - Architecture: C<U+2019> Yes ( No Criterion 4 - Info. Potential: C<U+2019> Yes (<U+2019> No Criterion 4- Info. Potential: C<U+2019> Yes (i<U+2019> No Period of Significance: Period of Significance: (<U+2019>Contributor (<U+2019>Non-Contributor 1650 Mission St. Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103-2479 Reception: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] Planning Information: [phone removed] * If No is selected for Historic Resource per CEQA, a signature from Senior Preservation Planner or Preservation Coordinator is required. The subject building at 374 Valley Street is a one-story-over basement single-family dwelling. The lot slopes upward to the west with the street and upward to the north, toward the rear of the lot. The primary southern facade is clad in stucco, and the side facades are clad in drop wood siding. The building is composed of a primary volume and a projecting volume at the front. The projecting volume terminates with a flared projecting cornice and is capped with a flat roof. Also terminating with a flared projecting cornice, the primary volume features a shaped parapet, and compound roof. No original building permit is on file at DBI, and other historical records are inconclusive. According to information provided by Tim Kelley Consulting, the building dates to ci 886. The 1886 Sanborn Map indicates the subject property (at that time addressed as 434 Valley) with a building exhibiting the core footprint in existence today. (After 1896, it was numbered 334 Valley; around 1925 it was numbered 374 Valley). Spring Valley Water Company records contain a water service application for G.S. Gloyd in January 1896, a full ten years after G.S. Gloyd is listed in the City directory as residing at the subject property of 434 Valley. George S. Gloyd, a boot and shoemaker, was an active member of the Boot and Shoemakers<U+2019> White Labor League and (later part of the Federated Trades Council). His involvement includes organizing in other counties in California (July 1886) and committee- serving member, as noted in San Francisco Chronicle articles starting in December of 1886. There is no mention of his involvement past 1887. A projection at the front facade is the major modification to the building footprint, as observed through Sanborn Maps dating from 1915 and historic aerial image dating from 1938. No permits are on file for this work; the projection is not drawn on the 1915 Sanborn Map but does appear in the 1938 aerial. The stucco cladding and aluminum windows are likely non-original facade treatments, however, no permits are on file for this work. There is a variety of architectural styles and construction dates on the block, thus little uniformity. No known historic events occurred at the property (Criterion 1) and none of the owners or occupants have been identified as important to history (Criterion 2) for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, respectively. The existing structure appears to have been altered and does not retain integrity as an individual building for listing in the California Register (Criterion 3). Therefore, 374 Valley Street is not eligible for listing in the California Register either individually or as part of a district. - N MNC PLI$NiKO D*P*ftrEH HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION PART 1 374 VALLEY STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - - - TIM KELLEY CONSULTING, LLC HISTORICAL RESOURCES SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94131 [phone removed] [email removed] CEQA Categorical Exemption Determination PROPERTY INFORMATION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Address 374 Valley Street Block/Lot(s) Project description for Planning Department approval. Permit No. Addition/ Alteration Demolition (requires HRE for Category B Building) New Construction Convert single family dwelling to 2 family dwelling per RH2 zoning w/ (n) (2) bedrooms, (2) baths, (1) powder room, (1) living room and (1) balcony. Case No. 2019-019826ENV 6613021 201910114316 STEP 1: EXEMPTION CLASS The project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Class 1 - Existing Facilities. Interior and exterior alterations; additions under 10,000 sq. ft. Class 3 - New Construction. Up to three new single-family residences or six dwelling units in one building; commercial/office structures; utility extensions; change of use under 10,000 sq. ft. if principally permitted or with a CU. Class 32 - In-Fill Development. New Construction of seven or more units or additions greater than 10,000 sq. ft. and meets the conditions described below: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING USE ONLY Class ____ STEP 2: CEQA IMPACTS TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER Air Quality: Would the project add new sensitive receptors (specifically, schools, day care facilities, hospitals, residential dwellings, and senior-care facilities within an Air Pollution Exposure Zone? Does the project have the potential to emit substantial pollutant concentrations (e.g., backup diesel generators, heavy industry, diesel trucks, etc.)? (refer to EP _ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Air Pollution Exposure Zone) Hazardous Materials: If the project site is located on the Maher map or is suspected of containing hazardous materials (based on a previous use such as gas station, auto repair, dry cleaners, or heavy manufacturing, or a site with underground storage tanks): Would the project involve 50 cubic yards or more of soil disturbance or a change of use from industrial to residential? if the applicant presents documentation of enrollment in the San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) Maher program, a DPH waiver from the Maher program, or other documentation from Environmental Planning staff that hazardous material effects would be less than significant (refer to EP_ArcMap > Maher layer). Transportation: Does the project involve a child care facility or school with 30 or more students, or a location 1,500 sq. ft. or greater? Does the project have the potential to adversely affect transit, pedestrian and/or bicycle safety (hazards) or the adequacy of nearby transit, pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities? Archeological Resources: Would the project result in soil disturbance/modification greater than two (2) feet below grade in an archeological sensitive area or eight (8) feet in a non -archeological sensitive area? If yes, archeo review is requried (refer to EP_ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Archeological Sensitive Area) Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment: Does the project site involve a subdivision or lot line adjustment on a lot with a slope average of 20% or more? (refer to EP_ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Topography). If yes, Environmental Planning must issue the exemption. Slope = or > 25%: Does the project involve any of the following: (1) square footage expansion greater than 500 sq. ft. outside of the existing building footprint, (2) excavation of 50 cubic yards or more of soil, (3) new construction? (refer to EP_ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Topography) If box is checked, a geotechnical report is required and Environmental Planning must issue the exemption. Seismic: Landslide Zone: Does the project involve any of the following: (1) square footage expansion greater than 500 sq. ft. outside of the existing building footprint, (2) excavation of 50 cubic yards or more of soil, (3) new construction? (refer to EP_ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Seismic Hazard Zones) If box is checked, a geotechnical report is required and Environmental Planning must issue the exemption. Seismic: Liquefaction Zone: Does the project involve any of the following: (1) square footage expansion greater than 500 sq. ft. outside of the existing building footprint, (2) excavation of 50 cubic yards or more of soil, (3) new construction? (refer to EP_ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Seismic Hazard Zones) If box is checked, a geotechnical report will likely be required and Environmental Planning must issue the exemption. Comments and Planner Signature (optional): Don Lewis Planning department staff archeologist cleared the project with no effects on 12/06/19. STEP 3: PROPERTY STATUS - HISTORIC RESOURCE TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER PROPERTY IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: (refer to Property Information Map) Category A: Known Historical Resource. GO TO STEP 5. Category B: Potential Historical Resource (over 45 years of age). GO TO STEP 4. Category C: Not a Historical Resource or Not Age Eligible (under 45 years of age). GO TO STEP 6. STEP 4: PROPOSED WORK CHECKLIST TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER Check all that apply to the project. 1. Change of use and new construction. Tenant improvements not included. 2. Regular maintenance or repair to correct or repair deterioration, decay, or damage to building. 3. Window replacement that meets the Department<U+2019>s Window Replacement Standards. Does not include storefront window alterations. 4. Garage work. A new opening that meets the Guidelines for Adding Garages and Curb Cuts, and/or replacement of a garage door in an existing opening that meets the Residential Design Guidelines. 5. Deck, terrace construction, or fences not visible from any immediately adjacent public right-of-way. 6. Mechanical equipment installation that is not visible from any immediately adjacent public right-of-way. 7. Dormer installation that meets the requirements for exemption from public notification under Zoning Administrator Bulletin No. 3: Dormer Windows. 8. Addition(s) that are not visible from any immediately adjacent public right-of-way for 150 feet in each direction; does not extend vertically beyond the floor level of the top story of the structure or is only a single story in height; does not have a footprint that is more than 50% larger than that of the original building; and does not cause the removal of architectural significant roofing features. Note: Project Planner must check box below before proceeding. Project is not listed. GO TO STEP 5. Project does not conform to the scopes of work. GO TO STEP 5. Project involves four or more work descriptions. GO TO STEP 5. Project involves less than four work descriptions. GO TO STEP 6. STEP 5: CEQA IMPACTS - ADVANCED HISTORICAL REVIEW TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER Check all that apply to the project. 1. Project involves a known historical resource (CEQA Category A) as determined by Step 3 and conforms entirely to proposed work checklist in Step 4. 2. Interior alterations to publicly accessible spaces. 3. Window replacement of original/historic windows that are not <U+201C>in-kind<U+201D> but are consistent with existing historic character. 4. Faade/storefront alterations that do not remove, alter, or obscure character-defining features. 5. Raising the building in a manner that does not remove, alter, or obscure character-defining features. 6. Restoration based upon documented evidence of a building<U+2019>s historic condition, such as historic photographs, plans, physical evidence, or similar buildings. 7. Addition(s), including mechanical equipment that are minimally visible from a public right -of-way and meet the Secretary of the Interior<U+2019>s Standards for Rehabilitation. 8. Other work consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (specify or add comments): 9. Other work that would not materially impair a historic district (specify or add comments): (Requires approval by Senior Preservation Planner/Preservation Coordinator) 10. Reclassification of property status. (Requires approval by Senior Preservation Planner/Preservation Reclassify to Category A a. Per HRER or PTR dated b. Other (specify): (attach HRER or PTR) Reclassify to Category C Note: If ANY box in STEP 5 above is checked, a Preservation Planner MUST sign below. Project can proceed with categorical exemption review. The project has been reviewed by the Preservation Planner and can proceed with categorical exemption review. GO TO STEP 6. Comments (optional): Preservation Planner Signature: Don Lewis TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER STEP 6: CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION DETERMINATION Project Approval Action: Signature: If Discretionary Review before the Planning Commission is requested, the Discretionary Review hearing is the Approval Action for the project. Once signed or stamped and dated, this document constitutes a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and Chapter 31of the Administrative Code. In accordance with Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, an appeal of an exemption determination can only be filed within 30 days of the project receiving the approval action. Please note that other approval actions may be required for the project. Please contact the assigned planner for these approvals. Don Lewis 12/10/2019 No further environmental review is required. The project is categorically exempt under CEQA. There are no unusual circumstances that would result in a reasonable possibility of a significant effect. Building Permit TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER STEP 7: MODIFICATION OF A CEQA EXEMPT PROJECT In accordance with Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, when a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempt project changes after the Approval Action and requires a subsequent approval, the Environmental Review Officer (or his or her designee) must determine whether the proposed change constitutes a substantial modification of that project. This checklist shall be used to determine whether the proposed changes to the approved project would constitute a <U+201C>substantial modification<U+201D> and, therefore, be subject to additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA. PROPERTY INFORMATION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Address (If different than front page) Block/Lot(s) (If different than front page) Case No. Previous Building Permit No. New Building Permit No. Plans Dated Previous Approval Action New Approval Action 374 Valley Street 2019-019826PRJ Building Permit 6613/021 201910114316 Modified Project Description: DETERMINATION IF PROJECT CONSTITUTES SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION Compared to the approved project, would the modified project: Result in expansion of the building envelope, as defined in the Planning Code; Result in the change of use that would require public notice under Planning Code Sections 311 or 312; Result in demolition as defined under Planning Code Section 317 or 19005(f)? Is any information being presented that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the original determination, that shows the originally approved project may no longer qualify for the exemption? If at least one of the above boxes is checked, further environmental review is required. DETERMINATION OF NO SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION Planner Name: The proposed modification would not result in any of the above changes. If this box is checked, the proposed modifications are categorically exempt under CEQA, in accordance with prior project approval and no additional environmental review is required. This determination shall be posted on the Planning Department website and office and mailed to the applicant, City approving entities, and anyone requesting written notice. In accordance with Chapter 31, Sec 31.08j of the San Francisco Administrative Code, an appeal of this determination can be filed within 10 days of posting of this determination. Date:show more

2022-11-17 · 23 comments · 5 / 16

Diane Wesley Smith · spoken · 2022-11-17 · support

Represent black community, speak to everyone

Debra Scales Reed · spoken · 2022-11-17 · support

Want to know where the handouts are

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

Environmental concerns, does not prioritize affordable housing

Laurie Yamauchi · spoken · 2022-11-17 · support

Affordable housing in Japantown, changes to height limits and density increases

Joseph Smooke · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

Housing Element
Dear Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission The Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition (REP-SF) is submitting the attached Citywide People's Plan for Equity in Land Use in reference to the following hearings regarding the Housing Element 2022 Update: Board of Supervisors Agenda for Tuesday, November 15, 2022, Item #23, File #221033 and Planning Commission Agenda for Thursday, November 17, 2022… Dear Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission The Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition (REP-SF) is submitting the attached Citywide People's Plan for Equity in Land Use in reference to the following hearings regarding the Housing Element 2022 Update: Board of Supervisors Agenda for Tuesday, November 15, 2022, Item #23, File #221033 and Planning Commission Agenda for Thursday, November 17, 2022, Item #13 (2019-016230ENV); and Item #14 (2019-016230GPA) Respectfully, --Joseph Smooke on behalf of the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition co-founder of People Power Media Creators of PRICED OUT See the animation that will change the way you think about housing! CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 For Equity in Land Use A New Foundation for San Francisco<U+2019>s Housing Element 2023 - 2031 2 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION Table of Contents 1. Table of Contents .............................................................2 2. REP-SF Member Organizations ......................................... 3 3. Summary .........................................................................4 4. Land Acknowledgement ...................................................6 5. How To Center Racial and Social Equity in City Planning ....7 6. Background and Assessment .......................................... 11 7. SF<U+2019>s Housing Element is a Repeat of Redevelopment ....... 15 8. A Comprehensive Plan for Affordable Housing ................20 9. Compilation of Community-Based Plans .........................24 10. Action Plan ................................................................... 26 1. Land Use................................................................... 26 2. Funding .................................................................... 41 3. Capacity ...................................................................45 11. Community Plans and Figures .......................................47 3 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 REP-SF Member Organizations 4 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION <U+2022> REP- SF organizations have written community development plans for decades that are focused on racial, social and economic equity. This is the first time these community plans have been compiled into a Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan for Equity in Land Use. <U+2022> These community plans must serve as the foundation for all San Francisco land use plans and housing policies, especially the Housing Element which aspires to center racial and social equity. <U+2022> The State of California and Association of Bay Area Governments have assigned a mandate that San Francisco must ratify a set of housing policies in its 2023-2031 Housing Element that will result in 82,069 new housing units with 46,598 (57%) of those being affordable to households that have low to moderate incomes. <U+2022> The current Housing Element<U+2019>s reliance on market rate housing will result in the City falling short of its overall production mandates, and even more deficient in its affordable housing production. SF is already suffering from lack of new affordable housing for at least the past eight years. Focusing resources and strategies on affordable housing is the only way to overcome this deficit. <U+2022> This Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan says to prioritize building the affordable housing first: Expand the types of sites that are eligible for 100% affordable housing development and building acquisitions throughout the entire City; Fund affordable housing development differently, leveraging all levels of government as outlined in the Action Plan; Summary 5 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 Expand development capacity at San Francisco<U+2019>s community-based affordable housing development organizations and at the City; <U+2022> Aggressively purchase sites to be land banked in all areas of the city (purchased by San Francisco, community-based affordable housing developers and held for future affordable housing development as development funds become available). Low-income, American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color must be the ones who lead the prioritization of sites to be purchased for affordable housing development. Low-income, American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color residents must be the ones who define what "affordable" means for meeting the equity needs of each community. <U+2022> Efforts to "streamline" market rate housing approvals must retain community input: The participation and expertise of our Cultural Districts and American Indian, Black, and other Communities of Color and low-income communities in development and land use decisions is crucial. We can retain community input and significantly reduce the entitlement process so projects move expeditiously and predictably from application to a final decision. <U+2022> Demolitions must be closely regulated to protect tenants, otherwise developers will continue to abuse and displace tenants at rates that exceed the harms done during Redevelopment. <U+2022> Achieving these affordable housing goals, and securing the resources needed to achieve these goals must be the priority of San Francisco<U+2019>s housing policies in order to build a city that is truly based on racial, social and economic equity. Illustrations by Fred Noland Photographs by Joseph Smooke 6 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION This Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan for Equity in Land Use is an offering from generations of people who have struggled in the city called San Francisco. As we bring this compilation of community plans together, to advise city planners and policymakers how to approach the next eight years of housing policies to truly centering racial, social and economic equity, we give thanks to and acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the original inhabitants 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 and Relatives of the Ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as First People. We also acknowledge the contradiction that western systems of land ownership impose on these unceded lands. This western, colonialist system grants land owners monopolistic control over the use of land. There are volumes of City laws that embellish those rights, and the State of California<U+2019>s laws further enrich the rights of owners, title holders, to profit from the land. Increasingly, these State and local laws diminish the rights of citizens to intervene for their own livelihoods, and move our settler constitutional democracy farther and farther away from any meaningful consideration for the Ramaytush Ohlone who have never ceded this land. Land Acknowledgement 7 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 All organizations in the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition (REP-SF) are committed to ensuring a future for San Francisco with diverse communities, stable, affordable housing and equitable access to resources and opportunities. This "Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan for Equity in Land Use" is REP-SF<U+2019>s collective vision for a racially, socially and economically equitable San Francisco. Through community-based initiatives, often in partnership with City agencies, several of REP-SF<U+2019>s member organizations have created a rich collage of land use and housing plans that cover a significant part of the City. These plans are rooted in community, in people, in identity and culture, in principles of inclusive and holistic planning, and in racial, social and economic equity. REP-SF has assembled these housing and land use plans into this comprehensive document <U+2013> the "Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan for Equity in Land Use" which has undergone extensive review and collaborative creation. REP-SF believes that the analyses and recommendations presented in this People<U+2019>s Plan must be the starting point for any land use plan for San Francisco that is truly grounded in racial and social equity. As San Francisco<U+2019>s Department of City Planning stated in its "Draft Racial and Social Equity Impact Analysis": "This is the How To Center Racial and Social Equity in City Planning 8 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION first San Francisco Housing Element that will center racial and social equity." The Housing Element is the collection of San Francisco<U+2019>s housing policies, as mandated by the State of California. These housing policies become a component of the City<U+2019>s General Plan. References to the "current" Housing Element are to the 2014 - 22 cycle. References to the "new" Housing Element are to the 2023 - 2031 cycle which is nearing the end of its approval process as we publish this "Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan" in November, 2022. REP-SF is publishing this "Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan" as a reflection of the expertise and experience of our communities that provides a genuine path for the City to meet its racial and social equity goals for its housing policies. Both Planning<U+2019>s approach in drafting the Housing Element and the policies put forward in the draft did not center racial and social equity. Drafts of the Housing Element were instead grounded in a profit-driven, market-based strategy for building condos across San Francisco. Then Planning invited communities to provide comments on their market-based plan through questions and working groups that Planning directed. Planning<U+2019>s approach was unfortunately antithetical to equitable outcomes because it started with a profit-driven, market-based premise, entirely framed by the ideologies of Planning staff rather than starting from community plans and letting low-income and Communities of Color lead this process and frame the discussions. As stated in the Mission District<U+2019>s Plan, "MAP2020," which is one of the community plans that was drawn on to form the basis of this "Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan": "In the traditional Planning model used by many cities, including San Francisco, the city is the expert, convener, agenda setter and arbitrator. The city retains control and the community<U+2019>s role is to advocate. This model may work in some situations, but does not work well where there is a significant power imbalance or history of distrust between city and community. The groups that tend to participate in the decision-making process have the most power and resources, and are the most comfortable working with authority.<U+201D> REP-SF believes that the analyses and recommendations presented in this People<U+2019>s Plan must be the starting point for any land use plan for San Francisco that is truly grounded in racial and social equity. 9 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 The Reclaiming Our Space (ROSe) book from the South of Market Community Action Network (SOMCAN) is another of the community plans that combine to form this "Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan. The ROSe book states a similar caution about Planning<U+2019>s standard approach: "The process of planning in San Francisco and the United States, however, is from the top down and not the bottom up, oftentimes having negative effects on low income and working class neighborhoods and communities of color. For SOMCAN, community planning or people-centered planning is a process wherein a system of knowledge of the neighborhood or community is gathered and created from the bottom up, from the actual people who live and work in these communities, especially the most vulnerable people." The ROSe book further describes what an Equity in Land Use approach would look like, "The experts of community and people-centered planning are the people who live or have lived in the neighborhood - the children that go to the schools in these districts, the parents who have multiple jobs, the people with disabilities, the seniors fighting to maintain their residence, and the new immigrants and low- income families struggling to make ends meet. This lens is very different from the gaze of city planners who view land as different zones for profit by billion dollar companies and developers." REP-SF acknowledges and appreciates the lengthy process that San Francisco<U+2019>s Department of City Planning led to gather community input into its Housing Element, but this lengthy process was not approached in a way that was centered and focused on racial and social equity. For a planning process to be truly centered on racial and social equity, it must start with the voices, needs, and aspirations of those whose voices are typically not prioritized in planning or land use processes or decisions, with the intention of providing for their needs first. It is in this spirit, therefore, that REP-SF presents this "Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan for Equity in Land Use" to be used as the new reference point for San Francisco<U+2019>s housing and land use policies and strategies for the next eight years and beyond. 10 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION Community planning or people-centered planning is a process wherein a system of knowledge of the neighborhood or community is gathered and created from the bottom up, from the actual people who live and work in these communities, especially the most vulnerable people. 11 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 At the direction of the State of California, the City and County of San Francisco periodically updates the Housing Element of its General Plan. The Housing Element establishes San Francisco<U+2019>s housing policies based on estimates of regional job growth. The job growth is calculated and administered by the State<U+2019>s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The distribution of these regional housing needs among the various jurisdictions of the Bay Area is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Element currently nearing final approval would guide the housing policies from 2023 to 2031. The State of California and ABAG have assigned a mandate that San Francisco must ratify a set of housing policies in this Housing Element that will result in 82,069 new housing units from 2023- 2031. Of those, 46,598 of those are to be affordable to households that have low to moderate incomes. A majority, 57%, of all units should, therefore, be affordable for households with low to moderate incomes. For the new Housing Element cycle, San Francisco<U+2019>s Planning Department started by producing a document called the <U+201C>Housing Affordability Strategies (HAS).<U+201D> The HAS shows how upzoning various parts of the City could allow development of roughly 150,000 new units to meet the goals of Plan Bay Area 2050, and meet the Housing Element/RHNA mandates along the way. Despite its name, Planning<U+2019>s Housing Affordability Strategies is largely a market-based housing production plan that assumes three insufficient strategies for affordable housing. 1) Building more market-based housing supply will lower housing prices. 2) Market-based housing developers will provide roughly 20% of "below market rate" units in their developments. 3) Affordable housing developers will continue building and purchasing 100% affordable housing at relatively the same rate as they have in recent years. Planning primarily used profit and market-based premises as their starting point. But market-rate housing is funded by profit-motivated capital which Background and Assessment Market-rate developers, regardless of the scale or size of their developments, are only interested in those with high-incomes, not middle or low-income. 12 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION is only interested in investing in markets with increasing rather than decreasing prices. Increasing housing inventory will never result in a drop in prices<U+2013> new market-rate units will not be built in a declining market. Together, these strategies incorporated into the Housing Element, add up to provide roughly 70% market rate and 30% affordable housing--which would not meet the RHNA mandate that requires a split of 43% market rate and 57% affordable. People of color are more likely than those who identify as White to be living below poverty level in San Francisco. And as the Housing Element reports in Table 13 of its "Needs Assessment", the household incomes of those identifying as "White/ Non-Latino" are far higher than the incomes of households that identify as American Indian, Black, Latino, and Asian. Despite a clear trend that market rate housing continues to increase in cost which results in decreasing opportunities for Communities of Color, this new Housing Element continues to hope that profit-driven developers will deliver racial and social equity for American Indian, Black, and other Communities of Color. The principle underlying this entire Housing Element is that building more profit-driven, market rate housing supply is an essential strategy for meeting the Housing Element<U+2019>s racial and social equity goals. Not only are market-rate housing developers<U+2019> business plans 13 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 developed around profitability instead of racial and social equity and economic inclusion, but there is increasingly an international market that has developed to distract the housing "market" from providing housing for people, but rather, as housing and gentrification experts recently laid out, tends toward greater commodification and financialization. With each upzoning, and with each "density bonus" conferred to a developer, the value of San Francisco real estate increases. These are the factors that drive the price of real estate and the price of housing for the market. As we<U+2019>ve seen through the major recession of 2008 - 2013 and the COVID downturn, even with declining demand, prices of SF real estate have continued to climb because they reflect the value of the City<U+2019>s underlying infrastructure. With the increasing global financialization and commodification of housing, translating this value into prices is an exercise that reveals an increasing dissociation of housing prices from what everyday people who are seeking housing can actually afford. Under these faulty premises, Planning continued with its work on the Housing Element, and convened Working Groups to gather community input into their market-based plan. Planning<U+2019>s framing for these Working Group meetings was to use a divisive and trickle-down housing approach. During these Working Group meetings, they asked questions such as, "If we were to focus anti-displacement on certain high-risk communities, which ones, how would we define the target? (Geography, BIPOC, Black and American- Indian, Low-Income)." This type of question pitted communities against each other. Planning staff introduced another Working Group session as focusing on "Potential strategies to support the private sector to produce small multifamily for middle- income households." As noted above, the private, profit-driven sector is not motivated to develop housing that<U+2019>s affordable for middle-income households. Market-rate developers, regardless of the scale or size of their developments, are only interested in those with high- incomes, not middle or low-income. Along these same ideological lines, one of the "key ideas" that Planning promoted during these workshops was to "Advance the social and economic diversity of San Francisco by increasing housing production including permanently affordable housing" (emphasis in the original). Rather than starting with affordable housing, Planning started with the idea that we need to increase market- rate housing production, with some Planning primarily used profit and market-based premises as their starting point. 14 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION much smaller amount (roughly 30%) of "permanently affordable housing" mixed in. Relying on market-rate housing production to advance diversity or affordability is trickle-down economics, hoping that taking care of the needs of the richest people will eventually lead to circulation of this largess, so resources trickle-down to meet the needs of everyone else. Of course it never works this way, so those most in need leave San Francisco if they can, and if they can<U+2019>t, more and more San Francisco residents end up on the streets without a home. REP-SF strongly believes that because the City<U+2019>s approach to the Housing Element started with asking questions that were centered on the market instead of equity, Planning has, therefore, come to conclusions and recommendations that will cause significant and irreparable harm to San Francisco<U+2019>s low-income, American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color. Relying on market-rate housing production to advance diversity or affordability is trickle-down economics. 15 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 San Francisco Planning Department<U+2019>s Goals, Objectives, Policies and Actions as currently described in the Housing Element are an aggregation of government actions that support speculative, profit-driven development and displacement. While there are a significant number of equity strategies and tools outlined in the document, we are gravely concerned they will be largely ineffective against the vastly more comprehensive central strategies of the plan based in stimulating market-rate housing. REP-SF is greatly concerned that the net effect of the Housing Element<U+2019>s policies will have significant similarities to the harms inflicted on several Communities of Color such as the Fillmore/ Western Addition, South of Market/ Yerba Buena Center, and Bayview/ Hunters Point during the days of "Urban Renewal" which was also called "Redevelopment." Looking back at the documents from the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, there is a quotation from "The Feasibility of Redevelopment In The South Of Market Area" published by the SF Redevelopment Agency on June 1, 1952: "The South of Market area is best suited for light industry but it cannot completely fulfill this use until the dead hand of blight is removed. This, SF<U+2019>s Housing Element is a Repeat of Redevelopment 16 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION redevelopment can do, by removing the old, decayed slum dwellings and inferior structures; by assembling the small inadequate and inefficient lots into parcels of usable size; by improving internal circulation in the large blocks which typify the area; and by stimulating redevelopment by private means within the area." The reference to <U+201C>small inadequate and inefficient lots<U+201D> seems eerily similar to how SF<U+2019>s current Planning Department describes the less densely developed neighborhoods of San Francisco in the Housing Element proposed for 2023 - 2031. Planning wants private, market-rate developers to combine lots through this Housing Element like how in Redevelopment they strove to create <U+201C>parcels of usable size.<U+201D> This 1952 Redevelopment report further defines what were considered "small inadequate and inefficient lots" as being 25 feet wide by 75 to 90 feet deep. Today<U+2019>s lots in the western and northern parts of the city that are being targeted for upzoning in this Housing Element, such as the Richmond and the Sunset, are pretty much the same size as the <U+201C>small and inadequate lots<U+201D> described by Redevelopment in 1952. The neighborhoods that Planning<U+2019>s new Housing Element is now targeting for upzoning and larger scale development are primarily developed with lots that are 25 feet wide by 75 to 100 feet deep. Although the SOMA Redevelopment Plan was describing that these small lots were "small" and "inefficient" for redevelopment as industrial uses, Planning today is confronting the same physical constraints as it attempts to force densely developed residential parts of the City into a much larger and more intense scale of residential development. Figure 1 shows the areas of the City where Planning proposes to increase zoning capacity for greater density of housing. This is excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report published by the San Francisco Planning Department for the 2023-2031 Housing Element. In order to accomplish what Planning is recommending in its Housing Element, developers will need to purchase a few, or several, adjacent lots, then demolish the existing housing and foundational community supporting businesses, leaving an irreparably broken community fabric. These strategies are gravely concerning because of the similarities between Planning<U+2019>s approach in this Housing Element, that enables and REP-SF is greatly concerned that the net effect of the Housing Element will be harms on several Communities of Color similar to those during Urban Renewal. 17 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 incentivizes a for-profit developer to buy up existing housing and bulldoze it in order to build a large, new, expensive condo building, and the actions taken by the City<U+2019>s Redevelopment Agency several decades ago. One major difference is that it<U+2019>s not the government entity (the Redevelopment Agency) buying the properties and bulldozing the residences. Instead, the government entity (SF Planning Department) is proposing to enable and incentivize market rate developers to do what the Redevelopment Agency did which is to purchase existing residences, then bulldoze them to clear the way for larger, denser market rate housing. As we dug further into the previously referenced Redevelopment Agency report about SOMA, we found the following assessment of the conditions at that time: "The character of the area makes the assembly of property difficult, as owners of residential property, enjoying an income despite blighted conditions, are not prone to dispose of their holdings without the payment of a high premium by the industrial buyer." These quotes from the 1950<U+2019>s seem eerily similar to how Planning views the western and northern parts of San Francisco in this new Housing Element. Planning sees existing structures such as two to four story buildings in the Richmond District, for example, as "inadequate and inefficient lots" that should eventually be assembled "into parcels of usable size." What they do not see is that these buildings are more densely populated 18 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION than it would seem. Figure 2 shows all the multifamily housing that has been placed in service during the current Housing Element, based on data provide by the San Francisco Planning Department. This map shows that with the current zoning, developers for the past eight years have found it feasible to develop new multi-unit housing in every part of the City. All of this new development has been adding significant density to the western neighborhoods. As in the Redevelopment<U+2019>s A-1 phase where residents of the Western Addition were displaced into adjacent low-income neighborhoods, the rezoning of the eastern neighborhoods in the 2000<U+2019>s saw thousands of working-class and lower- income residents of color displaced into overcrowding conditions and to other low-income neighborhoods, in this case into the western and northern parts of the city such as the Richmond District. Multiple households often live in a single unit, and structures that look from the outside like single family homes are often renovated with additional Accessory Dwelling Units. They are full of families and people with low incomes, displaced from other neighborhoods. Instead of using the infamous bulldozers that were the emblematic tool of "Redevelopment," Planning describes throughout the Housing Element how it recommends various government actions that will add up to have the same effect as the bulldozers by "stimulating redevelopment by private means within the area." The Redevelopment A-2 phase saw the displaced residents of the A-1 phase who managed to stay in the City by moving 19 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 into overcrowding conditions, ultimately completely uprooted and forced these residents from San Francisco. With the current pressures on Black, Filipino, and Latinx communities that are precariously down to 5.7%, 4.07% and 15.6% respectively, it is anticipated that if Planning continues to view upzoning as a next phase solution in already dense urban neighborhoods, and we will see these populations erased from San Francisco during the period of the next Housing Element. Please see Figures 3 through 5 that show where the Black, Filipino and Latinx populations changed from 2010 to 2020 based on data from the US Census. In Section 1C of the Action Plan, outlined in this "Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan" below, there is a detailed process for addressing demolitions in order to prevent massive displacement of low-income and Communities of Color like what happened during Redevelopment. If the City fails to adopt such a process for demolitions, the impacts of this new Housing Element could be even more devastating and widespread than during Redevelopment. SF Planning is proposing to enable and incentivize market rate developers to do what the Redevelopment Agency did which is to purchase existing residences, then bulldoze them to clear the way for larger, denser market rate housing. 20 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION For several decades, Planning<U+2019>s approach has been to devise ways of incentivizing and enabling for-profit, market-based development, while leaving affordable housing strategies to the Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD). This approach has left the affordable housing community without any kind of land use or significant long term resource plan, and communities are left without a holistic approach to planning resilient, diverse communities. This has left San Francisco<U+2019>s affordable housing developers to work on a transactional basis, identifying and negotiating for development prospects one at a time without a comprehensive land use and community engagement strategy that is coordinated between Planning and MOHCD. Since Planning is the lead city agency tasked with writing the city<U+2019>s housing policies in response to the State<U+2019>s requirement for a periodic Housing Element, the result is the same market-based approach that Planning always defaults to. In order for the Housing Element to be approached in a way that truly centers racial and social equity, REP-SF believes that the fundamental question that the Housing Element should have started with was, how can we meet the State<U+2019>s mandated development goals in a way that puts community expertise and racial, social and economic equity first? And how can we work together as a city, coordinating between city departments, to create a land use and resource plan that puts affordable housing and the needs of low-income and Communities of Color first? Starting with a different question would have led to a much different set of actions and strategies which would have truly centered racial and social equity in land use. REP-SF member organizations have already engaged communities around questions that lead to planning for racial and social equity. As stated in SOMCAN<U+2019>s ROSe report: "As SOMA has the highest rate of development than any other neighborhood in San Francisco, it<U+2019>s important to ask who are these developments for? High- The City<U+2019>s approach has left the affordable housing community without any kind of land use or significant long term resource plan. A Comprehensive Plan for Affordable Housing 21 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 priced market-rate residential and commercial development gentrify and displace working class and immigrant communities in SOMA and across the city. Communities in SOMA must reclaim space and land for working people." These considerations are essential for communities throughout San Francisco. We also know that there are structural issues with the way affordable housing is funded. In 2020, the California State Auditor released a detailed report about the funding and administrative barriers to affordable housing development across the State. This CA State Auditor<U+2019>s assessment concludes "The State Must Overhaul Its Approach to Affordable Housing Development to Help Relieve Millions of Californians<U+2019> Burdensome Housing Costs." This report is vital because it details how "the State does not currently have a sound, well- coordinated strategy or plan for how to most effectively use its financial resources to support affordable housing." Without a plan for how to mobilize its financial resources effectively, the State squanders opportunities to partner effectively with local governments, like the City of San Francisco. This, in turn, leads Planners in San Francisco to rely on misguided, market-based strategies for addressing affordable housing needs. The State Auditor<U+2019>s report says: "The State plays a critical role in supporting affordable housing development and the Legislature has declared that private investment alone cannot achieve the needed amount of housing construction at costs that are affordable to people of all income levels- including households earning 80 percent or less of their area<U+2019>s median income (lower- income households)." Although these structural impediments hinder affordable housing development, the organizations in REP-SF continue to advocate for greater and more effective resources for affordable housing, and some REP-SF organizations (Chinatown The Housing Element should start by asking, how can we meet the State goals in a way that puts community expertise, and racial, social and economic equity first? And how can we work together as a city, coordinating between city departments, to create a land use and resource plan that puts affordable housing and the needs of low-income and Communities of Color first? 22 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION Community Development CCDC, Tenderloin Neighborhood Development TNDC, Mission Economic Development Agency MEDA) successfully develop significant amounts of new affordable housing through new construction and by purchasing and rehabilitating existing rental housing. For decades, community plans have emphasized the need for affordable housing. This is from the Chinatown Plan of 1985: "Study after study has documented the need for new housing to meet the needs of Chinatown<U+2019>s low- income residents. Development of new market rate housing does not meet their needs and hastens displacement. It is low-income housing that Chinatown needs." With this emphasis on low-income residents, the Chinatown Plan didn<U+2019>t seek to stop housing development. In fact, it<U+2019>s apparent that at that time, for- profit developers were so focused on building commercial and offices that the Chinatown Plan has detailed requirements for these commercial developers to build new housing to meet the needs of Chinatown<U+2019>s residents. Likewise, the Mission Area Plan (MAP2020) says very clearly, "The objective of this Plan is neither to freeze the neighborhood in time nor to prevent newcomers from moving in but rather to ensure that as change happens those currently living there and their children have the voice, to stay and not be forcibly displaced. It<U+2019>s about preserving the ability for the neighborhood to house all incomes and not lose the affordable rental stock, business and the richness and diversity of the neighborhood along with it." The most important feature of all the Plans that are attached is the emphasis on people - on the needs and experiences of people, and the assertion that people live in communities, in neighborhoods, and that we need to plan for both people and neighborhoods, especially around the economic and social needs of those with low-incomes and those who are without shelter. REP-SF organizations successfully develop significant amounts of new affordable housing through new construction and by purchasing and rehabilitating existing rental housing. 23 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 Compilation of Community-Based Plans The most important feature of all the Community Plans is the emphasis on people. We need to plan for both people and neighborhoods, especially around the economic and social needs of those with low incomes and those who are without shelter. All of the community plans that REP-SF organizations have already put in place can be found in the folder that<U+2019>s linked from here. These community plans speak to the aspirations and self-determination, and broad engagement and expertise, of various communities across San Francisco in housing, development, land use, and holistic urban planning. Many of these community plans have been supported by the City through funding and/or support from City staff. These are significant contributions of resources, yet, when the City initiates major land use policies such as the Housing Element, it doesn<U+2019>t start with these community plans, or make reference to them at all. Bringing all of 24 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION these community plans together for the first time shows clearly the breadth of community participation and community expertise in land use and housing issues. This "Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan" also demonstrates the long term commitment of resources by organizations throughout San Francisco to educate and engage communities, to cultivate and support community expertise, in land use, and strategies for empowering historically vulnerable and marginalized communities to build collective power and self- determination through engagement in land use and housing decisions and policies. There are other community plans that are either in process (e.g. CHHESS reports from other Cultural Districts; updates to the SOMA Youth and Family Special Use District) by REP-SF organizations, or are noteworthy for their focus on equitable strategies and outcomes although not led by community organizations (e.g. Sunset Forward). Plans will be added to the folder as they are completed. This "Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan" will also be updated from time to time as conditions and strategies change. These community plans speak to the aspirations and self-determination, and broad engagement and expertise, of various communities across San Francisco in housing, development, land use, and holistic urban planning. 25 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 This Action Plan represents the collective expertise and experience of REP-SF<U+2019>s citywide membership, and the breadth of constituencies and communities united in putting forth bold and innovative solutions that center racial and social equity. Creating this Action Plan engaged the entire REP-SF Coalition through a rigorous, inclusive, and intentional process; including multiple working sessions, revisions by dozens of REP- SF members, and REP-SF<U+2019>s leadership development program, <U+201C>Planning to the People: Land Use and Equity Training 2022,<U+201D> in which 20 new community members - ranging geographically, ethnically, and generationally - became engaged REP-SF leaders and directly shaped this "Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan". This Action Plan, and the entirety of the Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan, is a testament to the expertise and commitment of REP-SF<U+2019>s membership in advancing a proactive, ambitious agenda to create new systems that will ensure an equitable San Francisco, for our communities now and for generations to come. 1. Land Use This section outlines strategies for identifying affordable housing sites, rezoning for density that facilitates and prioritizes development of affordable housing, and purchasing sites for preservation and new construction of affordable housing. Currently, the Housing Element uses the framework of "high resource areas" as a rationale for focusing greater intensity and density of development in the Western and Northern neighborhoods of the City, and along certain prioritized transit corridors, but the Housing Element does not prioritize affordability, nor does it present a plan for meeting the RHNA goals for affordable housing. The set of strategies detailed below seeks to refocus the City<U+2019>s land use policies and strategies toward meeting the affordable housing mandates. Although "high resource areas", per California<U+2019>s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Action Plan Creating this Action Plan engaged the entire REP-SF Coalition through a rigorous, inclusive, and intentional process putting forth bold and innovative solutions that center racial and social equity. 26 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), are intended as areas where 100% affordable housing dollars should be focused, the Housing Element intends to build between 70% and 80% market rate housing in these areas. Despite the RHNA mandates being weighted heavily toward below market rate housing with 57% of the housing targeted to low to moderate income households, the Housing Element as drafted will only yield between 20% and 30% of the housing being affordable to low to moderate income households. Therefore, the intensity and density of development that Planning has proposed for the Western and Northern areas of the City must be reimagined as areas for intensive affordable housing development. There are three significant barriers to this re-visioning towards affordable housing that must be overcome. First, the City needs to work in coordination at the Local, Regional and State levels to make new capital funding sources available for building affordable housing that are efficient and allow for reasonable per-unit development costs on sites where affordable housing developers can build as few as 10 units. This is not currently feasible because of constraints that come along with typical affordable housing funding sources. Not only are current funding sources for affordable housing not flexible enough to support smaller scale developments that fit practically within San Francisco<U+2019>s urban fabric, but the scale of funding sources is not available. REP-SF and the Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO) estimate that San Francisco will need approximately $4 Billion per year for the eight year duration of the Housing Element in order to meet the affordable housing mandates. A plan for funding 27 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 affordable housing is in Section 2 of this action plan. The second barrier that must be overcome is securing sufficient land. A crucial strategy for securing land is to land bank as many sites as possible that are eligible for affordable housing under this new financing vision. This is the only way that this Housing Element will succeed in meeting its production mandates and its equity goals- by ensuring that we have the resources and land use strategies that prioritize development of affordable housing throughout the entirety of San Francisco. A plan for acquiring land for affordable housing is in Section 1 of this action plan. A key strategy that is not emphasized enough throughout Planning<U+2019>s Housing Element, but is a core strategy in community plans is the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing apartment buildings and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) buildings. San Francisco<U+2019>s Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) provides "qualified nonprofits" with negotiating priority to purchase these buildings, but the biggest impediment to bringing this program to scale has been a lack of funding. There are strategies to expand this strategy in the Action Plan below. We appreciate the understanding that Priority Equity Geographies should be excluded from some of the increased market-rate housing upzoning and streamlining prescribed, and allow community-led processes for mitigating market-rate projects. This equity lens should be expanded to include additional areas where harms can be expected from these provisions, such as the high displacement risk areas identified in the Urban Displacement Project<U+2019>s California Estimated Displacement Risk Model and Cultural District areas. Similarly, these Cultural Districts are appropriately identified as needing special resourcing including funding to grow community businesses and the opportunity to give input on all housing projects. These areas should be clearly given relief from the upzoning and streamlining elements in the plan, rather than the partial mitigation policies that seem to be prescribed such as consultation in zoning changes and market-rate housing streamlining in exchange for unspecified stabilization benefits. These are some of the major, new concepts that REP-SF recommends. The following list of Land Use related Action The City needs to work in coordination at the Local, Regional and State levels to make new capital funding sources available for building affordable housing. 28 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION Items provides further detail addressing a comprehensive set of strategies for Equity in Land Use. 1A. A Real Plan for Meeting Affordable Housing Mandates The City must develop and acquire/ rehabilitate a total of 56,000 affordable housing units, approximately 46,000 from this current cycle plus approximately 10,000 deficit from last cycle. To break this down, this would mean nearly 5,100 new affordable units in every one of San Francisco<U+2019>s eleven Supervisorial Districts by the year 2031. MAP2020 (attached) already has established an affordable housing production goal of 1,700-2,400 affordable units specifically for the Mission. This goal needs to be updated regularly to reflect additional needs since MAP2020 was published, the number of units actually completed, and units lost through demolition and conversion. In order to meet these goals, communities working with the City must identify affordable housing development The Housing Element as drafted will only yield between 20% and 30% of the housing being affordable to low to moderate income households. 29 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 sites in all 11 districts including publicly owned lands, and make sure that the total number of affordable units these sites will yield matches or exceeds the RHNA mandates. REP-SF encourages a community-based process to identify priority areas and priority sites. I. Work with low-income, American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color to identify and prioritize opportunity sites for affordable housing. II. Communities and nonprofit developers to work collaboratively with the City to design and implement an aggressive site acquisition and land banking strategy in order to secure and hold as many of the development sites as possible. III. Include sites throughout the Western and Northern areas of the City, where sites are typically small, and often less expensive than in more intensely zoned and developed parts of the city, through new funding models described in Section 2. IV. While targeting affordable housing for development in the Western and Northern areas, the City must not exclude ongoing significant investment in new affordable housing opportunities in the Eastern and Southern areas of the City (Priority Equity Geographies). There should be an overall increase in the amount of resources available for affordable housing, and an equitable distribution of those resources throughout the City. V. Include sites owned by religious institutions which have streamlined rezoning for affordable housing per prior ballot initiative. VI. Restrict development on publicly owned lands for 100% affordable housing, locally owned small businesses, and nonprofit organizations, especially community- based organizations. Adopting a framework of 100% affordable development on publicly owned land would create a major pool of land resources to maximize and lower the cost of affordable development. VII. The term "affordable" must be defined by low-income, American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color in terms that meaningfully promote community stability and uphold a right to housing. Potential standards may include, but are not limited to: <U+2022> patterns of displacement: repara- tions for historical harms, afford- ability based on displaced house- A crucial strategy for securing land is to land bank as many sites as possible that are eligible for affordable housing. 30 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION holds<U+2019> ability to return to their communities in SF; <U+2022> housing our essential workforce to sustainably live in the city they serve; <U+2022> ensuring that affordability is ac- cessible to the youth coming up in the city, to people with disabilities, and to the elders that struggle to affordably age in place on limited fixed incomes, and based on the needs of current residents strug- gling to remain in their communi- ties. <U+2022> going beyond the limiting stan- dards set by federal, state, and local programs that nominally subsidize rents without achieving true affordability. <U+2022> reviewing the standard of afford- ability that households should pay 30% of their income toward their housing expenses. There is a pro- posal that payment standards be set with a "residual income" mea- sure. While this would generally result in reinforcement of the 30% standard, those with extremely low-incomes, and those in perma- nent supportive housing, would likely have their payment standard lowered to more appropriately reflect their ability to pay relative to other living expenses. VIII. Increase the percentage of units in 100% affordable buildings that are dedicated to households with extremely low and zero incomes, and ensure that appropriate levels of resources and funding are committed for additional intensive staffing required to ensure success. A. Households with extremely low and zero incomes include: families in shelters, families crowded into SRO<U+2019>s, people currently living on the street, and others living in 31 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 overcrowded and unpermitted situations. 1B. Public Input & City Processes The City must establish a new project approval and entitlement process for market rate housing developments that retains public input and process, but has clear time frames for each part of the process, so project reviews and approvals can take far less time than they do today while retaining democratic, public participation in the process. I. Our Cultural Districts and American Indian, Black, and other Communities of Color and low-income communities must retain the right to participate in development and land use decisions. II. Develop an entitlement review process that retains public input and participation while significantly shortening project approvals. This can be achieved by committing to statutory time frames for each step of the entitlement process so projects move expeditiously from application to a final decision. One example to work from is the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure in New York There needs to be 5,100 new affordable units in every one of San Francisco<U+2019>s eleven Supervisorial Districts by the year 2031. 32 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION City where the first step of the process takes only 60 days, but engages the public in a public meeting before the neighborhood-based Community Board along with the developer. Meetings are in the community, in the evening to ensure broad participation. The project cannot move forward until the Community Board finalizes recommendations based on the community input. These recommendations are submitted from the Community Board to Planning staff. This entire process must be completed within 60 days. Although New York<U+2019>s process is citywide and comprehensive in its management of the entire entitlement process, we have a similar process here in San Francisco for how the "Community Board" part of the review process could be managed. San Francisco<U+2019>s Bernal Heights neighborhood has had a similar process in place for decades through the Northwest Bernal Heights Design Review Board. This is a resource describing the history of Community Boards in New York City, how they function, what their budget is, etc. This is another resource that recommends updates and changes to NYC<U+2019>s Community Boards. III. Similar to the analyses required in New York, incorporate an equity analysis into the new approval process. A. At a minimum, require develop- ers to provide a demographics The City must identify affordable housing development sites in all 11 districts including publicly owned lands. 33 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 report about the neighborhood surrounding their proposed de- velopment, along with detailed information about what the devel- oper is proposing to build. REP-SF recommends looking to New York City<U+2019>s Equitable Development Data Explorer as a model. B. REP-SF recommends reviving the Healthy Development Measure- ment Tool that Planning devel- oped jointly with the Department of Public Health during the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning in the 2000<U+2019>s. This HDMT provided crit- ically important data about com- munities, and enabled evaluation of proposed developments and whether they furthered the build- ing of healthy, holistic communi- ties. IV. Planning notices should be in clear, plain language, translated into all of the City<U+2019>s official languages with a 3-dimensional drawing and clear description of what project is being proposed for the site. Currently, Planning notices that are posted at development sites are a jumble of code references, without any clear, plain language description of what the developer is proposing to demolish and/ or build. 1C. Demolitions Planning<U+2019>s new Housing Element recommends demolition of existing housing in a number of its strategies. Even without these new policies that encourage demolition, our communities have suffered massive displacement from demolitions as evidenced by the Housing Balance reports. Without the following recommendations, the Housing Element will continue to be tantamount to an Urban Renewal or Redevelopment strategy as described above. REP-SF strongly recommends the following new policy be included in the Housing Element and pursued on a priority basis: I. A Conditional Use Permit will be required for every residential demolition and "tantamount to demolition." The Planning Department has recommended that there only be a public hearing if the residences are tenant- occupied, but current experience in our communities tells us that tenant advocates often need to The term "affordable" must be defined by low-income, American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color in terms that meaningfully promote community stability and uphold a right to housing. 34 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION force public hearings in order to reveal that tenants have either been forced to leave, or are still living at a property that a developer represents to Planning as being "vacant. II. If there are any rent controlled units existing at the property, every one of those rent controlled units must be replaced in the new development one for one. <U+2022> For clarity, "rent controlled units" include the following pre-1979 structures: multiple but separate residential structures on a single property; single family homes with ADUs; single family homes with multiple, separate leases. II. These "replacement rent controlled units" are additional to any BMR units that the developer is required to provide. III. If the units proposed to be demolished or are proposed for extensive rehab that is "tantamount to demolition" are occupied, the developer must pay for temporary relocation for all occupants to other rental housing within San Francisco for the duration of the development. The developer will be responsible for finding this temporary housing, and will also be responsible for paying the difference between the tenant<U+2019>s current rent and the rent in the temporary rental unit for the entire duration of the temporary relocation. IV. The developer will pay all expenses for the tenant to relocate to the temporary housing, then will also pay all expenses for the tenant to relocate back to the newly constructed project. V. The developer will have these same obligations to all occupants at the property, including tenants and subtenants, and anyone living at the premises whether on a lease or not. VI. Once the development is completed, and the tenants return into their newly constructed, rent- controlled units, their initial rent will be the same as the rent had been prior to their temporary relocation, with the appropriate annual Rent Board increases applied. VII. If there has been a buy-out, or no-fault eviction at the property, including by Ellis Act or Owner- Move-In, the request for demolition will be denied. 1D. Affordable Housing: Acquisition, Preservation, and Enforcement Achieving these historically ambitious levels of affordable housing production will require investment in capacities and 35 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 strategies that have never been made before. Nonprofit, community-based affordable housing developers need to increase their staffing. The Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Housing will be managing projects and funding sources on a huge, new scale which will require additional staffing. Even the Planning Department will have to create a new permit review and expediting team that focuses on affordable housing developments. In addition, we need to be creative about how we approach existing buildings and other creative ways to create new affordable housing that go beyond just thinking about starting new construction from scratch. I. Invest in additional project management capacity throughout the network of San Francisco, community- based affordable housing developers, and at the Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Housing and Community Development. II. Invest in a permit review team at the Planning Department that has expertise in affordable housing developments. III. Tenants at Plaza East demand that Plaza East remain 100% affordable. Without the following recommendations, the Housing Element will continue to be tantamount to Urban Renewal. 36 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION A. The 270 market rate housing units that the City has included in the sites inventory for new market rate units must be removed. IV. REP-SF strongly urges adaptive re-use of unused commercial office buildings as affordable housing, beginning with an analysis of the unrealized potential in vacant commercial office buildings to yield affordable housing. A. This strategy should include a plan for statewide advocacy for funding since this is not an opportunity that is entirely unique to San Francisco, and will require resources beyond what our City can provide. V. Need to support low-income homeowners to develop deed- restricted, affordable units added to their homes, and to create a program for nonprofit developers to provide project management and technical assistance to these low-income homeowners. VI. Update the Small Sites/Housing Preservation Program based on recommendations from CCHO and the SF Anti-Displacement Coalition, and significantly increase investment in this program as an anti-displacement strategy. A. Deployment of the Small Sites Program should take full advantage of the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) that provides Qualified Nonprofits with negotiating priority, and must be equitably distributed to address needs throughout the City. VII. Invest in staffing to strictly enforce the Short Term Rental and Intermediate Length Occupancy programs and provide a public registry of these units in order to limit, as much as possible, any conversions of housing to these corporate and commercial uses. VIII. Enforce the vacant homes tax, and encourage owners to make these homes available, or explore purchasing them with eminent domain if necessary. IX. Move forward with innovative recommendations of affordable and social housing models from the Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board (HSFOB). A. This includes investment in new models of "social housing" which Achieving these historically ambitious levels of affordable housing production will require investment in capacities and strategies that have never been made before. 37 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 voters approved, and which the HSFOB has been working to define. X. Use eminent domain to purchase unused single story commercial buildings to be re-built for 100% affordable housing and community serving businesses. A. Especially for supportive housing for those who are currently homeless. XI. Purchase tourist hotels to be renovated and converted to studio housing units. XII. Purchase residential buildings with high vacancy for affordable housing stock. Use eminent domain if necessary in cases where vacancy is the result of units being held off the market. XIII. Reclaim former SRO buildings that were converted to tech dorms<U+2019> or high end student housing<U+2019> and are empty or no longer viable. XIV. Support Community Equity and Ownership in Housing Development A. Commit to a meaningful expansion of community ownership through preservation housing acquisition which opens up opportunities for community control of land and housing, meaningful tenant protections and strong tenant participation. B. Support nonprofit affordable housing developers including community land trusts, tenant associations, housing cooperatives, community development corporations, etc. C. Support collective and limited equity types including homeownership, housing cooperatives, co-housing, etc. D. Expand support for the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) to purchase existing apartment buildings through the Small Sites Program and to purchase new sites for 100% affordable housing development. 1E. State-Level Advocacy Two California State bills, SB828 and SB35 both passed in 2017, but their impacts are just now being understood broadly throughout California. SB828 is the bill that was supposed to fix the system for establishing the Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) across the State that was widely seen as being problematic. The result of SB828<U+2019>s new methodology for calculating RHNA was an explosion Project reviews and approvals can take far less time than they do today while retaining democratic, public participation in the process. 38 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION of housing production goals across California. The companion measure, SB35 effectively allows developers who propose to build a project targeted at income levels for which a jurisdiction is under-producing, to bypass any public hearings or public input process. Since the housing production goals caused by SB828 are so extraordinarily high for every jurisdiction and at every income level, within the next couple of years, now that new RHNA goals are set, SB35 will kick in and every development proposal will be able to bypass public hearings and public review. As if this situation wasn<U+2019>t bad enough, SB828 turns the RHNA housing production goals into mandates, and instead of providing resources from the State to local jurisdictions to help support the affordable housing mandates, SB828 instead threatens to withhold transportation and affordable housing subsidies. Withholding state funding for transportation and affordable housing as a bludgeon to force jurisdictions to reckon with obscenely inflated housing production "mandates" is not just bizarre public policy, but is disempowering to communities, especially those that have been advocating for racial, social and economic equity and housing justice while suffering from the impacts of market-rate housing for decades. Mandates for building housing should respond primarily to the needs of communities that are most vulnerable to displacement and suffering most from the high cost of housing. Along with these mandates should 39 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 come significant new resources for affordable housing, and efficiencies at the State level like those recommended by the State Auditor in their 2020 report, not the withholding of funding that could actually be used to provide the affordable housing that our communities desperately need. Both SB828 and SB35 must be significantly reformed either through amending legislation or through Statewide initiative. Recent passage of AB2011 in 2022 has caused significant concern, because it will incentivize and "streamline" market rate housing in areas of the City that have already been severely impacted by decades of escalating market rate housing development. Many of these areas have seen significant displacement of low-income, American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color as a result of the concentration of market rate development. AB2011, unless amended, and unless local controls are put in place, will cause significant, further displacement of these vulnerable communities, and drive up land costs in these neighborhoods contributing to the cycle of gentrification Further, AB2011 overrides existing neighborhood controls such as project conditions for approval intended to keep these communities stable, pushing market rate housing in many cases right back into the most vulnerable communities and away from upscale areas where building will be less profitable. Amendments to AB2011 are needed to protect small businesses from displacement by identifying buildings that have active small businesses currently or within the past 5 years as not being eligible for streamlining. I. Work with SF<U+2019>s two Assemblymembers to pass follow up legislation that amends AB2011 to mitigate the displacement and further harm it is poised to inflict on low-income communities and Communities of Color throughout San Francisco. A. Advocate for new legislation that amends AB2011 to prevent the displacement of community serving businesses and working class jobs, ensure equity outcomes and neighborhood protection, and keep streamlined market-rate housing out of communities where it is The result of SB828<U+2019>s new methodology for calculating RHNA was an explosion of housing production goals across California. Now that these new RHNA goals are set, SB35 will kick in and every development proposal will be able to bypass public hearings and public review. 40 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION certain to have harmful impacts. II. Advocate for Ellis Act Eviction reform legislation at the State level to end the practice of LLCs purchasing buildings and using the Ellis Act or threat of the Ellis Act to clear the building to create speculative units. III. Advocate to repeal State Costa Hawkins legislation to avoid rent being increased when a unit is vacated. IV. Reform State Senate Bills SB35 (The Housing Accountability and Affordability Act) and SB828 (Fixing RHNA - Making Housing Assignments More Equitable) A. Need to retain community input into development. As it stands, these two State Senate bills will combine to streamline all housing due to the fact that SF will not be able to meet its RHNA mandates in any of the four income categories. 1F. Holistic Communities We don<U+2019>t just live in housing, we live in communities. Any set of policies for housing must include strategies for building whole, healthy communities. This has always been true, but the scale of the State RHNA mandates have the potential to change our built, urban environment faster than San Francisco has changed in any of our lifetimes. It is imperative that we meet this challenge by planning for communities that holistically support racial, social and economic equity. I. Any housing plan has to provide for other critical elements that make up a holistic, healthy, vibrant, diverse community. A. Parks and open spaces that are accessible and allow for a range of community uses. So much of San Francisco<U+2019>s housing is small units, in buildings with little to no open space, so available, accessible open space is critical. B. Locally owned businesses (including "production, distribution and repair" businesses) that provide affordable, culturally and linguistically responsive goods and services are also critical. These spaces, currently being rapidly replaced by market-rate housing, provide jobs and economic opportunities for residents, make residents feel welcome- like they are part of a Many areas targeted by AB2011 have seen significant displacement of low-income, American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color as a result of the concentration of market rate development. 41 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 whole community, and provide the goods and services that residents need at prices they can afford. C. Public transit improvements that are focused on linking neighborhoods to each other rather than being so focused on downtown. Increasing transit to hospitals, SF State University, and the various City College campuses. Increasing late night transit service between neighborhoods. 1. These transit improvements must be prioritized based on the increased benefits they provide to underserved Communities of Color. 2. Funding Strategies for sufficiently funding affordable housing should take into consideration that existing funding mechanisms severely constrain San Francisco<U+2019>s ability to creatively develop affordable housing utilizing a number of diverse affordable housing strategies. Simplifying the funding structures for affordable housing (refer to the State Auditor<U+2019>s report from 2020) will result in much faster implementation, and much lower per unit costs. This partial list below demonstrates the need for active and consistent advocacy, leadership, and coordination across public agencies and legislative bodies. For this Housing Element cycle, in order to achieve the affordable housing mandates, to support existing tenants to remain in stable, affordable, dignified housing, San Francisco will need at least $4 Billion in annual capital subsidies from Local, Regional and State sources, especially sources of funding that do not currently exist. We don<U+2019>t just live in housing, we live in communities. 42 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION While this seems like an enormous sum, it<U+2019>s important to contextualize such a large amount. San Francisco<U+2019>s municipal budget is larger than $12B, and California<U+2019>s $235B budget maintains the 5th largest economy in the world. In addition to a re-prioritization of resources from these two large government entities, there is tremendous wealth in major San Francisco and Bay Area-based corporations that must be taxed. As of the end of September 2022, Alphabet had more than $116B; Meta had more than $40B; Apple had more than $48B; Cisco had nearly $20B in "cash on hand." This is just the cash on deposit and short term assets that can be liquidated immediately. And these are just a few of the corporations hoarding hundreds of billions of dollars that could be mobilized to guarantee stable, affordable, dignified housing for all, throughout the State of California. It might be strategic to approach this significant funding expansion in phases. For instance, if in the first year, there was $1B to $2B available, this could go a long way toward land banking development sites, and purchasing existing apartment buildings and SRO<U+2019>s. There could be increases in funding in future years to move the pipeline of new construction and rehabilitation forward, now that these critical properties are secured, while continuing to purchase additional sites to be land banked for the ongoing pipeline of development. In order to ramp up to bringing 46,000 new affordable units on line in eight years, it will take a massive increase in capacity to manage these projects, and a thorough plan for securing sites and moving each of those developments through the pipeline. 2A. Local I. Expedite implementation of the SF Municipal Bank to make construction term and permanent funding available for 100% affordable housing development and Acquisition/ Rehabilitation projects. Municipal financing could be provided at far lower costs to projects, and therefore, provide a much greater efficiency of resources than the commercial sources of funding the City currently relies on. II. Require greater transparency through the City<U+2019>s budget and reporting process so there is full annual disclosure of every dollar that is restricted for affordable housing, San Francisco will need at least $4 Billion in annual capital subsidies from Local, Regional and State sources, especially sources of funding that do not currently exist. 43 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 and its particular use restrictions; and every dollar that is unrestricted, and therefore, eligible to be spent on affordable housing. In terms of reporting, there should be an annual report of how much money was spent on affordable housing in the prior year and what that money was spent on. III. Conduct an updated Residential Affordable Housing Nexus Analysis and, if there is a demonstrated increased need for affordable housing, increase the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Fee. IV. Augment and allocate general obligation bonds, certificates of participation, housing trust fund, general fund support, and allocate portion of city reserves, for critical affordability needs: A. Extremely Low-Income: Expand the Local Operating Subsidy Program, Senior Operating Subsidy, and create a Disability Operating Subsidy to cover more affordable housing and supportive housing options 1. Including the Small Sites/Housing Preservation Program tenants for LOSP, SOS and DOS support. 2. Create and expand options for tenants to have portable LOSP, SOS and DOS rental assistance. 3. These rental subsidies must be accompanied by significant funding for building repairs, 44 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION especially for Small Sites Program buildings for the long term, so major capital repairs and replacements are not a financial burden borne by tenants. B. Explore progressive tax revenue measures, such as gross receipts tax, transfer tax, jobs-housing linkage fees, etc. and move these forward as each becomes viable. 2B. Regional I. Regional Bond for affordable housing through Bay Area Housing Finance Agency that must be coordinated effectively with both the State and City of San Francisco funding sources for affordable housing. 2C. State I. Partner with the State for new dedication of State resources A. Refer to the CA Auditor<U+2019>s report that calls for real coordination of resources between State funding agencies, and between the State and Local jurisdictions, and more efficient use of capital subsidies. B. Support further and ongoing investment in the Community Anti- displacement and Preservation Program and use of this program in San Francisco. C. Foreclosure Intervention Housing Preservation Program (FIHPP) D. State bonds and state general fund support E. Annual statewide allocations into the local Housing Accelerator Fund in order to finance land banking and 100% affordable housing development F. Need to identify a constant, reliable, major source of capital funding to be added to the equity raised through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. If developing affordable housing costs roughly $900,000 per unit, and roughly 20% of those costs are financed and 80% are subsidized, this translates to $720,000 per unit times 56,000 units which equals $40,320,000,000 ($40.32B). If we commit just to meeting the 46,000 units, this equals $33.12B in subsidies over 8 years ($4.14B per year). 1. This will require a partnership between the State and the City to prioritize subsidies for affordable housing at the scale necessary to achieve these goals- and to simplify the way funding sources are layered for each individual project. 2. By identifying new, major, sustained sources of capital funding, it will expand the range of eligible sites that can be developed as affordable housing because nonprofit affordable housing developers won<U+2019>t have the massive fixed costs associated with LIHTCs that need to be spread out over 90+ units. 3. Simplifying the funding layering 45 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 and coordinating affordable housing objectives and priorities between the State and City would speed up the development process, and bring more affordable housing units online faster. 2D. Federal I. Federal A. Advocate for expansion of public/ social housing funding B. Advocate for expansion of section 8 rental and homeownership subsidies 3. Capacity Funding affordable housing and purchasing sites is not enough to meet the affordable housing goals. The City must increase communities<U+2019> capacities to build and manage the new projects. I. Support expansion of nonprofit project management capacity, especially focused on areas of the city that haven<U+2019>t seen much affordable housing development. A. Build capacity of American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color to lead on affordable housing development, especially in the 46 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION Western and Northern areas of the City where the Housing Element proposes that most of the new development occur, and where there currently is no community- based affordable housing developer. II. Support augmentation of the project management team at the Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Housing and Community Development to manage all the new funding for affordable housing, and to keep the high volume of new projects moving along expeditiously. III. Invest in a new permit review team at the Planning Department that focuses on reviewing and entitling 100% affordable housing. IV. Support new systems of property management and asset management for efficiencies and low cost/ per unit for expanded portfolios that include mid and smaller size buildings. V. Commit to a broad education and outreach program that is culturally and linguistically accessible, about affordable housing especially to parts of the city that haven<U+2019>t seen much affordable housing development. A. Allow developers to do community outreach when they are responding to a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). VI. Support the creation and expansion of culturally and linguistically competent neighborhood based organizations to acquire and manage residential properties VII. Support neighborhood efforts to create and implement community plans and strategies that address affordable housing needs. 47 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 Community Plans Finalized and Adopted Community Plans <U+2022> Chinatown Community Plan, 1985 <U+2022> SOMA, SOMCAN, Reclaiming Our Space (ROSe), 2022 <U+2022> SOMA, SOMA Pilipinas, CHHESS Report, 2022 <U+2022> Tenderloin, Tenderloin People<U+2019>s Congress, Tenderloin Vision 2020 <U+2022> Mission, Mission Area Plan, MAP2020 <U+2022> Excelsior, PODER, Better Neighborhoods Same Neighbors, 2015 Plans Still Pending Completion and/or Approval <U+2022> Sunset, Sunset Forward, 2022 <U+2022> SOMA, SOMA Youth and Family Special Use District, 2022 update <U+2022> Mission, Calle24, CHHESS Report <U+2022> Mission, American Indian Cultural District, CHHESS Report <U+2022> Bayview, SF African American Arts & Cultural District, CHHESS Report 48 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION Community Plan for the Excelsior: Communities United for Health and Justice (CUHJ)) Better Neighborhoods, Same Neighbors (CUHJ) 49 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 Figure 1 Figure 1: Proposed Heights and Density Controls Under Housing Element 2022 50 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION Figure 2: Map of Multi-Family Buildings Placed in Service during the 2014 - 2022 Housing Element cycle. Data source: SF Planning Department Figure 2 51 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 Figure 3 Figure 3: Percent Change in Black/African-American Residents By Neighborhood (2010 - 2020). Data source: US Census 52 RACE & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION Figure 4: Estimated Change in Number of Filipino Residents By Neighborhood (2015 - 2020). Data Source: US Census Figure 4 53 CITYWIDE PEOPLE<U+2019>S PLAN 2022 Figure 5: Change in Percent of Hispanic/Latino Residents As Share of Total Neighborhood Population (2010 - 2020). Data Source: US Census Figure 5show more

Dennis Hong · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

Housing Element for 11.17.2022 SFPC meting etc
Hello Honorable members of the SF Planning Commission and everyone, Its Dennis here. I'm sorry I can not be with you for the Nov 17, 2022 meeting, I will try for the remote session. I do hope this gets to everyone in time for item #13 and 14: Cut and paste here: 13. 2019-016230ENV (A. CALLAGY: [phone removed]) HOUSING ELEMENT 2022 UPDATE <U+2013> Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EI… Hello Honorable members of the SF Planning Commission and everyone, Its Dennis here. I'm sorry I can not be with you for the Nov 17, 2022 meeting, I will try for the remote session. I do hope this gets to everyone in time for item #13 and 14: Cut and paste here: 13. 2019-016230ENV (A. CALLAGY: [phone removed]) HOUSING ELEMENT 2022 UPDATE <U+2013> Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed project is the Housing Element 2022 Update for the San Francisco General Plan. Don't understand #14. --- on you agenda, only because the BoS meeting had some interesting feed back and for me trying to reconcile the RTS online. Not to belabor this DEIR - RTC any more. I think last nights SF BoS sort of summed it up. Finishing re-reading both Vol I and II, plus the RTC. Not bad. I just had a few comments below to the RTC. But other than my Comments of about October 28, 2022; as usual I sort of struggled with both the hard copy of the RTC and the online version and did not do well. But here are a few comments: A. I believe there was a comment ref no housing on the West side. In one of my comments I did ask did the Park Merced count as housing/units - Wow that is a massive project. Now we have a great opportunity for the up and coming Stonestown Mall development and several in District 6 (?), Teacher housing and one on Sloat (??) count as housing? B. I did not see much ref how can this Housing Element EIR/guide be impacted and its fix for these all too many Ca bills and possibly Federal requirements impacts, etc; including the costs and fines and bonus money etc. C. The BoS late meeting of 11/15/2022 was an eye opener. Had some good points that had me thinking again. D. I will have more as this moves along. E. I like the new thought with Apartments vs Housing, these too should be part of the Housing count. Not everyone can afford a house. Elizabeth and all, thanks for what you do with this issue. Can you confirm this email was received and will be part of the Project file? All to often my emails get lost. All the best. Dennisshow more

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

Affordable housing requirements

Anne Christy · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

Economic challenges, stronger actions required

Kevin Burke · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

Denying projects

Martin Munoz · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

People's plan

Mitch Mankin · spoken · 2022-11-17 · neutral

Transit and affordable housing, land banking

Lorraine Petty · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

Production of affordable housing, community oppositions

Milo Trauss · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

Not realistic, not committing to changes

Jessica Apollo · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

Make a compliant housing element

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2022-11-17 · neutral

CatEx change

Peter Papadapoulos · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

Make equity adjustments, prioritize affordable housing, strengthen equity framework, AB 2011

Robert Fruchtman · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

Violations, no safeguards

Cheryl Thornton · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

Affordable housing, adopt peoples plan

Jake Price · spoken · 2022-11-17 · support

RHNA target, downtown revitalization

Joseph Smith · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

Concerns, rent organizations

Glynis Nakahara · spoken · 2022-11-17 · support

Japantown

Eileen Boken · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

SB 35 penalties loss of local control

Steve Marzo · spoken · 2022-11-17 · oppose

Meet specific goals laid out by the state

2022-12-01 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Glynis Nakahara · email · 2022-12-01 · support · source packet

Nov 17 PC Hearing -- Agenda Items 2019-016230ENV and 2019-016230GPA Housing Element Update Public Comment
President Tanner and members of the Commission, My name is Glynis Nakahara, President of the Japantown Task Force Board of Directors. Our mission is to preserve and develop one of the three remaining Japantowns in the US as the cultural heart of the Japanese/Japanese American community in San Francisco and to empower the Japantown community with agency for self determination. As you well know, Japantown was evisc… President Tanner and members of the Commission, My name is Glynis Nakahara, President of the Japantown Task Force Board of Directors. Our mission is to preserve and develop one of the three remaining Japantowns in the US as the cultural heart of the Japanese/Japanese American community in San Francisco and to empower the Japantown community with agency for self determination. As you well know, Japantown was eviscerated by government policy, first through the forced incarceration of WWII and then locally, by the City<U+2019>s own urban renewal policies. Redevelopment displaced 8,000 residents and hundreds of businesses, erasing the fine-grained urban fabric of our neighborhood <U+2013> and very nearly, our community. By contrast, over the past decade, JTF has enjoyed a collaborative relationship with the Planning Department, working in close partnership on the JCHESS <U+2013> which became the prototype for the City<U+2019>s Cultural District program <U+2013> the landmarking of the Peace Plaza and Pagoda, Japantown Area Design Guidelines, CHHESS, Osaka Way, and over the past two years, on the Housing Element Update. I am here today to Congratulate Planning on this unprecedented milestone and to thank staff: particularly Shelley Caltagirone and Maia Small, as well as Kimia Haddadan, Malena Leon-Farrera, Julie Chen, James Pappas, Julian Banales, Maria De Alva, and others on the Housing Element Update team. And, of course, Planning Director Rich Hillis. We thank you for engaging Japantown in good faith, for listening with care to understand, and most of all for cultivating trust and paving the way for restorative justice. This is reflected, in the Housing Element and we want to acknowledge, in particular: - The centering of the Housing Element on racial and social equity with attention to communities of color harmed by governmental actions - The designation of Japantown as Priority Equity Geography but not a Housing Sustainability District - The steadfast commitment that no rezoning of Japantown will occur unless requested by the community through community led processes The Task Force looks forward to building on our relationship of trust with the Planning Department on a community-led vision and plan and leveraging previous planning efforts to inform the development of community benefits that mitigate the impacts of potential development with affordable housing. Thank you. Sincerely, Glynis Nakaharashow more

2022-12-08 · 12 comments · 1 / 11

Jessica Nguyen Cruz · email · 2022-12-08 · support · source packet

Housing Element, Item number 2019-016230GPA
Sent on behalf of the District 4 Youth and Families Network Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, On Thursday, October 13, the District 4 Youth and Families Network, along with Planning Department staff, Carla de Mesa, presented to you a collaborative approach towards engaging the community in the development of the Sunset Forward Needs Assessment. We thank you for your endorsement of the Sunset Forward Strateg… Sent on behalf of the District 4 Youth and Families Network Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, On Thursday, October 13, the District 4 Youth and Families Network, along with Planning Department staff, Carla de Mesa, presented to you a collaborative approach towards engaging the community in the development of the Sunset Forward Needs Assessment. We thank you for your endorsement of the Sunset Forward Strategies and for the Commission and City review and consideration of community needs, priorities, and strategies outlined in Sunset Forward when taking future actions on projects in District 4. As the Planning Department engages the Housing Element we continue to urge you to follow the guidance of the Sunset Forward Plan. Sunset Forward provides a model for which the Housing Element can build upon. We encourage the use of our findings in any development in the Sunset and use our model as an example of receiving community input. The two-year Sunset Forward Needs assessment identifies housing, particularly affordable housing, as one of the core issues for our community. Our findings in the report have the following strategic overarching goals: Increase affordability by using public subsidy to build more affordable housing Build new housing of different sizes, types, and configurations by encouraging homeowners and developers to provide more housing Provide housing stability by expanding access to renter protections and homeownership opportunities Pairing new housing with community services and preventing loss of community-serving spaces with new housing development Overall, community participants strongly support all affordable housing strategies with the most support for building new 100% affordable housing, building on public lands and faith-based sites, exploring ways to build small-scale 100% affordable housing, and purchasing existing rental buildings and making them permanently affordable. Concretely, we ask that any housing built in the Sunset include the following: Greater range of affordability for the Below Market Rate (BRM) residential units from 30-90% AMI for rental units, and 80-120% AMI for ownership units. 1:1 ratio of affordable housing units to every new market-rate housing unit. Implement an effective, comprehensive, and culturally relevant outreach and application process to neighborhood residents facing displacement. o Streamlined system that indicates affordable housing applicants' progress in the application process. o Develop and implement mechanisms that allow for better coordination of outreach and application of support services between community- based organizations, city agencies, and developers. Create and enact initiatives that will genuinely protect existing affordable housing and <U+201C>small spaces<U+201D> in the community. Prevent the displacement of the neighborhoods' most vulnerable residents by converting multi-unit buildings into long-term affordable housing sites. Any additional housing built in the Sunset must adhere to the above goals in order to meet community needs. We recognize housing is needed, and our community has an equal demand for housing at all income levels. Sunset Forward shows that building housing alone cannot solve our community's needs. Rather, our network must see investments in the following, tied directly with the approval and building of any housing in the Sunset: Community services, including family support services (financial literacy, youth programming, early care/preschool/daycare, families with young children, seniors, transitional-aged young adults, renters, people experiencing housing insecurity, and non-English speaking households). Prioritization of services for low-income families, youth, seniors, domestic violence survivors, and other vulnerable groups Expand access to health and nutrition services for low-income youth, families, and seniors Honest collaboration with existing community-serving organizations in any development proposal, with investments in the long-term health of the community as part of the project mitigation efforts. Investments should be defined in partnership with community-serving organizations and reflect the needs highlighted within Sunset Forward. Jessica Nguyen, D4 Youth and Families Coordinator Wah Mei School | wahmei.org 1400 Judah Street. San Francisco, CA 94122 color_wahmei_logo.pdf Connect With Us! Facebook | Instagram Steering Committee Wah Mei School Sunset Youth Services Gum Moon Sunset Neighborhood Beacon Center December 8, 2022 San Francisco Planning Commission Rachael Tanner, President San Francisco Planning Department 49 South Van Ness, Suite 1400 San Francisco CA 94109 Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, On Thursday, October 13, the District 4 Youth and Families Network, along with Planning Department staff, Carla de Mesa, presented to you a collaborative approach towards engaging the community in the development of the Sunset Forward Needs Assessment. We thank you for your endorsement of the Sunset Forward Strategies and for the Commission and City review and consideration of community needs, priorities, and strategies outlined in Sunset Forward when taking future actions on projects in District 4. As the Planning Department engages the Housing Element we continue to urge you to follow the guidance of the Sunset Forward Plan. Sunset Forward provides a model for which the Housing Element can build upon. We encourage the use of our findings in any development in the Sunset and to use our model as an example of receiving community input. The two-year Sunset Forward Needs assessment identifies housing, particularly affordable housing, as one of the core issues for our community. Our findings in the report have the following strategic overarching goals: Increase affordability by using public subsidy to build more affordable housing Build new housing of different sizes, types, and configurations by encouraging homeowners and developers to provide more housing Provide housing stability by expanding access to renter protections and homeownership opportunities Pairing new housing with community services and preventing loss of community-serving spaces with new housing development Overall, community participants strongly support all affordable housing strategies with the most support for building new 100% affordable housing, building on public lands and faith-based sites, exploring ways to build small-scale 100% affordable housing, and purchasing existing rental buildings and making them permanently affordable. 1 Concretely, we ask that any housing built in the Sunset include the following: Greater range of affordability for the Below Market Rate (BRM) residential units from 30-90% AMI for rental units, and 80-120% AMI for ownership units. 1:1 ratio of affordable housing units to every new market-rate housing unit. Implement an effective, comprehensive, and culturally relevant outreach and application process to neighborhood residents facing displacement. o Streamlined system that indicates affordable housing applicants<U+2019> progress in the application process. o Develop and implement mechanisms that allow for better coordination of outreach and application of support services between community-based organizations, city agencies, and developers. Create and enact initiatives that will genuinely protect existing affordable housing and <U+201C>small spaces<U+201D> in the community. Prevent the displacement of the neighborhoods' most vulnerable residents by converting multi-unit buildings into long-term affordable housing sites. Any additional housing built in the Sunset must adhere to the above goals in order to meet community needs. We recognize housing is needed, and our community has an equal demand for housing at all income levels. Sunset Forward shows that building housing alone cannot solve our community<U+2019>s needs. Rather, our network must see investments in the following, tied directly with the approval and building of any housing in the Sunset: Community services, including family support services (financial literacy, youth programming, early care/preschool/daycare, families with young children, seniors, transitional-aged young adults, renters, people experiencing housing insecurity, and non-English speaking households). Prioritization of services for low-income families, youth, seniors, domestic violence survivors, and other vulnerable groups Expand access to health and nutrition services for low-income youth, families, and seniors Honest collaboration with existing community-serving organizations in any development proposal, with investments in the long-term health of the community as part of the project mitigation efforts. Investments should be defined in partnership with community-serving organizations and reflect the needs highlighted within Sunset Forward. Jessica Nguyen, D4YFN Coordinator, on behalf of the District 4 Youth and Families Network cc: Rich Hillis, Planning Director Carla de Mesa, Senior Community Development Specialist Supervisor Gordon Mar, District 4 Supervisor-elect Joel Engardio, District 4 Matt Pemberton, Sunset Neighborhood Beacon Center Dawn Sueckle, Sunset Youth Services Gloria Tan, Gum Moon Women<U+2019>s Resource Center Ben Wong, Wah Mei School 2show more

Peter Papadapoulos · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Timely housing process, keep opportunities for Bipoc community voices, critical to launch in January

Frieda Walker · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Undocumented immigrant families vulnerable

Joseph Smith · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Reducing constraints silence low-income communities

David Woo · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Compliance with its legal obligation for fair housing, Prop I fund must be recognize and included as a source of funding

Tes Welborn · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Budget for affordable housing

Elliot Hellman · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Ellis acted, support people from displacement

Eric Arguello · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Affordable Housing Production Section 1.2.11 and Cultural District Section 4.4.3

Robert Fructhman · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Programs that reduce constraints

Charlie Sciammas · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Retain all existing affordable housing funding, prioritize low-income housing

Milo Trauss · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Pipeline, proposals not feasible

Kevin Burke · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Contra Costa Housing Element

2022-12-15 · 15 comments · 0 / 14

Peter Papadapoulos · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

Significant concerns with 8.1.5

Jake Price · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

Still remains skeptical, make good with commitments

Don Misumi · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

Removal of 8.1.5 – 8.1.8, displacement

Priya Prabhakar · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

Will only exacerbate displacement

Janthal Labarento · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

Fair housing, low income must have a voice

Joseph Smooke · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

8.1.5 needs to be removed, demolitions

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

Demographic shifts

Zack Wiesenberger · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

Supports Sup Mar's letter

Kenneth Russell · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

Work hard on the implementation

Robert Fruchtman · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

Real work is in the implementation

David Woo · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

Section 8 undermines the trusts of communities of color

Anastasia Yovalapoulos · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

Removal of Section 8

Charlie Sciammas · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

circuit breaker policies

Kirsten Jensen · spoken · 2022-12-15 · neutral

City Attorney response to comments and questions

Eric Arguello · spoken · 2022-12-15 · oppose

Fair housing issue