Housing Element 2022 Rezoning Initiatives

2018-03-08 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Council Of Community Housing Organizations · email · 2018-03-08 · support · source packet

followup to Planning Commission hearing on Housing Element Reporting -- Admin Code
Sec10E.4 Planning staff and Commissioners A followup to the hearing a week ago on the Housign Element Reporting to make one suggestion on the "Dashboard." Planning staff made an excellent presentation, and a key point was that as of 2017Q3 the City should be at about 34% of SF<U+2019>s 8-year RHNA goals for each of the four housing need categories. Having that benchmark incorporated into the Da… Sec10E.4 Planning staff and Commissioners A followup to the hearing a week ago on the Housign Element Reporting to make one suggestion on the "Dashboard." Planning staff made an excellent presentation, and a key point was that as of 2017Q3 the City should be at about 34% of SF<U+2019>s 8-year RHNA goals for each of the four housing need categories. Having that benchmark incorporated into the Dashboard table would be very helpful for policymakers and the public, to see at each quarterly snapshot how the pace of production is keeping up with the RHNA/Housing Element goals for 2016 thru 2023. Adding that benchmark percentage as a column in the production table seems an easy addition and will make these quarterly reports most informative. Thank you for considering. And please contact us with any followup questions. Regards, Peter and Fernando Council of Community Housing Organizations Celebrating 40 years as the voice of San Francisco's affordable housing movement 325 Clementina Street, San Francisco 94103 [phone removed] office www.sfccho.org On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Council of Community Housing Organizations [email removed]> wrote: Planning folks Thanks for this HCD reporting information. To be clear, it appears the RHNA reporting for affordable units, and mirrored in the quarterly Dashboard report, includes the RAD and HopeSF rehab units. Please correct us if that is not the case here. The Dashboard as being proposed to Commission this week seems a reasonable format revision. At least you have pulled the "completed and entitled units" table to the front page, even though it's now a separate table from the "actual production" table. It does not completely subordinate the entitlements trends, which is a key part of the insight provided by this quarterly report. That said, the other part of our conversation with Planning staff last week is about the frequency and visibility of this information for the Commission and public. The Administrative Code calls for every case report to include this pipeline update, and staff indicates that is too logistically onerous. On the other hand, a quarterly posting to the references page on the DCP website leaves this important information effectively out of view and usefulness. What we proposed to Planning staff as a practical compromise is that the latest quarterly dashboard be posted every week as a direct link in the Director's Report of the commission agenda -- so that anyone can easily see it and download it with ease on a regular basis. And then each time the Dashboard information is updated quarterly, not only should the document link be in the Commission agenda but our suggestion is that the Planning Director verbally summarize it for the Commisison and the public at that hearing as part of the Director's Report item. This seems a practical alternative to the much more fine-grained Admin Code requirement. We hope the Planning Commission and staff agree. Thank you again for taking the time to get "into the weeds" on this valuable Dashboard information tool. We look forward to the Commission discussion this Thursday. Best regards, Peter and Fernando Council of Community Housing Organizations Celebrating 40 years as the voice of San Francisco's affordable housing movement 325 Clementina Street, San Francisco 94103 [phone removed] office www.sfccho.org On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Ojeda, Teresa (CPC) [email removed]> wrote: Hi Peter and Fernando Attached are our 2015 and 2016 submittals to HCD. These should correspond with column 4 of the first table in the report. Note that the housing element law allows for up to of the RHNA production goals can be met through rehab, preservation of at-risk units, and acquisition of units. These units as well as projects with five units or more are listed in the report. The MSExcel shows housing production for the first three quarters of 2017. These, along with production for the 4th quarter, will be sent on to HCD <U+2013> using their template - in our 2017 submittal due 1 April 2018. We will include any rehabs, preservation, and acquisitions in 2017 in that report (although I think we<U+2019>ve reached the max allowed by law for VLI). Let me know if you have questions. Teresashow more

2018-04-19 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Dan Roberts · email · 2018-04-19 · oppose · source packet

Reminder: Upcoming Conference
Kindly forward this message to all Planning Commissioners and other interested associates. Thank You! Dear Planning Commissioners: The California County Planning Commissioners<U+2019>s Association (CCPCA) is a non-profit, 501(c)3 member-based association organized for the purpose of providing education and information to our Planning Commissioners statewide. All Planning Commissioners from participating counti… Kindly forward this message to all Planning Commissioners and other interested associates. Thank You! Dear Planning Commissioners: The California County Planning Commissioners<U+2019>s Association (CCPCA) is a non-profit, 501(c)3 member-based association organized for the purpose of providing education and information to our Planning Commissioners statewide. All Planning Commissioners from participating counties enjoy full membership status in the CCPCA. Each year we hold a General Conference where not only members , but all Planning Commissioners, Directors, Staff and Other Interested Attendees. are invited to enjoy an informative and entertaining weekend. As you should have already been made aware, this year<U+2019>s annual CCPCA General Conference is coming up in just three weeks, May4-5, in Shasta County. Registration and reservations continue to be available: there is still time to plan attendance. This year<U+2019>s Friday conference sessions will provide valuable and enriching information and an enjoyable experience as well. Highlights will include: Lily Tavassoli, Superfund Project Manager from the Environmental Protection Agency, will deliver a presentation on the Iron Mountain Mine, nine miles north of Redditng, which was identified as a source of contaminants to the area water supply in 1981. Ms. Tavassoli will cover the EPA<U+2019>s efforts in Site Cleanup, Brownfields Revitalization, and Emergency Response. <U+201C>The Year of Housing<U+201D> will look at the effects and requirements on nine state Senate and Assembly bills that affect the housing element of your General Plan. A panel discussion will be presented on the subject of Marijuana Manufacturing. For a complete conference schedule, check our website at https://planningcommission.org On Saturday, we will embark on a field trip around the Redding area, which will include a tour of the Shasta Dam, as well as a look at a state of the art Cogeneration Plant where wood waste materials from the nearby forest are used, to provide power. A banquet on Saturday night will feature a keynote speech by Kern County Supervisor Leticia Perez, who is a former Planning Commissioner and was a key participant in the CCPCA. Ms Perez is currently the President of the California Association of Counties. You can read her bio on our website. Our 2018 President, Patrick Wallner, has volunteered many hours and garnered the support of Shasta County and other organization and individuals in order to produce this conference for the mutual benefit of planning throughout our state. Your two-day registration includes all events and meals. Discount Room Reservations are available at the Redding Sheraton Hotel. Please visit https://planningcommission.org today and register to attend. Thanks for your attention, Dan Roberts, CCPCAshow more

2018-10-11 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2018-10-11 · oppose · source packet

Demolition Calculations Adjustment and List of Projects from 10/4 General Public Comment
Dear President Hillis and Vice President Melgar, and Commissioners Moore, Koppel, Johnson, Richards and Fong: Good evening to you all. Attached is the corrected list I submitted during the October 4th General Public Comment. (Which is on the reverse side of the letter submitted at the same time.) In going over the list again, I caught an error I made regarding the five-project sample. One of the five in the sample wa… Dear President Hillis and Vice President Melgar, and Commissioners Moore, Koppel, Johnson, Richards and Fong: Good evening to you all. Attached is the corrected list I submitted during the October 4th General Public Comment. (Which is on the reverse side of the letter submitted at the same time.) In going over the list again, I caught an error I made regarding the five-project sample. One of the five in the sample was not 90 Jersey, but 4028 25th Street. I am sorry about that confusion. As you know, Staff apparently determined back in 2015/2016 that 40% of this sample should have been reviewed as Demolitions. (The five correct sample addresses are in red type) I have no idea which of the five were Demos, only that it was 40% of the sample. Also, I want to respond to Commissioner Richards October 4th request for highlighting projects on this list that were subject to some enforcement action, either by DBI or Planning or both. As noted on the list (pdf attachment above), 1071 Alabama did have Planning Enforcement. Some of these listed are apparently under review now by Planning Enforcement. (i.e.1369 Sanchez, 1559 Church) Two that I am aware of had actions taken by the ZA (310 Duncan and 376 San Carlos). One had to put the wall back up on the stairway and put back the second door to the flats per Planning Enforcement. (4055-57 Cesar Chavez). Some had NOVs issued by DBI (i.e. 276 Duncan and 255 28th Street) but were found to comply with Section 317. One apparently took out a new permit recently for demo work due to rot (235 Jersey). Others were found to comply with Section 317 (b) (7) and were not unit mergers, even though they were sold as single family homes and did not have a <U+201C>real" refrigerator or a <U+201C>real<U+201D> stove in the second kitchen. (i.e.1163 Shotwell and 1161 York). Projects in this category and the one on Cesar Chavez Street were obviously prior to the Residential Flat Policy.**** I have not had a chance to research all the addresses listed by going on the SFPIM to read the <U+201C>complaints". Frankly it seems a waste of time. The projects on this list are not like the Willis Polk house on Russian Hill or even like the houses on Alvarado or States. The work done at the sites may just be a little bit more <U+201C>careful<U+201D> than that. Or they have not been inspected at the right time out in the field. I am sure most of them would be cleared and found to NOT have any violations.primarily because they can skate on through due to not exceeding the current Demo Calcs. Technically they may not be breaking the rules of the Planning Code, but their outcome, their impact on the price of housing, once they are resold goes against the Housing Element and the Master Plan. The question still remains for these and other* projects. That question is: Are these projects <U+201C>reasonable alterations<U+201D> and do they protect <U+201C>the relative affordability<U+201D> of housing??? Keeping just side walls should not be sufficient to qualify as an alteration when the rest of the original structure is gone as is the usual case when the alteration involves a vertical expansion. As I tried to make the point last week in my October 4th letter to you and the Staff, they are all on a continuum.some of these on the list seem very close to illegal and if they are not, they should be illegal. They are not as dramatic as Alvarado or States or the ones in the JK Dineen article, but their outcome is fundamentally the same and their impact on the rising cost of housing is real. That was the major intent of Section 317, to have <U+201C>reasonable alterations<U+201D> and to maintain <U+201C>relative affordability" when the legislation was passed in 2007. And that is why since the RET was jettisoned late last year I have urged the Commission to use Section 317 (b) (2) (D) and adjust the Demo Calcs per the Planning Code. It seems much more imperative that the <U+201C>enforcement<U+201D> work happen on the front end of a project. Enforcement at the back end of the project, is a lot of effort. The reward is meager. And the damage is done to housing supply and affordability by the spiral of speculation that finds and uses the loopholes. Thank you. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttish ****Since this is now the one-year anniversary of the Residential Flat Policy, perhaps it would be helpful to write a letter to Mr. Hui advising that when the CFC<U+2019>s are given out by DBI, that the second kitchens in alterations be equipped with a real refrigerator with a freezer compartment, not merely a wine fridge and be equipped with a stove that has both a cook top and an real oven, not just a microwave, in order to be considered a truly functioning kitchen for the second unit, and in order make sure this Policy is fully implemented. Thanks!show more

2019-05-23 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Charles Whitfield · email · 2019-05-23 · support · source packet

Please support housing at \"One Vassar\" on Harrison Street
Commissioner Hillis, My name is Charles Whitfield, and I<U+2019>m a D6 resident and voter. I<U+2019>m writing to ask you to support the housing element of the proposed development on Harrison Street discussed in this article. I live in an apartment complex directly across the street from the proposed development. As an immediate neighbor of the project, I want the project to include as much housing as pos… show more

2020-09-03 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2020-09-03 · oppose · source packet

Noe Valley Alteration/Demolition and Flat Policy Loophole Issues
Dear President Koppel, Vice-President Moore, Commissioners Diamond, Imperial, Chan and Fung and Director Hillis: Good Sunday Morning to you all. There are several attachments below. I was sitting reading the Sunday paper and I saw the ad below which is the first attachment. This building is currently two very livable, rent controlled flats as can be seen by the web ads when the flats were for sale and the entire bu… Dear President Koppel, Vice-President Moore, Commissioners Diamond, Imperial, Chan and Fung and Director Hillis: Good Sunday Morning to you all. There are several attachments below. I was sitting reading the Sunday paper and I saw the ad below which is the first attachment. This building is currently two very livable, rent controlled flats as can be seen by the web ads when the flats were for sale and the entire building sold for $1.9 million in October 2018. I assume that any tenants were bought out, similar to what happened at 235-237 Jersey which sold recently for $7.5 million.** While the plans for this project on Elizabeth Street seem to follow the Flat Policy approved by the Commission in October 2017 and that is a good thing, the Speculators/Developers slid right through the loophole of the overly liberal Demo Calcs as have so many other projects, many of which I have detailed throughout the past six plus years. As you know, the point of the Demo Calcs was to allow Alterations that would not be Tantamount to Demolition thereby preserving existing housing which is deemed more affordable. That is policy in both the Code and the Housing Element. In 2009 when Section 317 was enacted it included Section 317 (b) (2) (D) which allowed for the Calcs to be adjusted as needed by the Planning Commission for policy efficacy. Whether selling the entitlements prior to the construction or immediately after the CFC the outcome is the same....policy efficacy is being thwarted by not adjusting the Calcs. In the last year the Code Implementation Document has revamped how the Demo Calcs are computed. Regardless of that fact, and everything else that has gone on since 2009, the Calcs as listed on the plans below for this Elizabeth Street project are <U+201C>squishy<U+201D>. I think that <U+201C>squishy<U+201D> requires more regulation, which means adjusting the Demo Calcs, which is a tool the Commission has in the tool box. Also no DRs were filed on this Elizabeth Street project as is true for the vast majority of these Alterations in the past six plus years. Thank you and have a good day and be well and safe. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttish [phone removed] **There is more to discuss about this and other projects on Jersey Street but I will save it for another time. Sent from my iPadshow more

2021-04-22 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2021-04-22 · oppose · source packet

Informational Hearing on New Housing Element April 22nd
Dear Commissioners: This screenshot below is from the packet for next week on the Housing Element Informational hearing. It is a great quote.because it is a true quote. True across all types of housing. Housing has become a commodity. Back on February 20, 2014 at the General Public Comment at the end of the calendar I spoke for the first time about the extreme Alterations that looked like Demolitions in Noe Valley… show more

2021-05-06 · 2 comments · 0 / 2

Stan Hayes · email · 2021-05-06 · oppose · source packet

140-142 JASPER PLACE - Discretionary Review
President Koppel and Members of the Planning Commission, On behalf of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, we are asking the Commission to please grant Discretionary Review of the proposed project at 140-142 Jasper Place, and either require that it be materially modified or disapprove it. For us, our most important requests are that you: Add an ADU to the basement level, and Maintain the 1st-floor flat as currently c… President Koppel and Members of the Planning Commission, On behalf of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, we are asking the Commission to please grant Discretionary Review of the proposed project at 140-142 Jasper Place, and either require that it be materially modified or disapprove it. For us, our most important requests are that you: Add an ADU to the basement level, and Maintain the 1st-floor flat as currently configured. Here<U+2019>s why: North Beach faces an affordable housing crisis. We are witnessing the conversion of countless formerly affordable housing units into larger, market rate units no longer financially available to our former neighbors who have been displaced. This proposed project on Jasper Place represents a clear example of this on-going intensification and damage to affordability by: Expanding this historic 2-flat building into 4 floors -- by expanding the upper flat vertically into a new rooftop floor and expanding the lower flat into the basement level, intensifying this building without adding any new housing. The expansion of 140-142 Jasper Place into two larger luxury units erodes our existing affordable housing stock and diminishes the cultural and economic diversity of our community. And, such expansion is in conflict with the Housing Element and the City<U+2019>s priority policies: Housing Element, which requires not only new affordable housing, but very specifically, preserving our existing housing stock which provides the City<U+2019>s most affordable units. Priority Policies 2 & 3, which require that the City<U+2019>s supply of affordable housing be preserved and enhanced and that existing housing be protected to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods. While addition of an ADU to the basement level and maintenance of the 1st-floor flat are our most important core requests, our DR application details other requests, including (a) that you deny the Section 134 rear-yard rooftop variance (we believe that the required variance findings cannot be made), and (b) that through an NSR, you prevent any future serial permitting of a new building on the northern portion of the lot (despite his current assurances to the contrary, the applicant has a long history of seeking such a new building, a building that would dramatically and adversely affect light and air of immediate neighbors). In summary, please take DR and, most importantly, require the addition of an ADU to the basement level and retention of the 1st-floor flat. Thank you, Stan Hayes Telegraph Hill Dwellersshow more

T Flandrich · email · 2021-05-06 · oppose · source packet

140-142-144 Jasper Place Discretionary Review 6. May 2021
Dear Commissioners, As the co-founder of the North Beach Tenants Committee, formed in 2014 during the peak period of tenant displacement due to speculative ventures and the decade long loss of primarily working class neighbors and affordable housing, I implore you to take this discretionary review. Please use your discretionary power to follow the policies in the Housing Element to preserve this currently afford… Dear Commissioners, As the co-founder of the North Beach Tenants Committee, formed in 2014 during the peak period of tenant displacement due to speculative ventures and the decade long loss of primarily working class neighbors and affordable housing, I implore you to take this discretionary review. Please use your discretionary power to follow the policies in the Housing Element to preserve this currently affordable family housing and deny this project that would create luxury housing for the very few. I cite here two policies which should be applied here and point out the fact that this building once had a total of 3 units and ask that this 3rd unit (basement) be restored as an ADU. Priority Policies 2 & 3, which require that the City<U+2019>s supply of affordable housing be preserved and enhanced and that existing housing be protected to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods. A list of former residents at this building is found here, including 144 Jasper Place, a third residential unit. The history of this building included in your supporting documents shows that a permit had been filed in the late 1960s to "remove" this lower 3rd unit. I am asking you to consider the fact that the current owner's plan would in effect remove 3 rent controlled, family sized, affordable housing units. 137...151 Jasper Pl, San Francisco CA | Homemetry property directory 137...151 Jasper Pl, San Francisco CA | Homemetry property directory We know 2 properties and 67 residents on 137...151 Jasper Pl, San Francisco CA. Discover property public reports... 140 Jasper Place - lists 3 Jew Family members 142 Jasper Place - lists 4 Gong Family members 144 Jasper Pl, San Francisco, CA 94133-3320 Who has lived here Resident Somen Toy Per the "Site Permit Set" the "Area of Work" shows the existing square footage as: Basement: 835 SF 1st Floor : 807 SF 2nd Floor: 835 SF This project today, is neither adding more housing, nor is it preserving the existing affordable housing. In fact, this project if approved would by design, remove three units of affordable housing in our community. A case in point, is the 2019 sale of a once 3 unit rent controlled building on Filbert Street (link below), which the realtor told me the following: " The lower 1 bedroom soon could command a rent of $4,800 and the merged upper unit would be $ 9,500- $10K. Although neither one of us could afford that kind of rent, the 1% could." 279-281 Filbert St, San Francisco, CA 94133 - 4 beds/4 baths 279-281 Filbert St, San Francisco, CA 94133 - 4 beds/4 baths (San Francisco MLS) 4 beds, 4 baths, 2829 sq. ft. multi-family (2-4 unit) located at 279-281 Filbert St, San Fra... North Beach has already lost too many affordable rent-controlled buildings, losing housing for restaurant workers, retail workers, caregivers, families and seniors, decimating this traditional working class, bohemian neighborhood. For the past 15 years speculative investment groups have cleared out buildings in order to create luxury units for either transient stays or as unaffordable condos, thereby removing affordable rental housing for the many. Please take the DR, restore the basement unit, and help us preserve our affordable housing. Theresa Flandrichshow more

2021-05-13 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2021-05-13 · oppose · source packet

<U+201C>Prioritizing Housing as a Commodity Rather than a Human Right<U+201D>
This email was originally sent on April 16, 2021 as Comment on the proposed Housing Element Dear Commissioners: This screenshot below is from the packet for next week on the Housing Element Informational hearing. It is a great quote.because it is a true quote. True across all types of housing. Housing has become a commodity. Back on February 20, 2014 at the General Public Comment at the end of the calendar I sp… This email was originally sent on April 16, 2021 as Comment on the proposed Housing Element Dear Commissioners: This screenshot below is from the packet for next week on the Housing Element Informational hearing. It is a great quote.because it is a true quote. True across all types of housing. Housing has become a commodity. Back on February 20, 2014 at the General Public Comment at the end of the calendar I spoke for the first time about the extreme Alterations that looked like Demolitions in Noe Valley. They only increased in number since then. I really did not know about the Demolition Calculations or even Planning Code Section 317 back then. But as I said at the hearing back in February 2014 it seemed to me that these extreme Alterations were a parta small piece of the puzzle...of the housing affordability crisis. But a part nevertheless. Smaller homes were being <U+201C>demolished<U+201D> for really big homes and increasing speculative fever. In the past 7+ years I learned about the Demo Calcs. And how they have been abused to avoid greater scrutiny by the Commission, the Staff and the public. As you proceed with the Housing Element and digest all the issues and policies, please re-consider something that you have in your power to do. As I have said, the many, many Alteration projects in Noe Valley have, with a very few exceptions, been speculative projects.the price increases have been on average $3.9 million with the flip. Developers have used the loophole to produce homes that if they had come to the Commission on a consistent, continual basis as either DRs or CUs, would have raised concerns about the loss of sound housing. Adjusting the Demo Calcs could shift the housing paradigm..preserve more housing and allow for reasonable, simple expansions, even densify with ADUs or second units in the garage space and most importantly reduce the speculation. And I am not just talking about Noe Valley but all neighborhoods, including the one in the photo below. Thank you. Georgia Schuttishshow more

2021-07-22 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2021-07-22 · support · source packet

Statement on Large Residence Ordinance
Dear Commissioners: Sorry for the late comments but I really had to think about this. My overarching thought about this legislation is that it might not have been necessary if the Section 317 Demolition Calculations had been adjusted a minimum of two times since 2009 as intended when written and approved. I put this request for this kind of two-time adjustment in a letter to the Commission on June 10, 2019, but I n… Dear Commissioners: Sorry for the late comments but I really had to think about this. My overarching thought about this legislation is that it might not have been necessary if the Section 317 Demolition Calculations had been adjusted a minimum of two times since 2009 as intended when written and approved. I put this request for this kind of two-time adjustment in a letter to the Commission on June 10, 2019, but I never received a response. Putting that aside for a minute here is what I think about this legislation and what I hope to say when I call in if I have enough time to speak on the phone: The Commission should approve this legislation with Staff Recommendations #2, #4, and #5. Staff Recommendation #2 makes sense as 20% increase for homes already over 2,500 feet seems fair. Staff Recommendation #4 is fine, but curb cuts should be allowed to be maintained as the MTA already allows homeowners to park in their own driveway as long as they do not block the sidewalk and you don<U+2019>t need to have the parking permit to do that. This could solve the <U+201C>parking problem<U+201D> that always comes up with neighbors and would align with the recent changes in the Code regarding parking requirements. Staff Recommendation #5 to exempt the SUDs is logical. The Commission should not accept Staff Recommendations #1 and #3 unless the Demo Calcs are adjusted per my June 10, 2019 letter. Staff Recommendation #1 will only work as intended if the Demolition Calculations are adjusted. People that speculate don<U+2019>t care how much of a house gets demolished. People that want to live in their homes want to retain as much of their home as possible while expanding to meet their needs. Large speculative homes will continue to sell as single family homes even with a second unit. Staff Recommendation #3 is defied by the example of 20 Raycliff Terrace and the Campbell and Wong home in Glen Park. Maybe these are the only ones that slipped through, but again unless the Demo Calcs are adjusted, these Historic homes should be covered by this Ordinance. Please discuss adding a Finding from the Housing Element, Objective 3, Policy 3.4 which seems to align with the intent of this Ordinance and reads: <U+201C>Preserve 'naturally affordable<U+2019> housing types, such as smaller older ownership units.<U+201D> Thank you and I want to thank in writing, Ms. Merlone for her excellent work and her professionalism, Mr. Bintliff for his excellent work and perseverance and I want to acknowledge Ms. Watty and Mr. Hepner for laying some of the ground work for this with their previous efforts going back to 2016 through 2019. But again I just want to say, please adjust the Demo Calcs as the Commission is empowered to do per Section 317 (b) (2) (D) and please do ask the City Attorneys if the Commission can adjust them twice per my June 2019 letter. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttishshow more

2021-09-23 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2021-09-23 · oppose · source packet

September 23, 2021 Staff Revised Recommendations of Large Residence Ordinance #2021-
00179PCA Dear President Koppel, Vice-President Moore, Fellow Commissioners and Mrs. Merlone: In the revised memo and Draft Resolution, the Staff is proposing a Noe Valley SUD because they acknowledge Noe Valley as, <U+201C>an epicenter for the de-facto demolition of modestly sized homes and expansion/construction of significantly larger homes<U+201D> . I know from talking to Staff throughout … 00179PCA Dear President Koppel, Vice-President Moore, Fellow Commissioners and Mrs. Merlone: In the revised memo and Draft Resolution, the Staff is proposing a Noe Valley SUD because they acknowledge Noe Valley as, <U+201C>an epicenter for the de-facto demolition of modestly sized homes and expansion/construction of significantly larger homes<U+201D> . I know from talking to Staff throughout the past seven or so years that <U+201C>de-facto demolition<U+201D> is considered the same as <U+201C>tantamount to demolition<U+201D>. If the Planning Commission supports the creation of a Noe Valley SUD, such an SUD should provide for: An adjustment of the Demolition Calculations per Section 317(b)(2)(D) in order to prevent these "de-facto demolition(s)<U+201D>. Just that simple. No other <U+201C>standard<U+201D> for a Noe Valley SUD would be necessary. This adjustment for a Noe Valley SUD will solve the problem the Staff has acknowledged. It would mean that the Noe Valley SUD would have Demolition Calculations that would be more stringent that the Demo Calcs for the other neighborhoods. In my written comments for the first hearing on July 22nd, I suggested the following: "Please discuss adding a Finding from the Housing Element, Objective 3, Policy 3.4 which seems to align with the intent of this Ordinance and reads: 'Preserve naturally affordable<U+2019> housing types, such as smaller older ownership units'.<U+201D> A Finding like this would bolster the Staff<U+2019>s statement about Noe Valley as the <U+201C>...epicenter for the de-facto demolition of modestly sized homes<U+201D> and the need to adjust the Demo Calcs for a proposed Noe Valley SUD to deal with the loss of this typology of housing. Additionally there are many practical ways to add a unit to this typology without the extreme Alterations that have made Noe Valley <U+201C>an epicenter<U+201D>. I have discussed these practical ways many times during General Public Comment over the past several years. And I think this could still produce three-bedrooms on one floor which many families want and desire. Based on all the Alteration projects in Noe Valley in the past seven plus years, I think the Demo Calcs should have been adjusted once at least, and probably twice since 2009 throughout the City. When the Section 317 Code Implementation Document was approved by the Planning Commission on March 26, 2009 the Staff said they would <U+201C>return in a couple of months and may make recommendations for adjustment<U+201D>. I sent a copy of the handwritten Staff notes from the official Docket #2006-0070ET (pages 206-208) as part of my September 12, 2021 email commenting on the upcoming DR hearing for 1433 Diamond Street. 1433 Diamond Street is an approved Alteration project from 2012-2013 and is most likely one of these <U+201C>de-facto demolition(s)<U+201D> in Noe Valley that Staff acknowledges in the revision. I want to stress that I never advocated for the Demo Calcs to be adjusted as often as the RH-1 values were adjusted in the past, which was five times. If my advocacy was interpreted that way I am very sorry, but I thought I was pretty clear about adjusting the Demo Calcs at least one time, if not twice in my correspondence and in my various testimonies. Those five adjustments to values done by the Zoning Administrator did however signify how <U+201C>hot<U+201D> the market was in all the residential neighborhoods, not just the RH-1 where it was applied and that an overall remedy was needed to protect existing housing City-wide from the rampant speculation by developers. A great deal of paper was sent and words spoken to Commissioners and Staff these past seven plus years about the Demolition Calculations. For example: In March 2017 I suggested that the Demo Calcs be adjusted for the MAP 2020 area to better preserve existing housing in this district. In June 2019 I suggested in a letter that the Demo Calcs be adjusted once, but possibly adjusted twice to make up for having never, ever been adjusted. That would have been citywide. And I requested that the Commission consult with the City Attorney about the possibility of adjusting them <U+201C>twice<U+201D> which seems to be more than what Section 317 (b)(2)(D) apparently allows in a specific time frame? Since the Staff has now acknowledged the problem of "de-facto demolition" of <U+201C>modestly sized<U+201D> homes in Noe Valley, it seems the best way to prevent that would be a Noe Valley SUD that adjusts the Demo Calcs for Noe Valley per Section 317 (b)(2)(D) to preserve existing housing in Noe Valley while allowing for a reasonable expansion that could potentially include densification, based on the existing Planning and Building Codes, as well as the Residential Design Guidelines. The type of or amount of adjustment of the Demo Calcs for a Noe Valley SUD would obviously need more discussion. The Planning Commission has the sole discretion to adjust the Demo Calcs per Section 317 (b)(2)(D). But this should be the only <U+201C>standard" necessary to deal with the <U+201C>epicenter<U+201D> issue the Staff has now acknowledged. It should be left to others to discuss the modifications the Staff is proposing for other neighborhoods, but frankly the modifications seem to diverge widely and wildly from the original intent of the Ordinance. There are three attachments below. 1. Copies of my March 2017 memo with attachments on the MAP 2020 2. A copy of my June 2019 letter to then-President Melgar and the other Commissioners (minus the attachments). 3. A copy of an April 2021 comparison of the Demolition Calculations for 403 28th Street. The comparison is between the Demo Calcs for the Alteration permit before the Notice of Enforcement and the Demo Calcs after the Notice of Enforcement which were <U+201C>tantamount to demolition<U+201D>. This project is one of many at the <U+201C>epicenter of de-facto demolition(s)<U+201D> as described by Staff, but it was one of the very few that actually wound up at the Planning Commission for a hearing. This attachment also includes suggested scenarios for adjusting the values of the Demo Calcs, which can now applied to the Noe Valley SUD . Thank you. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttish June 10, 2019 President Myrna Melgar San Francisco Planning Commission 1650 Mission Street San Francisco, California Dear President Melgar: This letter has two requests concerning Demo Calcs. First, that the Planning Commission adjust the Demolition Calculations (aka <U+201C>values<U+201D>) as dened at Planning Code Section 317 (b) (2) (B) and Planning Code Section 317 (b) (2) (C). And second, the Planning Commission ask the City Attorney if the Commission can further adjust the Demolition Calculations to align with the three adjustments to the values that the Zoning Administrator has made regarding Administrative Approval of Demolitions over the past ve years. Adjusting Demo Calculations per Section 317 Please see Part 7, page 27 of <U+201C>Zoning Controls on the Removal of Dwelling Units, A San Francisco Planning Code Implementation Document, October 2010<U+201D>. The <U+201C>values<U+201D> of the Demo Calcs are also dened here. Regarding the Demo Calcs it says, <U+201C>The following values are subject to non-legislative updates and may be adjusted periodically by the Planning Commission to further the ecacy of Section 317, in order to promote the objectives of the General Plan and Planning Code<U+201D>. And what is that ecacy? As it says in Section 317 (b) (2) (D): <U+201C>to conserve existing sound housing and preserve aordable housing.<U+201D> I know that you and the other Commissioners understand this issue. All I would add is that there have been many extreme alterations over the past four to ve years. Maybe even longer. These alterations have used the current Demo Calcs to their Project Sponsor<U+2019>s advantage and are masking the fact that they really are Demolitions. Whether it is called <U+201C>Tantamount<U+201D> or <U+201C>DeFacto<U+201D>, the outcome is the same <U+2014> no ecacy for promoting the objectives. Previously I submitted to the Commission for the record a list of over 70 projects, mostly in Noe Valley that are with a few exceptions, speculative projects that have had exponential increases from the pre-work sale of the property to the post-work sale of the property, with an average increase of $3 million+. Additionally, back in December of 2015, Commissioner Richards and Sta looked over a sample of ve projects in Noe Valley. At that time, according to Sta<U+2019>s analysis, 40% of the projects from the sample should have been reviewed as actual Demolitions, not as Alterations. The Commission has the right and may seize the reins and make an adjustment per Section 317 (b) (2) (D) regardless of any legislation that may or may not be coming over from the Board. The Commission has never adjusted the values of the Demolition Calculations since Section 317 was enacted.although I don<U+2019>t know why there is any reason that you could not adjust them on the Consent Calendar? 1 While I did not agree with the RET because it did not have a denition of Demolition, I am sorry that it was withdrawn. At least there would have been a debate over the past year and a half, instead of nothing. Further Adjustment to Demolition Calculations I am also asking that the Commission request the City Attorney to issue an opinion as to whether or not the Commission can adjust the Demo Calcs beyond the amount dened by the values in Section 317 (b) (2) (B) and Section 317 (b) (2) (C). The Zoning Administrator has adjusted the values for the RH-1 at least three times since Section 317 was added to the Planning Code. (There have likely been more times than three* but the three that are published, I submitted previously for the Record during General Public Comment). Any proposed Demolition in the RH-1 could receive Administrative Approval from the ZA with an ocial appraisal, if that appraisal is greater than the dollar amount of the value at that time. In March 2014 the value was $1.506 million; by November 2015 the value was $1.63 million and the value was most recently increased to $1.9 million in December 2017. According to recent correspondence with Mr. Teague the value will be increased again shortly. Why should the Planning Commission further adjust the values for the Demo Calcs to <U+201C>catch up<U+201D> to the adjustments the Zoning Administrator has made to the RH-1 values since 2014 and <U+201C>to further the ecacy of Section 317<U+201D>? One reason is that the original idea for what is nicknamed <U+201C>the Pacic Heights Exemption<U+201D> was that some RH-1 neighborhoods were more naturally unaordable and that a Demolition in these neighborhoods would not have an eect on the intent of Section 317 because some of these zoned neighborhoods were already expensive and aordable housing would not be lost by approving a Demolition. By making further adjustment to the Demo Calcs the Commission could better protect the more naturally aordable neighborhoods and homes from Demolitions masked as Alterations regardless of the underlying zoning just as the Zoning Administrator does in the RH-1 neighborhoods that may still be naturally aordable. Another reason is that prior to March 2014, I cannot nd any ocially published listing of the value for the RH-1*. However, I have attached a letter concerning the request for a Section 317 exemption for the Demolition of 125 Crown Terrace dated April 2009. According to the letter at that time <U+201C>properties containing single-family dwellings must be valued at $1.54 million or more to be exempt from this ordinance<U+201D>. Putting aside the later permit history at 125 Crown Terrace, the attached letter concerning its appraised value suggests that the values in San Francisco were at (or even fell) for quite a long period of time (in parallel with the economic crisis and recovery for those years 2008 to 2014). However the recent rapid rate of increase of the RH-1 value as adjusted by the ZA three times since 2014 illustrates the aordability crisis.and the highly speculative nature of the market. This should be oset by further adjusting the values of Demo Calcs by the Planning Commission as Section 317 intended. Another reason for further adjustment to the Demo Calcs by the Commission is that Part 7 of the Periodic Adjustment to the Criteria includes both criteria for the Commission<U+2019>s adjustments and the criteria for the Zoning Administrator<U+2019>s adjustments to the values on the same Part 7, page 27 of the Code Implementation Document (CID). I discussed this history of both of these values on May 6, 2019 hearing during General Public Comment and submitted my testimony which is in the approved Minutes. Another reason is that in the original legislation as passed by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, Section 317 (d) (3) (A) regarding the adjustment of the values for 2 the RH-1 was to have the adjustment made by the Planning Commission and not the Zoning Administrator. This language in the Code has not changed and still says that the Planning Commission makes the adjustment. The Code Implementation Document gives the ZA this job of making the actual adjustment in the document. (The CID is dated October 2010 which says the ZA makes the adjustments, while the letter on Crown Terrace from the ZA is dated a year and a half earlier on April 29, 2009. However Section 317 (d) (3) (A) does grant the authority to the Planning Commission, just as it does in Section 317 (b) (2) (D). Section 317 was nalized and signed by Mayor Newsom on April 17, 2008. The powers in Section 317 to adjust all values seem to be linked to the Planning Commission. The rationale to adjust is linked. Another reason is that since the new ADU legislation there are technically no more RH-1 zoned neighborhoods. This came up in the Commissioner<U+2019>s discussion at the June 6th at General Public Comment. The Commission needs to recalibrate the values overall and catch up by enacting further adjustments. The most important reason for further adjustments is the original intent of Section 317. For the past ve years housing in San Francisco has been besieged by the boom economy or as some like to call it, <U+201C>the money bomb<U+201D>. Mitigating this impact and catching up with the original intent of Section 317 to <U+201C>.conserve exciting housing and preserve aordable housing<U+201D> is more than necessary. In addition to the 125 Crown Terrace letter, I am attaching my work sheet of what the Demo Calcs could be, whether adjusted once or three times. These numbers are based on the maximum adjustments to Section 317 (b) (2) (B) and Section 317 (b) (2) (C) as allowed by Section 317 (b) (2) (D). The third attachment that the Commission may nd helpful, as well as historically import is from an unpublished case from the Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California. It is entitled, <U+201C>Ara TEHLIRIAN et al, Plantis and Appellants, v. City and County of San Francisco, Defendant and Respondent; Jose Morales, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. It concerns the issues at the heart of this request for a further adjustment to the Demolition Calculations by the Planning Commission. Closing It took the better part of the rst decade of the 21st century to get an Ordinance passed that created Section 317. Section 317 has its faults, but the intent is very sound. There was no major opposition to it as best I can tell from the record when it was before decision makers more than a decade ago. Adjusting the values of the Demo Calcs in 2019 would be a good thing. Please consider adjusting them at least once and please consider asking the City Attorney if you may use your powers as a Planning Commission to go even further. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttish 460 Duncan Street cc: Commission Vice President Koppel; Commissioner Moore; Commissioner Fung; Commissioner Johnson; Commissioner Richards; Commissioner Hillis Deputy City Attorney Kristen A. Jensen; Deputy City Attorney Kate Stacy att: Letter re: Crown Terrace from L. Badiner to A. Brown; 4/29/2009 Work Sheet on Demo Calcs (G. Schuttish) Tehlirian v. City and County of San Francisco (WestlawNext) 2016 Thomson Reuters 3 4show more

2021-10-21 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Aaron Goodman · email · 2021-10-21 · oppose · source packet

Housing Element - reality
You won<U+2019>t be able to build ourselves the density in time and carbon impacts are increasing due to lacking transit and infrastructural needs for all the density. So why not look more seriously at a buy-back of housing as part of the housing element. Buy back larger sites and hold in the SFCLT in perpetuity for essential housing needs. Start with parkmerced and stonestown apartments. Require SFSU to sell i… show more

2021-11-18 · 2 comments · 1 / 1

Daniel Frattin · email · 2021-11-18 · oppose · source packet

1324 Powell
Jonas <U+2013> On behalf of the project sponsor, I am requesting an indefinite continuance of this project, while we work on revisions that will reduce the height of the building and continue to engage in discussions with members of the community. As well, due to a death in the family, the project sponsor will not be available for next week<U+2019>s hearing. Thanks, and please feel free to call me on the … Jonas <U+2013> On behalf of the project sponsor, I am requesting an indefinite continuance of this project, while we work on revisions that will reduce the height of the building and continue to engage in discussions with members of the community. As well, due to a death in the family, the project sponsor will not be available for next week<U+2019>s hearing. Thanks, and please feel free to call me on the cell with any questions. Daniel A. Frattin, Managing Partner T. [phone removed] C. [phone removed] [email removed] www.reubenlaw.com SF Office: Oakland Office: One Bush Street, Suite 600 492 9th Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Oakland, CA 94607 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE <U+2013> This transmittal is intended solely for use by its addressee, and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you receive this transmittal in error, please email a reply to the sender and delete the transmittal and any attachments. NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. To: Members of the Land Use and TransportationCommittee From: Georgia Schuttish Date: November 8, 2021 Hearing on Housing Our Workers Re: SPECULATION Dear Supervisors Melgar, Peskin, Preston and Mar: In a separate email I sent to your sta and Ms. Major, there are ve photos of a speculative project in Noe Valley that illustrates a piece of the problem the Land Use and Transportation Committee is grappling with at this hearing. It may be a small piece, even an arcane piece of the problem of aordability and speculation and the commodication of housing, but it has a ripple aect, not only in Noe Valley but in other neighborhoods throughout the City. This piece involves Planning Code Section 317 which has been the subject of legislative attempts to <U+201C>x<U+201D>. However there is an easy <U+201C>x<U+201D> already in the Planning Code that the Planning Commission can do. That <U+201C>x<U+201D> is to adjust the Demolition Calculations per Planning Code Section 317 (b)(2)(D) The Demo Calcs should have been adjusted at least once, if not twice since they were approved in 2008. In fact in March 2009, Planning Sta said at a public hearing that they would return in a <U+201C>couple of months<U+201D> to make adjustments to <U+201C>the thresholds for alteration projects that are Tantamount to Demolitions.<U+201D> (This hearing can be viewed on SFGOVTV, Item No. 9 on March 26, 2009). These <U+201C>thresholds<U+201D> that Planning Sta wanted to adjust back in 2009 are the Demolition Calculations in Section 317 (b)(2)(B) and Section 317 (b)(2)(C) that are intended to allow alterations and prevent demolitions of sound housing. But unfortunately this adjustment of the Demo Calcs never happened. The intent of Section 317 Demolition Calculations was to allow for simple alterations or reasonable remodels of homes in the RH neighborhoods. This Code Section was created to respond to an abuse of the system that had been going on for years, where small permits could turn into full blown demolitions. It was a quantitative way to measure the work to be done on an existing house and preserve sound housing, because existing sound housing is considered more aordable per the General Plan and by many if not most housing experts. However what has happened over the past ten years is that the unadjusted Demo Calcs have been a loophole that allowed speculators to fundamentally demolish and ip housing without proper scrutiny by Planning Sta, the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and the Public. In Noe Valley alone since 2014 there have been at least 39 speculative projects that should have been reviewed as demolitions for a total increase of over $150 million for all of the 39 projects, with an average sales increase of $3.9 million for each of the <U+201C>ipped<U+201D> projects. This is a problem. In 2015 at the urging of former Planning Commissioner Dennis Richards, ve other completed Noe Valley projects were re-reviewed. Apparently Sta found that at least 40% of the projects in the sample were really demolitions. But even still the Demo Calcs were not adjusted. The ve photos in the separate email sent to Ms. Major show a project that common sense may say is a demolition, but it is a City approved alteration. Here are some of the details of this project: 1. In 2012 this house in Photo #1 was purchased by an LLC for $1.26 million. 2. Soon after this 2012 sale a Permit Application was led. Photo #4 shows the rendering which was attached to the approved CatEx uploaded to the SFPIM. However, there are no Demo Calcs published on the SFPIM for this project. What the SFPIM does say in describing the project is the following: <U+201C>Remodel of residence to include horizontal rear addition and vertical addition. Add contemporary facade to building.<U+201D> 3. Photos #2 and #3 are from 2013 and 2014 showing the construction. These photos are from Google Earth. Photo #2 is particularly stark and telling. 4. Photo #5 shows the project upon completion in 2015 when it was ipped and sold for $4.85 million. The project just sold again in October 2021 for $6.1 million. 5. The house in Photo #1 was originally a modest home prior to the 2012 sale. Mid 20th Century houses like this were <U+201C>starter homes<U+201D> even in Noe Valley and worthy of preservation per the policies in the Housing Element. The 2012 asking price of this house was $200,000 lower than the ultimate 2012 sales price paid by the LLCthe start of the speculation and the commodication of this house. The Demo Calcs had been in the Code for over three years in 2012 at the time of the spec sale of this house. The Demo Calcs were intended to allow for reasonable remodels, to prevent demolitions, yet they had never been adjusted by the Planning Commission even after Sta<U+2019>s March 26, 2009 testimony. Meanwhile houses like the house in the photos became speculative projects and part of the explosion in housing costs in Noe Valley and what Planning Sta has now described in their recent report on the proposed Large Residence Ordinance as <U+201C>an epicenter for the de-facto demolition of modestly sized homes and expansion/construction of signicantly larger homes.<U+201D> . And it should be added they are also: signicantly more expensive homes that are speculative projects that further commodify housing. While I live and have observed this problem in Noe Valley, I have seen scattered examples around the City of projects in other neighborhoods, in the Mission, Laurel Village, the Sunset and even Pacic Heights, that appear to have taken advantage of the fact the Demo Calcs have never been adjusted. As said at the beginning of this letter, this is a small, arcane piece of the housing problem, but one that ripples out within Noe Valley and across the City. And one that should be <U+201C>xed<U+201D> by adjusting the Demo Calcs as was intended when the Section 317 legislation was approved by the City. The intent to preserve sound housing is written in the Findings which is Section 317 (a) and in Section 317(b)(2)(D) itself. It is something that can be done to try and <U+201C>x<U+201D> the problem of speculation and of the commodication of housing. Here is the language of Planning Code Section 317 (b)(2)(D): <U+201C>The Planning Commission may reduce the above numerical elements of the criteria in Subsection (b)(2)(B) and (b)(2)(C), by up to 20% of their values should it deem that adjustment is necessary to implement the intent of this Section 317 to conserve existing sound housing and preserve aordable housing.<U+201D> If the Planning Commission cannot see their way to eectuate this change they are empowered to eectuate, which should have been done at least once, if not twice since 2009, perhaps the Committee will <U+201C>x<U+201D> the Demo Calcs by reviving the tabled File that was duplicated from Board File No. 200142 last year? Thank you for holding this hearing and looking at the issue of speculation. And thank you to CCHO for their detailed, compelling and very thorough report on housing for San Franciscans, the workers who really make the City work. Photo#1 Original House prior to 2012 sale and Alteration permit. Photo #2 After Alteration permit issued 2013 Photo #3 During Alteration work 2014 Photo #4 Rendering from CatEx in SFPIM of project proposal in 2012. No published Demolition Calculations on SFPIM. Photo #5 Project Completed in 2015 July 2015 Sales price = $ 4.85 million July 2012 Sales price = $1.26 million October 2021 Sales price = $ 6.1 millionshow more

Sean Donovan · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Legalize Housing
Commission Commission Secretary, As a native San Franciscan, I have seen countless childhood friends leave the city because they could never afford a home. They are teachers, speech therapists, and regular folks. They would be able to afford an apartment, if there were more of them. Allow apartment buildings to be built, so that folks of ALL income brackets can afford to call SF their home. Sean Donovan [email removed] , 94134

2022-01-20 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · email · 2022-01-20 · support · source packet

Election of Officers to Planning Commission
Dear Commission President Koppel and fellow Planning Commissioners, As the time to consider nominating and electing officers for President and Vice President of the Planning Commission approaches, we are faced with new and unforeseen circumstances to contend with, and it is for this reason I feel that some consistency on the Planning Commission should be maintained. Therefore, I recommend that the Commission nom… show more

2022-02-03 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Ari-Asha Castalia · email · 2022-02-03 · support · source packet

Housing for all in SF!
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I write to strongly support the focus on creating more affordable housing in SF. We as a community need to make forward thinking moves as it relates to our housing crisis. It's a multi-faceted problem that is going to need a variety of approaches and bold leadership. I would like the Housing Element plan to focus on the following: Create a less byzantine process to a… show more

2022-03-31 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Ausra Eileen Boken · email · 2022-03-31 · oppose · source packet

California State Auditor Report on HCD Deficiencies in RHNA Process
TO: San Francisco Planning Commission cc: Kimia Haddadan Shelley Caltagirone Attached are two documents related to the recent State Auditor report of the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) focusing on its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology. The audit is highly critical of HCD and its RHNA methodology. As the RHNA methodology and its numbers are central to the Plan… TO: San Francisco Planning Commission cc: Kimia Haddadan Shelley Caltagirone Attached are two documents related to the recent State Auditor report of the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) focusing on its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology. The audit is highly critical of HCD and its RHNA methodology. As the RHNA methodology and its numbers are central to the Planning Department's Housing Element, I would strongly urge the Planning Commission to conduct an informational hearing on the State Auditor's report within the next few weeks. Below is also a link to the audit recommendations: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/recommendations/2021- 125___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzowYjRjMDk5ZjFhNjA2N2NkOGRlZjEzYTgzN2YyYjE1ZTo1OjA2ZTM6O DI1ODZhYzgzNzA1MDAwYWZjN2E3ZWEwZDBjZTlkOTc2OWQzZDFkYWE2OThjMWEzMzI1ZGI1MmViY TUzNDZjNTp0Ok4 Eileen Boken, State and Federal Legislative Liaison Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods* * For identification purposes only. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone CONTACT: Public Affairs Office | (916) 4450255 Michael S. Tilden Acting State Auditor 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 | Sacramento, CA 95814 | [phone removed] | [phone removed] fax | www.auditor.ca.gov FACT SHEET March 17, 2022 Report 2021125 COMMITMENT INTEGRITY LEADERSHIP Regional Housing Needs Assessments The Department of Housing and Community Development Must Improve Its Processes to Ensure That Communities Can Adequately Plan for Housing Counties and Cities Then Develop the Housing Element of General Plans HCD Then Provides Housing Need Allocations to County and Cities Counties Without a Council of Governments (19 in California) Every 5<U+2013>11 Years Counties and Cities Then Develop the Housing Element of General Plans Councils Then Provide Housing Need Allocations to Counties and Cities Councils of Governments (20 in California) Generally Every 8 Years HCD Provides Housing Needs Assessments to: Key Findings <U+2022> HCD has not sufficiently reviewed and supported housing needs assessments. It made errors when completing its needs assessments because it does not sufficiently review and verify all of the data it uses. It did not demonstrate that it adequately considered certain factors that state law requires for housing needs assessments in some regions. It was not able to adequately support the healthy housing vacancy rate that it used to adjust the number of new housing units needed. It did not identify a problematic proposal from a region and inappropriately reduced its needs assessment. <U+2022> Although Finance provides reasonable population projections, it has not provided sufficient support for its projections of the number of households that are likely to be formed in the future. Key Recommendations <U+2022> HCD should do the following: Institute a process to ensure that its staff performs multiple reviews of data in its assessments and establish a formal process to document its consideration of all factors required by state law in needs assessments. Perform a formal analysis of healthy housing vacancy rates and historical trends to inform its adjustments in this area. Develop a formal process to review the appropriateness of data that consortia of local governments submit. <U+2022> Finance should conduct and document a comprehensive review of some of its assumptions about household formation rates it uses in projections. Background In order for California<U+2019>s cities and counties to plan and develop sufficient housing for their residents, HCD periodically conducts regional housing needs assessments. For HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments to accurately portray current housing needs and anticipate what those needs will be in the future, the agency relies on data from multiple sources. Some of these data come from consortia of local governments, some are projections that Finance provides, and others are adjustments that HCD develops on its own to account for factors like vacancy rates and housing replacement needs. Regional Housing Needs Assessments The Department of Housing and Community Development Must Improve Its Processes to Ensure That Communities Can Adequately Plan for Housing March 2022 REPORT 2021125 For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact our Public Affairs Office at [phone removed] This report is also available online at www.auditor.ca.gov | Alternative format reports available upon request | Permission is granted to reproduce reports 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 | Sacramento | CA | 95814 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR [phone removed] | TTY [phone removed] 1.[phone removed] For complaints of state employee misconduct, contact us through the Whistleblower Hotline: Don<U+2019>t want to miss any of our reports? Subscribe to our email list at auditor.ca.gov Michael S. Tilden Acting State Auditor 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 | Sacramento, CA 95814 | [phone removed] | [phone removed] fax | www.auditor.ca.gov March 17, 2022 2021-125 The Governor of California President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders: As directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, my office evaluated the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (needs assessment) process that the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) uses to provide key housing guidance for the State<U+2019>s local governments. The availability of sufficient housing is of vital statewide importance, and HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments are what allow jurisdictions to plan for the development of that housing. Overall, our audit determined that HCD does not ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and adequately supported. In reviewing the needs assessments for three regions, we identified multiple areas in which HCD must improve its process. For example, HCD does not satisfactorily review its needs assessments to ensure that staff accurately enter data when they calculate how much housing local governments must plan to build. As a result, HCD made errors that reduced its projected need for housing in two of the regions we reviewed. We also found that HCD could not demonstrate that it adequately considered all of the factors that state law requires, and it could not support its use of healthy housing vacancy rates. This insufficient oversight and lack of support for its considerations risks eroding public confidence that HCD is informing local governments of the appropriate amount of housing they will need. HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments also rely on some projections that the Department of Finance (Finance) provides. While we found that most of Finance<U+2019>s projections were reasonably accurate, it has not adequately supported the rates its uses to project the number of future households that will require housing units in the State. Although these household projections are a key component in HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments, Finance has not conducted a proper study or obtained formal recommendations from experts it consulted to support its assumptions in this area. Finance intends to reevaluate its assumptions related to household growth as more detailed 2020 Census data becomes available later in the year, but without such efforts, Finance cannot ensure that it is providing the most appropriate information to HCD. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL S. TILDEN, CPA Acting California State Auditor iv Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. v CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 CONTENTS Summary 1 Introduction 3 HCD<U+2019>s Housing Needs Assessment Process Lacks Sufficient Reviews and Support 11 Recommendations 22 Finance Provides Reasonable Population Projections, but It Has Not Provided Sufficient Support for Its Household Formation Projections 25 Recommendations 29 Appendix A HCD Housing Needs Assessments We Reviewed 31 Appendix B Scope and Methodology 35 Responses to the Audit Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency 37 California State Auditor<U+2019>s Comments on the Response From the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency 41 Department of Finance 43 California State Auditor<U+2019>s Comment on the Response From the Department of Finance 45 vi Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 1 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 SUMMARY The Legislature recognizes that the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance and that the State and local governments have a responsibility to facilitate the development of adequate housing. State law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to conduct assessments to determine the housing needs (needs assessments) throughout regions in the State. The needs assessments rely on projections of future population and households developed by the Department of Finance (Finance). HCD is required to consider certain factors identified in state law and then can adjust the needs assessments for any of the factors. For example, it makes an adjustment to achieve a healthy vacancy rate in the housing market and an adjustment to reduce the number of overcrowded households. Regions use the needs assessments to plan for additional housing to accommodate population growth and address future housing needs. HCD<U+2019>s Housing Needs Assessment Process Lacks Sufficient Reviews and Support HCD does not have a formal review process for the data it uses to determine its needs assessments. As a result, the needs assessments for two of three regions we reviewed included errors. One data error reduced a region<U+2019>s needs assessment by nearly 2,500 housing units. HCD also did not demonstrate that it adequately considered certain factors when creating the needs assessments of the three regions we reviewed. For one of those factors, the healthy vacancy rate, HCD did not perform a formal analysis to adequately support its assumptions. HCD<U+2019>s insufficient oversight of its process and the lack of adequate documentation supporting the healthy vacancy rate risks eroding public confidence in HCD<U+2019>s ability to address the State<U+2019>s housing needs. Finance Provides Reasonable Population Projections, but It Has Not Provided Sufficient Support for Its Household Formation Projections Finance<U+2019>s projections of the statewide future population are reasonably accurate, but it did not sufficiently support its projections of the number of future households. To calculate the household projections, Finance identifies rates at which it expects individuals in different age groups to form new households and applies those rates to its population projections. Although Finance worked with HCD to solicit some advice from experts when it established these rates, it did not conduct a formal study or receive clear recommendations to support them. As a result, Finance cannot ensure that it is providing the most appropriate information for HCD to include in its needs assessment process. Page 25 Page 11 2 Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 Finance stated that it intends to reevaluate its assumptions related to household growth after it reviews 2020 Census data when those data become available later this year. Summary of Recommendations Legislature To provide HCD additional clarity and guidance in conducting its vacancy rate adjustments, the Legislature should amend state law to clarify whether HCD should continue to use a healthy vacancy rate that includes both rental and owned housing or whether it should determine and use separate healthy vacancy rates for owned housing and rental housing. HCD To ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and do not contain unnecessary errors, by June 2022 HCD should institute a process to ensure that its staff performs multiple reviews of data in its assessments. To demonstrate that its needs assessments are complete and address all relevant factors, by September 2022 HCD should establish a formal process to document its consideration of all factors required by state law in its needs assessments. To ensure that it adequately supports the vacancy rate adjustments it makes to needs assessments, by February 2023 HCD should perform a formal analysis of healthy vacancy rates and historical trends to inform those adjustments. Finance To ensure that the household formation rates that it provides HCD are appropriate, Finance should, by February 2023, conduct a comprehensive review of its assumptions about the household formation rates it uses in projections, and it should document that review. Agency Comments HCD and Finance agreed with our recommendations and plan to implement them over the next year. 3 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 Introduction Background As part of the Legislature<U+2019>s efforts to ensure that the State is planning for the construction of enough homes to meet its housing needs and that local governments are facilitating that development, state law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to conduct periodic housing needs assessments to determine existing and projected housing needs throughout California. HCD fulfills its responsibilities under state law by creating Regional Housing Needs Assessments (needs assessments). As Figure 1 shows, HCD provides the needs assessments to councils of governments, which we describe in the text box, across the State and directly to counties that are not in such a council. Figure 2 provides an overview of the councils of government in the State and also shows counties that are not part of a council. After a council of governments receives its needs assessment from HCD, it then must allocate the region<U+2019>s housing needs to the cities and counties within its boundaries. For counties without a council of governments, HCD provides allocations to those counties as well as to the cities within them.1 Cities and counties must then develop plans to accommodate the existing and projected housing need. HCD performs needs assessments every five to 11 years. HCD does not complete all assessments at the same time and does not always cover the same period, because it attempts to align the needs assessment process with other planning processes, such as regional transportation planning. The three needs assessments that we reviewed are those of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (Santa Barbara Association), the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (Sacramento Council), and Amador County. Needs Assessment Components State law requires HCD to use population projections developed by the Department of Finance (Finance) when it completes the needs assessments. Finance factors into its projections multiple sources of information, including data from the U.S. Census Bureau (Census) and records of driver<U+2019>s licenses, births and deaths, school enrollments, and tax filings. Finance provides state and countylevel population projections to assist state, regional, and local planning, among other purposes. Finance also projects the number of future households, based on the population projections 1 Counties that receive their assessments and allocations directly from HCD represent just 3 percent of the State<U+2019>s population. Definition of Council of Governments A voluntary association, generally of county and city governments, created by a joint powers agreement. Source: State law and a council of governments<U+2019> website. Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 4 and the percentage of people in the population who are expected to form their own households in the future, which is known as the household formation rate. Figure 1 HCD<U+2019>s Housing Needs Assessments Inform County and City Housing Plans Counties and Cities Then Develop the Housing Element of General Plans HCD Then Provides Housing Need Allocations to County and Cities Counties Without a Council of Governments (19 in California) Every 5<U+2013>11 Years Counties and Cities Then Develop the Housing Element of General Plans Councils Then Provide Housing Need Allocations to Counties and Cities Councils of Governments (20 in California) Generally Every 8 Years HCD Provides Housing Needs Assessments to: Source: State law and HCD housing needs assessments. Table 1 describes the factors that state law requires HCD to consider in its needs assessments, including vacancy rates. State law requires HCD to consider vacancy rates in existing housing and the vacancy rates for healthy housing markets when developing the needs assessments. A low supply of housing can result in low rental vacancy rates, which in turn can lead to housing price increases. Therefore, HCD adjusts its needs assessments so that housing markets can achieve a healthy vacancy rate. In some cases, that adjustment will add to the number of housing units HCD determines a region needs so that the region can obtain a healthy vacancy rate. State law specifies that the minimum vacancy rate for a healthy rental housing market is 5 percent, but the law does not define the healthy vacancy rate for owned housing. 5 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 Figure 2 Most California Counties Have a Council of Governments That Receives Needs Assessments From HCD Single-County Council of Governments Sacramento Area Council of Governments Association of Bay Area Governments Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Southern California Association of Governments Counties Without a Council of Governments IMPERIAL SAN DIEGO RIVERSIDE ORANGE SAN BERNARDINO LOS ANGELES VENTURA SANTA BARBARA KERN SAN LUIS OBISPO INYO TULARE KINGS FRESNO SAN BENITO MONTEREY MADERA MERCED SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ SAN MATEO MARIPOSA STANISLAUS ALAMEDA SAN FRANCISCO MONO TUOLUMNE CALAVERAS SAN JOAQUIN CONTRA COSTA ALPINE AMADOR EL DORADO SACRAMENTO SOLANO MARIN YOLO NAPA SONOMA PLACER NEVADA YUBA SUTTER COLUSA LAKE SIERRA BUTTE GLENN MENDOCINO PLUMAS TEHAMA LASSEN SHASTA TRINITY HUMBOLDT MODOC SISKIYOU DEL NORTE Source: HCD housing needs assessment letters. Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 6 Table 1 Factors HCD Must Consider in Its Assessments FACTOR DESCRIPTION Anticipated Population Growth Projection of future population growth in the region. Household Formation Rate The rate at which individuals form new households in the region. Household Size The number of people per household in the region. Vacancy Rates The percentage of homes available for rent or sale compared to the total number of housing units, less vacation and seasonal homes. Overcrowding The percentage of households that have more than one resident per room in a housing unit. Replacement Needs Replacement of housing units lost during the planning period, such as because of deterioration. CostBurdened Households The percentage of households that are paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Units Lost to Emergencies The loss of housing units during a state of emergency declared by the Governor, such as in wildfires, if the lost units have not yet been rebuilt or replaced. Jobs/Housing Balance The relationship between the number of jobs in a region and the number of housing units in that same region. Other Characteristics Other characteristics of the composition of the projected population. Source: State law, the Census website, HCD needs assessments, HCD work group reports, and interviews with HCD staff. Note: State law does not require HCD to consider these factors for its needs assessments in counties that do not have a council of governments; however, HCD<U+2019>s practice is to do so. State law also requires HCD to adjust its needs assessments to account for longterm housing challenges, such as overcrowding, which occurs when a housing unit has more than one resident per room. The Legislature added this overcrowding factor to the needs assessment process in 2017. HCD must also consider costburdened households, which are households that pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs. When it determines it is appropriate to do so, HCD includes in its assessments adjustments for cost burden and overcrowding. Among the sources HCD uses to determine these adjustments is data that state law requires councils of governments to provide. The councils provide data comparing the cost burden and overcrowding for their respective regions with that of other comparable regions in the United States. HCD then uses this information to calculate adjustments for each council of governments<U+2019> needs assessment. Table 2 shows a hypothetical example of how HCD incorporates adjustments for the various factors to determine the number of housing units in its needs assessments. Appendix A shows the three needs assessments that we reviewed. 7 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 Table 2 Housing Needs Assessments Contain Many Factors and Adjustments HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF HCD NEEDS ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS FACTOR/SOURCE PROJECTED CALCULATION JUNE 2020<U+2013>JUNE 2028 (8 YEARS) 8year Population Projection (Finance) 1,500,000 <U+2013> Group Quarters Population (Finance)* <U+2013> 35,000 Population Needing Housing (Finance) 1,465,000 Household Formation Rate Adjustment (Finance): 36.6% average Projected Households (Finance) 540,000 + Vacancy Rate Adjustment (HCD): 2.2% 11,900 + Overcrowding Adjustment (HCD): 0.6% 3,200 + Replacement Needs Adjustment (HCD): 0.5% 2,700 Units Lost to Emergencies (HCD) <U+2014> Jobs/Housing Balance (HCD) <U+2014> <U+2013> Occupied Units (Finance) <U+2013> 480,500 Subtotal 77,300 + Cost Burden Adjustment (HCD): 0.55% 3,100 Total Needs Assessment 80,400 Housing Units Source: Auditor review of HCD housing needs assessments. * This reduction includes individuals housed in prisons and in college dormitories. The household formation rate represents the likelihood that individuals in the region<U+2019>s projected population will head their own households. Finance uses different household formation rates for different age groups, which we have simplified for illustrative purposes here. Factors that state law requires HCD to consider, but that it did not include as an adjustment in the needs assessments we reviewed. HCD makes the cost burden adjustment only after applying all the other adjustments. Finally, state law requires HCD to consider housing units that communities will need to plan to replace. Some housing units become uninhabitable during the future period covered by the assessments, such as housing lost due to damage, deterioration, and house or apartment building fires. State law requires HCD to review housing replacement needs, and HCD does so by obtaining from Finance the number of housing units a council of governments or county has lost over the past 10 years. HCD then determines the rate at which the region loses housing units and makes an adjustment in the needs assessment to replace those houses. In response to recent wildfires that have destroyed a significant number of houses, the Legislature added the requirement in 2018 that HCD must also consider any housing recently lost during a state of emergency that the Governor declared. Similar to the cost burden factor discussed Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 8 above, state law requires councils of governments to provide data to HCD on housing lost during a state of emergency for consideration in the needs assessments. Local Actions After HCD Completes a Needs Assessment After HCD makes a final determination for a needs assessment, state law requires the council of governments to create housing needs allocations for the cities and counties within its region. The council, in consultation with HCD, must develop a proposed methodology for distributing the allocation. The council of governments must conduct a survey and ensure public participation when developing the methodology. The council of governments establishes a draft allocation and then may hear appeals of the allocation, if any are raised. It then must make the allocation final and adopt it. State law requires local governments, such as cities and counties, to create plans to meet housing needs. Local governments must adopt a general plan, which is a blueprint for meeting the community<U+2019>s longterm vision for the future. Within the general plans, state law requires local governments to include a housing element, which contains an analysis of existing and projected housing needs in their communities. Cities and counties must state their goals, policies, and programs related to the development of housing, to accommodate projected housing needs allocated by their council of governments or HCD. The community, through the housing element, must attempt to meet these housing needs, such as by changing the zoning on specific parcels to allow residential development. Needs Assessments Can Be Contentious but Are a Critical Component of Addressing Housing Challenges Some stakeholders have criticized the needs assessment process and HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments. For example, some homeowners and advocacy organizations believe that HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments have produced higher numbers of housing needs than are reasonable. Changes to state law that became effective in January 2019 allow HCD to account for present unmet housing needs in addition to future housing needs. Potentially as a result of these statutory changes, some regions received housing needs allocations that are more than double the amount of their previous allocations. We are aware of two lawsuits that challenge HCD<U+2019>s process, including one that alleges that HCD did not consider all factors as required by state law. In one lawsuit, the Orange County Council 9 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 of Governments, which is independent from the larger Southern California Association of Governments, sued HCD, alleging that HCD failed to use the appropriate population forecast, failed to appropriately evaluate household overcrowding and cost burden rates, and used unreasonable vacancy rates. In the other lawsuit, several interested individuals and two nonprofit corporations filed a lawsuit alleging that HCD failed to consider data regarding the relationship between jobs and housing in its assessment for the Association of Bay Area Governments, which is the San Francisco Bay Area council of governments. Both lawsuits are pending final resolution. To avoid interference, we did not review the needs assessments for either of the councils involved in these lawsuits as part of this audit. The needs assessments affect the planning for housing availability across the State and are an important but sometimes contentious component in addressing California<U+2019>s housing crisis. Housing availability and affordability has become a key economic issue, as the Legislative Analyst<U+2019>s Office (LAO) reported in 2019. The LAO noted that the significant shortage of housing, particularly within coastal communities, contributed to higher housing costs for Californians. The LAO also noted that high housing costs increase the State<U+2019>s poverty rate and, in particular, put lowincome Californians at risk of instability and homelessness. As discussed above, the State<U+2019>s role in identifying existing and future housing needs to guide the housing planning process is under public scrutiny. Determining accurate, appropriate, and defensible housing needs is a key step in facilitating state and local efforts to plan for housing development. 10 Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 11 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 HCD<U+2019>s Housing Needs Assessment Process Lacks Sufficient Reviews and Support Key Points <U+2022> HCD made several errors when entering data into calculations for its needs assessments, which reduced the amount of housing needs in the needs assessments for two of the three regions we reviewed. HCD does not have a sufficient management review process to ensure that it identifies such errors before finalizing needs assessments. Without effective review processes, HCD may be making similar errors in needs assessments for other councils of governments. <U+2022> HCD could not demonstrate that it followed work group recommendations when it considered the balance between jobs and housing, and did not maintain consistency in its consideration of housing destroyed during a state of emergency, when it produced the needs assessments for the three regions we reviewed. In at least one needs assessment, the omission led HCD to understate housing needs by not accounting for units that had been destroyed in a wildfire. <U+2022> HCD did not adequately support its adjustment to the needs assessments to address vacancy rates for the councils of governments we reviewed. Despite the significant effect that HCD<U+2019>s vacancy rate adjustments have on needs assessments, it has not completed a thorough analysis to determine whether it used the most appropriate value in its calculations. <U+2022> HCD<U+2019>s reviews of comparable regions selected by councils of government have been inconsistent because the department does not have a formal process for such reviews. As a result, it did not identify a problematic proposal from a region and inappropriately reduced its needs assessment. HCD Has Made Errors When Completing Its Needs Assessments Because It Does Not Sufficiently Review and Verify Data It Uses HCD does not have an adequate review process to ensure that its staff members accurately enter data that it uses in the needs assessments. As Table 1 shows, state law requires HCD to consider a variety of information for its needs assessments for councils of governments, including population projections, housing vacancy rates, and income data. HCD staff members enter the data the department obtains from various sources into a spreadsheet for each council of governments and uses the information to determine the housing needs. However, HCD does not sufficiently review its staff member<U+2019>s data entries for accuracy. As Figure 3 shows, we noted data entry errors in two of the three assessments we reviewed. We discuss the other issues presented in Figure 3, including an inadequate consideration of the relationship between jobs and housing, in the following section. 12 Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 Figure 3 HCD<U+2019>s Errors and Omissions Understated the Needs Assessments for Multiple Regions <U+2022> HCD failed to adequately consider the Jobs/Housing Balance factor. Amador County 2020 Assessment: 741 units needed <U+2022> HCD failed to adequately consider the Jobs/Housing Balance factor. <U+2022> HCD used inconsistent years of Census data for dierent counties in the Vacancy Rates adjustment. <U+2022> HCD<U+2019>s error in the Vacancy Rates Adjustment reduced the Cost Burden adjustment.* Sacramento Council 2019 Assessment: 153,512 units needed <U+2022> HCD failed to adequately consider the Jobs/Housing Balance factor. <U+2022> HCD used one year of Census data instead of ve for the Overcrowding adjustment. <U+2022> HCD did not identify that the Santa Barbara Association submitted Census data for the wrong years as part of the Overcrowding adjustment. <U+2022> HCD<U+2019>s error in the Overcrowding adjustment reduced the Cost Burden adjustment.* <U+2022> HCD did not demonstrate that it considered the eect on housing needs from a destructive re in 2017. Santa Barbara Association 2021 Assessment: 24,856 units needed Source: Analysis of state law, HCD needs assessments, and HCD<U+2019>s 2010 SB 375 implementation work group report. Note: We were able to determine the impact on needs assessments from some, but not all errors and omissions presented in this figure. For example, HCD did not collect data on the jobs/housing balance, and therefore we could not quantify the effect of HCD not considering this factor. We discuss selected errors<U+2019> impacts on HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments on pages 13 and 22 in the report text. * Because HCD makes the cost burden adjustment after applying the other adjustments, errors that increase or reduce other adjustments also increase or reduce the cost burden adjustment. One data entry error resulted in a lower, inaccurate number of needed housing units in the Santa Barbara Association<U+2019>s needs assessment. HCD<U+2019>s needs assessment letter explained that its overcrowding adjustment relied on Census estimates from five years of survey data. However, HCD had only used Census data from a oneyear estimate when determining the overcrowding adjustment, which is both less accurate and inconsistent with other steps in the calculation that used the fiveyear estimates. HCD explained that staff members entered data from the wrong table on the Census website. Had HCD used the fiveyear estimates as 13 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 it intended for this step in its calculation, Santa Barbara<U+2019>s needs assessment would have included 1,338 more housing units, or about 5 percent more than the inaccurate assessment HCD provided to the Santa Barbara Association. HCD made a similar error when using Census estimates to adjust the Sacramento Council<U+2019>s assessment. It had intended to use the 2013<U+2013>2017 Census vacancy estimate for all the counties within the Sacramento Council, but it mistakenly entered the 2012<U+2013>2016 estimate for Sacramento County. This error reduced the Sacramento Council<U+2019>s needs assessment by 2,484 units. Although this number represents a small portion of the region<U+2019>s overall needs assessment of more than 153,000 units, it still represents homes for individuals and families for which the Sacramento Council needs to plan to accommodate. Because HCD did not verify the information the Santa Barbara Association submitted for its needs assessment, it made an additional error. HCD incorporates into the needs assessments some information it receives from the councils of governments, such as data on overcrowding. The Santa Barbara Association submitted data on comparable regions<U+2019> overcrowding rates using the 2014<U+2013>2018 Census data, which HCD then incorporated into its overcrowding calculation. However, HCD had intended for its calculation to incorporate 2015<U+2013>2019 data. Although this particular error was not large, it was in addition to the other errors in the assessments we reviewed, as discussed above. It concerns us that HCD does not have a formal review process to ensure that these important housing needs assessments are as accurate as possible. HCD does not have a formal review process to ensure that these important housing needs assessments are as accurate as possible. We identified these errors, which would be difficult to detect in documentation supporting HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments, by comparing the data in the needs assessments to the correct source documents. Therefore, we expected that HCD would have a robust process for dedicated reviewers and management to verify that staff members retrieve and enter the correct data in the spreadsheets. However, HCD told us that its primary process for identifying errors in its needs assessments is to send a draft assessment to each council of governments for review rather than to have HCD supervisors or other HCD staff members review the drafts. Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 14 HCD<U+2019>s reliance on the councils of governments for checking the accuracy of the needs assessments is problematic. As we discuss in the Introduction, the needs assessment process can be contentious and draws attention from numerous stakeholders. Therefore, some councils of governments may be reluctant to propose changes or corrections to their needs assessments that increase their own housing needs. In fact, two of the errors we identified inaccurately lowered the needs assessments, but HCD stated that neither the Santa Barbara Association nor the Sacramento Council notified HCD of the errors, and no record we reviewed indicated whether the two councils of governments noticed the errors at all. When we brought these concerns to HCD<U+2019>s attention, its deputy director of housing policy development (housing policy deputy) stated that the department plans to conduct and document supervisor reviews of its needs assessments for its next planned round of assessments in 2023. It is crucial that HCD do so to ensure that councils of governments plan for the appropriate amount of housing and to maintain public confidence in the validity of the State<U+2019>s assessments of local housing needs. It is crucial that HCD conduct and document supervisor reviews of its needs assessments to ensure that councils of governments plan for the appropriate amount of housing and to maintain public confidence in the validity of the State<U+2019>s assessments. HCD Did Not Demonstrate That It Adequately Considered Certain Factors That State Law Requires for Housing Needs Assessments HCD did not demonstrate that it adequately considered two factors listed in state law when preparing the three needs assessments we reviewed, which potentially further reduced the reliability of its needs assessments. The law requires HCD to review data and assumptions that councils of governments submit for the factors considered in housing needs assessments, and it allows HCD to make adjustments to the needs assessments after this consideration. HCD may accept or reject the submitted information, and it must issue a written determination on the data assumptions for each factor and the methodology it will use. 15 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 Although HCD generally included most of the factors outlined in state law in the three needs assessments we reviewed, it did not adequately demonstrate how it considered two factors: the balance between jobs and housing in the region (jobs/housing balance) and housing lost in emergencies, such as wildfires. The housing policy deputy stated that HCD addresses these factors through its projected household data and other adjustment factors, and currently documents that consideration with an assertion in its final needs assessment that it considered all factors specified in state law. HCD did not adequately demonstrate how it considered the balance between jobs and housing in the region and housing lost in emergencies, such as wildfires. When we asked HCD about its specific consideration of the jobs/housing factor, HCD indicated that it relied on a work group<U+2019>s draft analysis of jobs/housing relationships. However, this analysis is outdated and provided limited direction for how the jobs/housing balance would affect needs assessments. The housing policy deputy stated that HCD had studied the jobs/housing balance factor in 2010, 12 years ago. The analysis noted that the inconsistent data available between regions makes regional comparisons of jobs and housing difficult and that statewide standardized employment data are not available for comparison purposes. Although it did not recommend specific adjustments for the jobs/housing balance factor, the 2010 work group indicated that HCD should solicit specific information from councils of governments to address this factor. However, HCD did not specifically request such information from the Sacramento Council, the Santa Barbara Association, or Amador County<U+2014>the three needs assessments we reviewed<U+2014>in order to determine those needs assessments. HCD believes that its other adjustments for different factors also addressed the jobs/housing balance factor. Specifically, HCD asserted that its adjustments to address low vacancy rates, high overcrowding, and high cost burdens address jobs/housing balance issues. However, HCD did not provide an analysis that demonstrated how, or to what extent, these adjustments address the jobs/housing balance. The housing policy deputy also noted the potential for inequitable adjustments for jobs/housing balance between regions because regions receive needs assessments at different times but agreed to review data sources and seek academic perspectives on approaches to account for the jobs/housing balance Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 16 in the next round of needs assessments. HCD also agreed that as part of its review of the jobs/housing balance factor, it would consider either adding a specific adjustment or modifying its other adjustments, such as increasing the cost burden adjustment, to better account for the factor in the future. HCD agreed that as part of its review of the jobs/housing balance factor, it would consider either adding a specific adjustment or modifying its other adjustments, such as increasing the cost burden adjustment, to better account for the job/housing balance factor in the future. The second factor HCD inadequately considered was housing lost during emergencies. HCD did not consider housing lost during emergencies in a consistent manner across different regions, which led it to understate housing needs in the Santa Barbara Association<U+2019>s needs assessment. State law requires HCD to consider data and assumptions submitted by a council of governments on housing lost during a state of emergency declared by the Governor if that lost housing has not been rebuilt or replaced at the time of the collection of data for the needs assessment. In 2017 the Governor declared a state of emergency in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties due to the Thomas Fire, which destroyed more than 1,000 housing units and other structures. HCD did not consider the loss of units caused by this wildfire, as required by state law, and did not make an adjustment for this factor in the 2021 Santa Barbara Association needs assessment, as it did in another region, which we discuss below. We believe HCD should have worked with state and county officials to consider this factor in the assessment so that the Santa Barbara Association can plan to address actual housing needs. HCD<U+2019>s housing policy deputy explained that HCD believes another factor addresses housing lost to fire emergencies. As we discuss in the Introduction, HCD determines the replacement rate at which each council of governments<U+2019> region loses housing units and applies an adjustment in the needs assessment to replace housing. The replacement adjustment reflects the average annual rate of housing loss over the past 10 years that a council of governments needs to replace for units that have been destroyed or demolished, or are no longer inhabitable. The housing policy deputy stated 17 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 that Finance provides it with information on the rate of housing replacement, such as when there is a fire that requires a building to be replaced. Although HCD considered replacement units in the Santa Barbara Association needs assessment, it did not include a separate consideration for units destroyed in emergencies. HCD<U+2019>s replacement adjustment identified the average rate that housing is replaced in Santa Barbara County based on 10 years of data from Finance. However, this approach minimized the effect of a wildfire by combining it with normal years of housing losses, resulting in less overall housing than actually needed. Furthermore, HCD<U+2019>s approach to the Santa Barbara Association<U+2019>s declared state of emergency was not consistent with the approach it took in another assessment. Specifically, for the Butte County Association of Governments, HCD worked with county and state officials, including Finance, when it considered and then included an adjustment specifically for housing destroyed in the 2018 Camp Fire, for which the Governor also declared a state of emergency. HCD noted that it included the adjustment for the Butte County Association of Governments because this fire and associated housing loss was particularly large. We expected HCD to consider housing lost in declared emergencies consistently. It is critical that HCD<U+2019>s actions increase confidence in the needs assessment process. HCD needs to thoroughly document its required consideration of each factor because the needs assessment process is complex and can be contentious, drawing significant attention from local governments as well as interest groups. Therefore, it is critical that HCD<U+2019>s actions increase confidence in the needs assessment process. Although state law permits HCD to determine what adjustments, if any, to make in response to a particular factor, documenting the specific methodology and determination will enhance transparency and public trust. It will also allow HCD to more effectively justify its conclusions to stakeholders and potentially avoid litigation. It is also important that HCD conduct its needs assessments consistently across different regions and in compliance with state requirements, especially when adjusting for sensitive issues such as wildfire disasters. Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 18 The Healthy Vacancy Rate HCD Used in Assessments We Reviewed Was Poorly Supported HCD did not provide adequate support for a critical determination it made about the healthy housing vacancy rate that it used in the three needs assessments we reviewed, raising questions about whether HCD can support the rate in its other assessments. State law requires HCD to consider how councils of governments<U+2019> vacancy rates compare with healthy vacancy rates when determining housing needs assessments. As we discuss in the Introduction, state law specifies that a healthy vacancy rate for rental housing should not be less than 5 percent, but it does not specify a healthy vacancy rate for owned housing, allowing HCD to make that determination. HCD used a 5 percent healthy vacancy rate for the combined rental and ownership markets for two of the councils of governments<U+2019> assessments we reviewed.2 HCD calculated the vacancy rate adjustment by subtracting the region<U+2019>s overall vacancy rate from the 5 percent healthy vacancy rate. Based on that rate, the vacancy rate adjustment for the Santa Barbara Association resulted in an increase of more than 4,000 housing units to the overall housing needs. Even a 1 percent difference<U+2014>higher or lower<U+2014>can make a significant difference in the needs assessment. For example, if HCD had used a 1 percent higher healthy vacancy rate target, the adjustment would have increased by 40 percent, to 5,600 housing units. Therefore, it is important that the rate that HCD uses is adequately supported. Even a 1 percent difference<U+2014>higher or lower<U+2014>in the healthy vacancy rate assumption can make a significant difference in the needs assessment. HCD concluded that its choice of a single healthy vacancy rate for the overall market instead of separate rates for owned and rental housing was appropriate. HCD stated that in 2018, for the current round of needs assessments, it began evaluating vacancy rates across the total number of homes available, a change from its previous approach of separating the rental and ownership markets before 2 HCD used a 4 percent healthy vacancy rate to perform the adjustment for Amador County<U+2014>a county without a council of governments. HCD explained that it used a lower rate for rural areas because they have a higher proportion of owned housing compared to rental housing and the ownership market typically has less turnover, and thus fewer homes on average will be empty at any given time in rural areas than in the State as a whole. 19 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 evaluating vacancy rates in each of them. HCD stated that it changed its approach to reflect the fact that some owned housing becomes rental housing over time. Conversely, a development may be rented for an initial period and then sold to owners after a condominium conversion. However, as shown in Figure 4, the vacancy rates of the two categories are significantly different<U+2014>ownership vacancy was much lower than rental vacancy over the past 15 years. We are concerned that HCD has not completed a formal analysis to support its claim that a single healthy vacancy rate was appropriate. Figure 4 HCD Targeted a Vacancy Rate That Is Between Historical Rates for Rented and Owned Housing 2020 2015 2010 2005 Owned housing vacancy rate (U.S.) California rental vacancy rate Owned housing vacancy rate (California) HCD<U+2019>s healthy vacancy rate for councils of governments reviewed* U.S. rental vacancy rate 0 2 4 6 8 10 12% Vacancy Rates 2020 2015 2010 2005 California owned-housing vacancy rate U.S. owned-housing vacancy rate California rental vacancy rate HCD<U+2019>s healthy vacancy rate for needs assessments we reviewed* U.S. rental vacancy rate 0 2 4 6 8 10 12% Vacancy Rates Source: Data from the Census and HCD websites. * Before it started using a single 5 percent vacancy rate in 2018, HCD used separate rates for rental and owned housing for each assessment. When we asked HCD for its support for using the 5 percent healthy vacancy rate in the assessments, it provided only limited information that did not adequately support its assumptions. HCD explained that although it understands that the ownership vacancy rate is somewhat lower than 5 percent, the literature it reviewed indicated that a healthy rental vacancy rate is likely somewhat higher than 5 percent, and it believes the 5 percent is defensible for the combined market. However, HCD did not thoroughly analyze vacancy rates when it began to use this healthy vacancy rate assumption in 2018. HCD provided a summary document from a work group it convened in 2010 that reviewed historical vacancy rates in different regions, but the work group<U+2019>s summary did not reach a conclusion on a Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 20 healthy vacancy rate. Instead, the summary referenced information the work group had reviewed, including government reports, and noted a range of vacancy rates among other states that included separate rates for owned and rented housing. Additionally, some of the information was outdated because several of the government reports the summary cited were published in the 1980s. The summary also stated that HCD had used the same healthy vacancy rates<U+2014>using separate rates for owned and rental housing<U+2014> since 2006 and may adjust them for current economic conditions. Despite the large impact of the vacancy rate adjustment on a region<U+2019>s total needs assessment, HCD has relied on the 5 percent healthy vacancy rate without providing adequate support for its approach. For example, HCD made a vacancy rate adjustment to increase Sacramento<U+2019>s needs assessment by more than 22,700 units, or nearly 15 percent of the total housing needs. Therefore, we expected HCD to provide sufficient analysis and support for its assumptions underlying the healthy vacancy rate it used in the assessments we reviewed. When HCD does not develop a strong analysis with clear justification for its assumptions, especially those that have significant impact on the size of its final assessments, it risks making adjustments that are not reflective of a region<U+2019>s true housing needs. When HCD does not develop a strong analysis with clear justification for its assumptions, especially those that have significant impact on the size of its final assessments, it risks making adjustments that are not reflective of a region<U+2019>s true housing needs. HCD Did Not Identify a Problematic Proposal From a Region and Inappropriately Reduced Its Needs Assessment HCD did not sufficiently review the regions that councils of governments compared themselves to as part of the needs assessment process. For two factors in its needs assessments, state law requires HCD to consider how a council of governments<U+2019> regional data compares to that of other similar regions in the nation. For these factors<U+2014>overcrowding and cost burden<U+2014>the law requires councils of governments to provide data from regions they propose as <U+201C>comparable.<U+201D> For the cost burden adjustment, state law requires councils to provide data from <U+201C>healthy<U+201D> housing markets. State law 21 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 allows HCD to adjust a council of governments<U+2019> needs assessment based on these factors, thus allowing communities to plan for more housing to better address the housing crisis. Under state law, HCD must consider the information a council of governments submits, though it does not have to use that information in its final needs assessment. State law does not provide criteria for the councils of governments to select comparable regions to propose. However, in correspondence to the council of governments we reviewed, HCD recommended that several nonhousing factors<U+2014>such as population, median income, and jobs per capita<U+2014>be included for comparison to help guide councils of governments in their selections of comparable, healthy regions. HCD<U+2019>s reviews of comparable regions selected by councils of government have been inconsistent because the department does not have a formal process for such reviews. The housing policy deputy explained that HCD reviews the appropriateness of the regions that councils of governments propose as comparable and has rejected a proposal in the past. However, HCD does not have a documented process to guide its evaluation of councils of governments<U+2019> proposals to ensure that its reviews are consistent. HCD explained that even though it does provide guidance on what criteria councils of governments could use for their proposals of comparable regions, it has avoided instituting a specific, formal review process because state law specifically allows councils of governments to determine what regions are comparable. However, state law also gives HCD the ability to reject those same proposals. Therefore, we believe it is important for HCD to have a formal process to review the comparable regions that councils of governments propose so it can ensure that it is using this authority consistently for different needs assessments. It is important for HCD to have a formal process to review the comparable regions that councils of governments propose so it can ensure that it is using its authority consistently for different needs assessments. The Santa Barbara Association provided HCD with a comparable region proposal that we found problematic. In January 2021, after working with HCD to adjust its comparable region proposal, the Santa Barbara Association provided a memo to HCD explaining that it based its selection of comparable regions on certain categories, Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 22 such as population, household size, renttoincome ratio, age distribution, and poverty. These criteria resulted in the Santa Barbara Association choosing regions that were likely experiencing housing problems similar to its own region because they also had higher, unhealthy, rates of overcrowding and costburdened households compared to national averages. The use of household sizes and renttoincome ratios to select comparable regions was problematic. For example, the overcrowding rate<U+2014>reflecting the number of housing units that have more than one person per room in a region<U+2014>is likely higher in a region with a higher average household size. Similarly, a region with a higher renttoincome ratio is likely to have more households with heavy cost burdens. Higher overcrowding and heavier cost burdens than the national average indicate that those housing markets are not healthy. HCD accepted the comparable regions the Santa Barbara Association proposed, which likely lowered the needs assessment from what it would have been had HCD used healthy housing markets for one of the adjustments. HCD explained that it views its role as providing guidance to councils of government in their process of selecting comparable regions, rather than being prescriptive. However, our concern is that the Santa Barbara Association specifically used certain criteria that resulted in it selecting unhealthy housing markets, which HCD acknowledges is an approach that has led it to reject other councils<U+2019> comparisons. Had HCD compared the Santa Barbara Association to regions with cost burden rates closer to the national average, we estimate that its needs assessment would have increased by 470 housing units to about 25,300, or an increase of 1.9 percent. Without a consistent process to review the criteria that councils of governments propose to identify comparable regions, HCD may be allowing some regions to plan for less housing than they otherwise should. Recommendations Legislature To provide HCD additional clarity and guidance in conducting its vacancy rate adjustments, the Legislature should amend state law to clarify whether HCD should continue to use a healthy vacancy rate that includes both rental and owned housing or whether it should determine and use separate healthy vacancy rates for owned housing and rental housing. 23 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 HCD To ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and do not contain unnecessary errors, by June 2022 HCD should institute a process to ensure that its staff performs multiple reviews of data in its assessments, including data that staff members input and councils of governments submit. To demonstrate that its needs assessments are complete and address all relevant factors, by September 2022 HCD should establish a formal process to document its consideration of all factors required by state law in its needs assessments. To ensure that it adequately supports the vacancy rate adjustments it makes to needs assessments, by February 2023 HCD should perform a formal analysis of healthy vacancy rates and historical trends to inform those adjustments. To ensure that it does not reduce its needs assessments based on inappropriate information provided by councils of governments, by June 2022 HCD should develop a formal process to review the appropriateness of councils of governments<U+2019> proposed comparable regions, including identifying the criteria it will consider when reviewing councils of governments proposals. HCD should use this formal process and criteria to consistently evaluate the appropriateness of the proposals to ensure that they identify regions with healthy housing markets. 24 Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 25 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 Finance Provides Reasonable Population Projections, but It Has Not Provided Sufficient Support for Its Household Formation Projections Key Points <U+2022> Finance<U+2019>s population projections are the basis of HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments, and they are generally accurate. Projections for counties with less than 250,000 residents were less accurate than for counties with more than 1 million residents, but the accuracy of projections has improved over time. <U+2022> Finance also creates projections of the number of future households in the State by county. Although HCD uses the household projections in its needs assessments, Finance has not conducted a rigorous analysis to support the household formation rates it uses for the projections. Finance<U+2019>s Population Projections Have Generally Been Accurate The basis of housing needs assessments are population forecasts that Finance produces. State law requires Finance to produce short and longrange projections of the population, and it does so for the entire State and its counties. To develop its population projections, Finance projects future births, deaths, and migration, or movement into and out of the State, to determine the State<U+2019>s future population by county. HCD then uses the projections for five to 10 years into the future in its needs assessments, depending on the period the assessment covers.3 To review the accuracy of Finance<U+2019>s previous population projections and their potential impact on HCD<U+2019>s needs assessment process, we compared the statewide population projections for 2020 that Finance published in 2011 to Census data for 2020. We found that its projections were overestimated by just 2.7 percent. The variables that affect population estimates, such as the number of deaths, births, and migration, are not constant values and are difficult to predict precisely; therefore, we considered Finance<U+2019>s statewide projections reasonable. We also reviewed the process and data that Finance uses to make its projections and found that it is appropriate. Finance has programmed the software that it uses to make projections to identify and remove illogical results and fix errors in the results. Finance staff members also perform reviews of these projections. Staff members compare the projections to previous projections to ensure that there are no unexpected or dramatic changes. Finance also stated that managers review the results before the department provides the data to HCD. When we reviewed Finance<U+2019>s countylevel projections over several years, we noted that their accuracy varied. The projections Finance made in 2011 for the 2020 population were less accurate in counties with less than 250,000 residents than in counties with 3 HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments we reviewed are for eight to 10 years in the future, ranging from 2029 to 2031. Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 26 more than 1 million residents. For example, Finance projected that Colusa County<U+2019>s 2020 population would be nearly 25,000, but the actual population according to the 2020 Census was only about 22,000, a difference of 12 percent. In contrast, Finance projected that Orange County<U+2019>s 2020 population would be 3.2 million, and the actual 2020 population was 3.19 million, a difference of 0.4 percent. However, we reviewed subsequent projections that Finance published in 2013, 2016, and 2019 of 2020 county populations and found, as would be expected, that its 2019 projections were more accurate. Finance plans to account for 2020 Census results when making its next population projections in 2023. When we asked Finance about the differences that we identified in its projections compared to Census data, it had already begun reviewing those differences in preparation for its next population projections. In fact, it had identified a series of events and changes that may have affected the accuracy of its projections in specific counties. For example, Finance noted that its projection for Mono County was inaccurate due to population reductions resulting from staffing changes at a military facility in that county. Further, it explained that it overestimated international migration into Imperial County, leading to differences between the Census data and its projection. As a result, Finance told us that it plans to make adjustments in its approach for projections as it incorporates 2020 Census data into its next population projections, which it expects to release in early 2023. Finance plans to make adjustments in its approach for projections as it incorporates 2020 Census data into its next population projections. Finance Has Not Adequately Supported Rates It Uses to Develop Household Formation Projections Finance did not have a rigorous process to support its projections of the number of households in each region, despite the importance of this data in determining a region<U+2019>s housing needs. One of the factors that HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments include are the projections of the number of households that Finance expects in future years in communities across the State. Finance estimates the number of expected households by identifying a household formation rate for different age groups in each county. The household formation rate 27 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 represents the likelihood that individuals in particular age groups will have their own households. HCD applies the rate by age group to the population projections to estimate the number of households that will exist in the future in a region. Because local governments will need to plan housing to accommodate these new households, HCD includes this expected new demand in its needs assessment process. We expected Finance to use household information in the 2010 Census as its basis for projecting household formation rates, as 2010 data forms the basis of its current set of population projections.4 However, Finance explained that instead it estimated current household formation rates using information from earlier Census data as well as the 2010 Census. Specifically, Finance projects that Californians will be increasingly likely to form their own households in the coming years until household formation rates reach levels seen before 2010. Finance explained that before 2010, more people were willing to live independently than do currently. However, Finance noted the 2010 Census identified a relatively low household formation rate, which may have resulted from cultural, demographic, or economic changes, such as the Great Recession that began in 2007. According to Finance, its household formation rate reflects an assumption that household formation patterns in California will increase over time to pre2010 levels<U+2014>those before that recession, when people were more likely to own homes or take on fewer roommates. Finance did not formally study how Californians would form households; rather, its household formation rates were the result of deliberations among members of the advisory committee. However, Finance did not formally study how Californians would form households. In partnership with HCD in 2014, it solicited advice from some experts participating on the 2015<U+2013>2025 Statewide Housing Plan Technical and Research Advisory Committee (advisory committee) to guide its decisions on household formation rates. Finance noted that its household formation rates were the result of deliberations among members of the advisory committee. 4 Finance expects to receive detailed 2020 Census information by county in August or September 2022. It plans to release new population projections, which will include information that accounts for the effects of the COVID19 pandemic, in January or February 2023. Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 28 This advisory committee is different from the work group mentioned previously that HCD convened in 2010 that discussed vacancy rates. However, our review of available documentation from the advisory committee found that it did not make any conclusions about household formation rates. The advisory committee also did not provide Finance any formal guidance, analysis, or report on household formation rate trends. In 2015 and 2016, Finance and HCD staff members reached out to several university professors and other experts from the advisory committee to discuss household formation rates. In a series of emails, staff members from Finance and HCD communicated with experts to discuss factors that may affect household formation rates, such as changes in young adult behavior after the Great Recession and slowing immigration and birth rates. This discussion also reflected concerns about relying on 2010 Census data, because the data reflected conditions during a recession. As part of these conversations, HCD and Finance proposed to the experts several different household rate trends, one of which Finance now uses. Although Finance believes its household formation rates are reasonable, these discussions do not constitute a thorough analysis. Given that this rate is an important component of the household projections that Finance used for multiple years, we expected Finance to better support the assertion that it is using the most appropriate rate. For example, Finance could have documented an analysis of historical household formation trends, a review of academic literature, and its consideration of all factors relevant to household formation rates to demonstrate that its household projections are defensible. Slight changes to household formation rates, which directly increase or decrease the number of projected households, can change HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments by thousands of units. Needs assessments can change significantly depending on the accuracy of Finance<U+2019>s assumptions. Slight changes to household formation rates, which directly increase or decrease the number of projected households, can change HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments by thousands of units. For example, if HCD<U+2019>s needs assessment for the Santa Barbara Association used household formation rates 1 percent lower, the region<U+2019>s needs assessment would decrease by 29 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 17.5 percent, or about 4,350 fewer units of housing.5 Similarly, if the needs assessment used 1 percent higher household formation rates, the needs assessment would increase by as many units. Finance plans to reevaluate its household formation rates soon. Finance believes the household formation rates it uses are still reasonable because available Census data generally indicated that it was still a reasonable expectation for household formation rates to increase in the future and that it would make sense to wait to formally reevaluate its assumption after detailed 2020 Census data is available. Finance also explained that its assumption that household formation rates will grow over time helps it to avoid projecting that recessionera economic issues and housing affordability problems will persist and affect household growth indefinitely in the State. However, without a formal comprehensive review of more recent demographic and economic information, Finance cannot adequately assure the public, stakeholders, and HCD that it is providing the most appropriate household formation rates that HCD includes in the critical needs assessment process. Recommendations Finance To ensure that the population projections it provides to inform HCD<U+2019>s needs assessments are as accurate as possible, by February 2023 Finance should review its projections for the counties with the most significant projection inaccuracies and adjust its methodology as necessary based on 2020 Census data and other information. To ensure that the household formation rates that it provides HCD are appropriate, Finance should, by February 2023, conduct a comprehensive review of its assumptions about the household formation rates it uses in projections, and it should document that review. 5 The Santa Barbara Association<U+2019>s current needs assessment calculates the number of projected households using a set of eight household formation rates for different age groups, ranging from 11 percent for residents 15 through 24 years old to 72 percent for residents who are 85 and older. Finance explained that older residents have a higher household formation rate because they are likely to be financially independent and thus live in their own households. 30 Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Government Code section 8543 et seq. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL S. TILDEN, CPA Acting California State Auditor Date: March 17, 2022 31 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 Appendix A HCD HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENTS WE REVIEWED The chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Audit Committee) directed the California State Auditor (State Auditor) to conduct an emergency audit to examine HCD<U+2019>s regional housing needs determination process. We reviewed three of HCD<U+2019>s regional housing needs assessments: the Sacramento Council, the Santa Barbara Association, and Amador County. We provide those assessments in tables A.1 through A.3 to give context to the findings in our report. As noted in the Introduction, for counties without a council of governments, HCD also provides allocations of housing needs to the county and cities within it. Table A.4 provides the allocation HCD provided to Amador County and the cities within that county. In contrast, the councils of governments provide allocations of housing needs by income category to their member counties and cities. HCD did not provide consistent details in the three assessments reviewed, and as a result, there are some differences among the assessments we display below. The time covered by the assessments, and the total housing needs that communities must accommodate, vary. HCD does not complete all assessments at the same time and does not always cover the same period because it aligns the needs assessment process with other planning processes, such as regional transportation planning. The total regional housing needs assessment corresponds to the time period displayed either in the assessment header as in the case of the Sacramento Council, or in the population projection. Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 32 Table A.1 HCD Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the Sacramento Council SACRAMENTO COUNCIL: JUNE 30, 2021<U+2013>AUGUST 31, 2029 (8.2 YEARS) STEPS TAKEN TO CALCULATE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS AMOUNT Population: August 31, 2029 (Finance June 30, 2029, projection adjusted +2 months to August 31, 2029) 2,844,860 <U+2013> Group Quarters Population <U+2013> 57,315 Adjusted Household Population 2,787,545 Projected Households Minus South Lake Tahoe* 1,021,005 + Vacancy Rate Adjustment (2.23%) 22,730 + Overcrowding Adjustment (0.60%) 6,111 + Replacement Needs Adjustment (0.50%) 5,105 <U+2013> Occupied Units Estimated (June 30, 2021) <U+2013> 908,396 + Cost Burden Adjustment 6,957 Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Total 153,512 Housing Units Source: HCD<U+2019>s needs assessment for the Sacramento Council. * South Lake Tahoe is not in the Sacramento Council planning area, but it is included in Finance<U+2019>s population and household projections for El Dorado County. Discussions between HCD, the city of South Lake Tahoe, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), and the Sacramento Council have resulted in the determination that the households projected by TRPA for the 2021<U+2013>2029 needs assessment cycle (445 units) should not be included in the needs assessment determined for the Sacramento Council region. Table A.2 HCD Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the Santa Barbara Association SANTA BARBARA ASSOCIATION: PROJECTION PERIOD (8.6 YEARS) STEPS TAKEN TO CALCULATE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS AMOUNT Population: February 15, 2031 (Finance June 30, 2031, projection adjusted 4.5 months to February 15, 2031) 488,190 <U+2013> Group Quarters Population <U+2013> 27,525 Adjusted Household Population 460,665 Projected Households 160,850 + Vacancy Rate Adjustment (2.51%) 4,030 + Overcrowding Adjustment (6.44%) 10,359 + Replacement Needs Adjustment (0.50%) 804 <U+2013> Occupied Units <U+2013> 152,576 + Cost Burden Adjustment 1,389 Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Total 24,856 Housing Units Source: HCD<U+2019>s needs assessment for the Santa Barbara Association. 33 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 Table A.3 HCD Regional Housing Needs Assessment for Amador County AMADOR COUNTY: PROJECTION PERIOD (10.9 YEARS) STEPS TAKEN TO CALCULATE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS AMOUNT Population: September 15, 2029 (Finance June 30, 2029, projection adjusted to September 15, 2029) 40,090 <U+2013> Group Quarters Population <U+2013> 4,405 Adjusted Household Population 35,685 Projected Households 15,330 + Vacancy Rate Adjustment (0.04%) 6 + Overcrowding Adjustment (0%) 0 + Replacement Needs Adjustment (0.50%) 68 <U+2013> Occupied Units <U+2013> 14,697 + Cost Burden Adjustment 34 Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Total 741 Housing Units Source: HCD<U+2019>s needs assessment for Amador County. Table A.4 HCD Distribution of Regional Housing Needs Allocation for Amador County REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY JURISDICTION VERY LOW LOW MODERATE ABOVE MODERATE TOTAL Amador County Total 189 123 140 289 741 Amador 1 1 1 2 5 Ione 30 20 25 42 117 Jackson 27 23 24 64 138 Plymouth 7 5 5 13 30 Sutter Creek 15 12 13 34 74 Unincorporated Amador County 109 62 72 134 377 Source: HCD<U+2019>s needs assessment for Amador County. 34 Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 35 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 Appendix B SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The Audit Committee directed the State Auditor in October 2021 to conduct an emergency audit to examine the regional housing needs determination process. The audit was approved under Joint Legislative Audit Committee Rule 17. Recognizing that Rule 17<U+2019>s cost limitations prevented us from satisfying all objectives of the emergency audit, we focused our work on the first three objectives contained in the emergency audit request. The table below lists those objectives and the methods we used to address them. Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD 1 Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives. Reviewed relevant laws, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures related to the housing needs assessment process. 2 Assess Finance<U+2019>s process for developing population projections used by HCD. Determine what changes Finance made to its projections in response to economic and demographic changes caused by the pandemic as well as new Census information. Evaluate historical accuracy of Finance<U+2019>s population projections. <U+2022> Reviewed Finance<U+2019>s calculation process for its most recent set of projections and assessed the reasonableness of its process and the information Finance uses to generate its projections. <U+2022> Assessed Finance<U+2019>s planned modifications to future projections based on COVID19 impacts and found them to be reasonable. Finance intends to update its projections in January or February 2023 to take into account recent Census data that reflects reduced births and increased deaths due to the pandemic in 2020 and early 2021. <U+2022> Compared Finance<U+2019>s past population projections to 2020 Census data to assess their accuracy. 3 Evaluate HCD<U+2019>s process for developing regional housing needs determinations to ascertain whether it complies with state law and results in appropriate calculations. Assess whether HCD properly used vacancy rates for rental markets and for the entire housing market. <U+2022> Reviewed the process HCD used to create three needs assessments for the Sacramento Council, the Santa Barbara Association, and Amador County, and determined which factors listed in state law it considered, and whether its consideration was appropriate. <U+2022> For the same three assessments, which HCD completed after changes to state law in 2018, reviewed each adjustment HCD made in the assessments and determined the relative impact of the adjustments on the overall assessment. <U+2022> For the three assessments we reviewed, assessed HCD<U+2019>s support for the 5 percent healthy vacancy rate it uses for the overall housing market, including reviewing available historical information and economic research. Source: Audit workpapers. 36 Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 37 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1850, Sacramento, California 95814 [phone removed] www.bcsh.ca.gov Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board | Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control | California Horse Racing Board | Department of Real Estate California Housing Finance Agency | Cannabis Control Appeals Panel | Department of Financial Protection and Innovation | Department of Consumer Affairs Department of Fair Employment & Housing | Department of Housing and Community Development | Department of Cannabis Control California Interagency Council on Homelessness March 4, 2022 Michael S. Tilden Acting State Auditor California State Auditor 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Agency Response to 2021-125 Regional Housing Needs Assessments: The Department Of Housing And Community Development Must Improve Its Processes To Ensure Communities Can Adequately Plan For Housing Dear Mr. Tilden: Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments to the audit pertaining to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process led by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). As noted, the state<U+2019>s RHNA process requires consultation with Councils of Governments and intensive data analysis to determine the housing needs for regions. We appreciate that the audit found that HCD follows a sound methodology in administering this responsibility and offers some process improvement recommendations. Attached you will find a detailed response from HCD summarizing the additional resources and process improvements that are underway including increasing staff and standardizing documentation processes. The Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (Agency) and HCD are committed to maximizing opportunities for all Californians to have a stable, affordable place to call home. If you have any additional questions for my team at Agency or HCD, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, Lourdes Castro Ramrez, M.A. Secretary * California State Auditor<U+2019>s comments appear on page 41. * 1 38 Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 [phone removed] / FAX [phone removed] March 4, 2022 Michael S. Tilden Acting California State Auditor 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Regional Housing Needs Assessment Dear Mr. Tilden: This is the California Department of Housing and Community Development<U+2019>s (HCD) response to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) audit conducted by the California State Auditor. HCD is pleased to see the audit found no significant problems with the methodology or instances of double counting. The auditor also identified that statutory changes that allow HCD to provide adjustments to the existing and projected regional housing needs have resulted in larger determinations. Still, the audit found opportunities for process improvements and HCD is committed to implementing those recommendations. HCD has already added more staff to the RHNA team and, in partnership with our internal audit team, continues to improve the quality of our determination process. HCD remains confident in its approach to the 6th Cycle RHNA Determination both from a legal and methodological perspective. HCD is also confident that, in particular following the auditor<U+2019>s review, process and quality control improvements will be beneficial moving forward. The audit recommendations and HCD<U+2019>s responses are below. Recommendation 1 (Quality Control/Quality Assurance): To ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and do not contain unnecessary errors, by June 2022 HCD should institute a process to ensure its staff perform multiple reviews of data included in its assessments, including data that staff input and councils of governments (COGs) submit. <U+2022> Response: HCD agrees with the first recommendation (page 25 of 38) and will complete documenting the process by the proposed deadline. HCD has started to create additional process documents to aid in implementing this recommendation. HCD is committed to more accurately determining the housing need moving forward and values the improved process suggestions. Recommendation 2 (Jobs Housing Factor and Units Lost): To demonstrate that its needs assessments are complete and address all relevant factors, by September 2022 1 39 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 [phone removed] / FAX [phone removed] HCD should establish a formal process to document its consideration of all factors required by state law in its needs assessments. <U+2022> Response: HCD is committed to continuous process improvement and providing public documentation of the processes we implement. While HCD does consider all factors described in statute, HCD agrees with the second recommendation (page 26 of 38) and has already initiated the creation of additional process documents to aid in implementing this recommendation.1 HCD will complete the documentation process by the proposed deadline. Recommendation 3 (Vacancy Rate): To ensure that it adequately supports the vacancy rate adjustments it makes to needs assessments, by February 2023 HCD should perform a formal analysis of healthy vacancy rates and historical trends to inform those adjustments. <U+2022> Response: As the auditor<U+2019>s report states, the Legislature did not specify what vacancy rate to use for ownership housing. Given that housing units can fluctuate between renter and home ownership, and acceptable rental vacancies could be higher than 5 percent, HCD<U+2019>s 5 percent target rate for total housing stock vacancy is a reasonable application of the statute. However, HCD agrees with the third recommendation (page 26 of 38) and will complete a formal analysis of trends and compile updated research on this topic by the proposed deadline. Recommendation 4 (Comparable Region Analysis): To ensure that it does not reduce its needs assessments based on inappropriate information provided by councils of governments, by June 2022 HCD should develop a formal process to review the appropriateness of councils of governments' proposed comparable regions, including identifying the criteria it will consider when reviewing councils of governments<U+2019> proposals. HCD should use this formal process and criteria to consistently evaluate the appropriateness of the proposals to ensure that they identify regions with healthy housing markets. <U+2022> Response: HCD agrees with the fourth recommendation (page 26 of 38) and, by the proposed deadline, will formalize a technical assistance document outlining the comparable regions process, as well as a list of criteria HCD will use when 1 At the time of this drafting, under confidentiality provisions related to litigation and mediation, HCD is unable to publicly share the details of how it intends to establish a more formal process to document its consideration of all factors in its needs assessments. These confidentiality provisions are anticipated to be lifted contemporaneously with the current publication date of this audit. Should the Auditor require, though HCD does not believe it to be necessary, HCD will supplement this response with the additional information it currently is unable to disclose. 2 3 40 Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 [phone removed] / FAX [phone removed] reviewing comparable region proposals. Though HCD can accept or reject data provided by COGs, HCD also recognizes the inherent challenge of COGs identifying regions that meet both the undefined concept of comparable and having a healthy housing market given the extent California<U+2019>s housing crisis. Sincerely, Gustavo F. Velasquez Director 41 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 COMMENTS CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR<U+2019>S COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSE FROM THE BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the response to the audit from the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (agency) and HCD. The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of the response. The agency and HCD mischaracterize our conclusions. Our report does not state that HCD follows a sound methodology when developing needs assessments. Rather, we identified several problems with HCD<U+2019>s methodology, such as its limited review of staff members<U+2019> data entries and a lack of adequate consideration of factors required by state law. As we state on page 14, HCD could not demonstrate it adequately considered two factors required by state law in the needs assessments we reviewed. Specifically, for the jobs/housing balance in the region, it relied on outdated information during its consideration and did not follow up with regions as it intended. For housing lost in emergencies, HCD did not consistently consider this factor across different regions. As a result, HCD understated housing needs in the Santa Barbara Association<U+2019>s needs assessment and potentially reduced the overall reliability of the assessment. HCD asserts that the 5 percent target rate for total housing stock vacancy is a reasonable application of state law. However, as we note on page 19, HCD did not adequately analyze healthy vacancy rates when it began to use this healthy vacancy rate assumption in 2018. We are concerned that HCD has not completed a formal analysis to support its claim that using the same healthy vacancy rate for both rental and owned housing was appropriate. 1 2 3 42 Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 43 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 MACRO USED: H:\Prod\Template\Dir-Ltrhd.dotm March 4, 2022 Michael Tilden California State Auditor (Acting) 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, California 95814 Re: Department of Finance Response to Draft Audit 2021-125 Dear Michael: The California Department of Finance has received the California State Auditor<U+2019>s (CSA) draft findings concerning the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Process. The below response addresses CSA<U+2019>s findings and recommendations on Finance<U+2019>s household projections. CSA first recommends that Finance review its population projections for counties after 2020 Census data are made available. As this is a standard practice for any demographer updating population projections after the release of a new decennial Census and the department intends to conduct this review as it always has, we agree with CSA<U+2019>s recommendation. Finance<U+2019>s household projections rely on projecting trends in household formation from the 1990, 2000, and 2010 Censuses to 2030. They are intended to show what might happen if these trends continue into the future. There are various reasons why patterns of household formation may be different in the future, such as economic changes, the impact of new government policies, as well as imbalances between housing supply and demand. As these are not generally predictable, we periodically reevaluate trends and assumptions, particularly after the release of a new Census; thus, we agree with the Auditor<U+2019>s second recommendation that Finance review assumptions used in projecting household formation rates after the release of the necessary detailed Census 2020 data later this year. CSA also recommends that Finance document this review. Each decennial Census is an opportunity to reevaluate and reexamine models and assumptions. Much of Finance<U+2019>s analysis and deliberation has traditionally been internal. Finance agrees with the Auditor<U+2019>s recommendation and will explore ways to more fully document existing processes. Finally, as the audit notes, Finance reasonably limits its reliance on Census 2010 data for its household projections because that census occurred during the unique<U+2014>and temporary<U+2014>economic conditions present in the wake of the Great Recession. In consultation with an advisory committee composed of demographers and other experts in academia, government, and the private sector, Finance<U+2019>s process also * California State Auditor<U+2019>s comment appears on page 45. * 1 44 Report 2021-125 | CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR March 2022 reflects the long-run trend evident from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses by using the average of 2000 and 2010 Census headship rates as a reasonable proxy for this trend. Furthermore, Finance notes that the methods used for the current DOF household projections are informed by analysis of as much recent American Community Survey (ACS) data as possible to evaluable changes in household formation since the 2010 Census. Comparisons of Finance<U+2019>s earlier projected headship rates and ACS data indicates that the assumptions underlying the projections are reasonable; and that use of Census 2010 based rates exclusively would have resulted in household under- projection. Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft report. If you have any questions, please contact Walter Schwarm, Chief Demographer. Sincerely, Keely Bosler Director 45 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Report 2021-125 March 2022 COMMENT CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR<U+2019>S COMMENT ON THE RESPONSE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on Finance<U+2019>s response to our audit. The number below corresponds to the number we have placed in the margin of the department<U+2019>s response. Finance overstates our report<U+2019>s conclusions. We did not make a determination that Finance<U+2019>s reduced reliance on 2010 Census data was reasonable. As we indicate on page 27, Finance explained that its household formation rate reflects an assumption that household formation patterns will increase over time to pre2010 levels, and on page 28 we note that some experts Finance contacted expressed concern that 2010 Census data reflected recession conditions. We further note on that page that Finance asserted to us that its household formation rates are reasonable based on these and other considerations. However, Finance did not provide us a documented analysis to demonstrate that the household formation rates it used in its projections were reasonable. 1show more

2022-04-07 · 17 comments · 11 / 6

Jillian Berardini · email · 2022-04-07 · oppose · source packet

Reduce segregation in the housing element draft (Agenda Item 10 - Housing Element Draft)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, SF Planning recognizes that our current land use system in the city amounts to government- led discrimination. Decades of housing scarcity have driven up rents, evictions, and displacement; and BIPOC communities experience the worst of these hardships. It is beyond time for high opportunity neighborhoods to do their fair share to accommodate desperately needed housing at … show more

Robert Fruchtman · email · 2022-04-07 · support · source packet

Address the housing pipeline in the draft element (agenda item 10)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This housing element is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to tackle the housing crisis, and we desperately need solutions that match the scale of the crisis. But instead of proposing solutions that would triple SF<U+2019>s housing production so we can hit our housing targets, the City is predicting that it will be able to to meet RHNA goals using pipeline projects and … show more

Nicholas Linda · email · 2022-04-07 · oppose · source packet

SF must affirmatively further fair housing (Agenda Item 10 - Housing Element Draft)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, SF Planning recognizes that our current land use system in the city amounts to government- led discrimination. Decades of housing scarcity have driven up rents, evictions, and displacement; and BIPOC communities experience the worst of these hardships. It is beyond time for high opportunity neighborhoods to do their fair share to accommodate desperately needed housing at … show more

Angie Gamburg · email · 2022-04-07 · support · source packet

Agenda item 10: housing element update
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This housing element is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to tackle the housing crisis, and we desperately need solutions that match the scale of the crisis. But instead of proposing solutions that would triple SF<U+2019>s housing production so we can hit our housing targets, the City is predicting that it will be able to to meet RHNA goals using pipeline projects and … show more

Diane Robinson · email · 2022-04-07 · support · source packet

Agenda item 10: housing element update
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This housing element is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to tackle the housing crisis, and we desperately need solutions that match the scale of the crisis. But instead of proposing solutions that would triple SF<U+2019>s housing production so we can hit our housing targets, the City is predicting that it will be able to to meet RHNA goals using pipeline projects and … show more

Levi Armlovich · email · 2022-04-07 · support · source packet

Address the housing pipeline in the draft element (agenda item 10)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This housing element is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to tackle the housing crisis, and we desperately need solutions that match the scale of the crisis. But instead of proposing solutions that would triple SF<U+2019>s housing production so we can hit our housing targets, the City is predicting that it will be able to to meet RHNA goals using pipeline projects and … show more

Alex Taylor · email · 2022-04-07 · support · source packet

Address the housing pipeline in the draft element (agenda item 10)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This housing element is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to tackle the housing crisis, and we desperately need solutions that match the scale of the crisis. But instead of proposing solutions that would triple SF<U+2019>s housing production so we can hit our housing targets, the City is predicting that it will be able to to meet RHNA goals using pipeline projects and … show more

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2022-04-07 · oppose · source packet

Comparison 2015 Project to 2022 Project General Public Comment April 7, 2022
Dear President Tanner, Vice President Moore, and Fellow Commissioners Diamond, Fung, Imperial, Koppel and Ruiz: I will show two of the attached photos on the overhead today during General Public Commentone for a 2015 project and one for a current project under construction. Below are four photos of these two different Alteration projects in Noe Valley. Here are the details which I will not have time to go int… Dear President Tanner, Vice President Moore, and Fellow Commissioners Diamond, Fung, Imperial, Koppel and Ruiz: I will show two of the attached photos on the overhead today during General Public Commentone for a 2015 project and one for a current project under construction. Below are four photos of these two different Alteration projects in Noe Valley. Here are the details which I will not have time to go into during General Public Comment on April 7th. Again both were approved as Alteration projects and they were not reviewed by the Commission: The first two photos are of a project on 25th Street from 2015 that was part of a five project sample reviewed by Staff per a request from former Commissioner Richards to gain an understanding of the issue of Demolitions <U+201C>masking<U+201D> as Alterations. After their review, Staff agreed that at least 40% of the sample should have been reviewed as a Demolition. The 2015 project was completed in 2016 and sold for $4.9 Million. (Prior to the <U+201C>flip<U+201D> the house sold for $1.1 Million in 2014. This year was an inflection point for the speculative boom in Noe Valley after the 2008 economic crash). There are no published Demo Calcs for this project on the SFPIM. However during a Public Records Request in August of 2015, I found this matrix on a set of plans dated April 21, 2014. This was previously sent to the Commission as information on the five projects in the 2015 sample, and was most recently sent in 2018 and again in 2020. The second two photos are of a current project on Jersey Street that has received two warning letters from Staff regarding the closeness of Demolition Calculations. It has had three sets of Demo Calcs. The 2019 set is not compliant for the Vertical Elements at 55% Demo<U+2019>ed, but in the 2020 and 2021 set, it is complaint at 49% Demo<U+2019>ed. For the Horizontal Elements, the 2019 set is complaint at 35.4% Demo<U+2019>ed, but in the 2020 set it is not compliant at 52% Demo<U+2019>ed and in the 2021 set it is not compliant at 100% Demo<U+2019>ed. As for the Linear or Lineal Feet, the 2019 set is compliant at 46.9% Demo<U+2019>ed for the two facades, but not compliant with 100% Demo<U+2019>ed in the 2020 and 2021 sets. (For all exterior walls at the Linear or Lineal Feet the 2019 set is compliant at 38.52% Demo<U+2019>ed, and in the 2020 and 2021 set remains compliant, but at 57% Demo<U+2019>ed). Staff has all three sets as well as the 2020 and 2021 <U+201C>warning letters<U+201D> to the Project Sponsor. As a reminder: Under the current, never adjusted numerical values in Section 317, a project is compliant if it remains at 50% or below Demo<U+2019>ed for Vertical and Horizontal Elements as well as for Facades at the Linear or Lineal Feet at the foundation and must remain at 65% or below Demo<U+2019>ed for all Exterior Walls at the Linear or Lineal Feet at the foundation. While this may not seem important in light of all the work necessary on the Housing Element, Section 317 and the Demolition Calculations are part of the Commission<U+2019>s current policy to preserve existing housing because <U+201C>existing housing is the greatest stock of rental and financially accessible residential units, and is a resource in need of protection.<U+201D> And it is usually good to know about the past while lurching into the future. Frankly the photos from 2015 project are fundamentally identical to the photos of 2022 project in my opinion. It would be interesting to know what the Commission thinks. Thank you. Georgia Schuttish 2015 Alteration Project Photo #1 on 25th Street 2015 Alteration Project Photo #2 on 25th Street <U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014> Current Alteration Project Photo #1 on Jersey Street Current Alteration Project Photo #2 on Jersey Streetshow more

Jeremy Linden · email · 2022-04-07 · oppose · source packet

Reduce segregation in the housing element draft (Agenda Item 10 - Housing Element Draft)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, SF Planning recognizes that our current land use system in the city amounts to government- led discrimination. Decades of housing scarcity have driven up rents, evictions, and displacement; and BIPOC communities experience the worst of these hardships. It is beyond time for high opportunity neighborhoods to do their fair share to accommodate desperately needed housing at … show more

Kenneth Russell · email · 2022-04-07 · support · source packet

We need equitable planning in the draft housing element (Item 10)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, SF Planning has set goals for the draft housing element which reflect San Francisco<U+2019>s values of diversity and equity. By building more housing in high opportunity neighborhoods on the west side, we can give kids from working class families a leg up on life. As research from Professor Chetty<U+2019>s team at Harvard has shown, kids from working class fam… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, SF Planning has set goals for the draft housing element which reflect San Francisco<U+2019>s values of diversity and equity. By building more housing in high opportunity neighborhoods on the west side, we can give kids from working class families a leg up on life. As research from Professor Chetty<U+2019>s team at Harvard has shown, kids from working class families enjoy higher upward economic mobility when they grow up in high opportunity areas. However, SF has a long way to go on this front. According to the city<U+2019>s site inventory report, <U+201C>since 2005 only 10% of all housing produced in San Francisco, including affordable housing, has been in [well-resourced] areas<U+201D> (p. 18). To correct this historic injustice, we need to do far more. This point cannot be overstated: the city<U+2019>s plan is to permit new housing on the west side that the city<U+2019>s own constraints analysis claims is not feasible to build. And the city only commits to making apartment buildings feasible to build by 2038. This is a plan to maintain the status quo. To actually build more housing across the income spectrum on the west side, we need to lift the ban on high rises on the west side since, according to the city<U+2019>s own analysis, only high rises pencil out. Furthermore, we need to remove veto points that can be used to block housing. The housing element<U+2019>s analysis of fair housing points out that neighborhood opposition contributes to our scarcity of fair housing. Just look at the proposed affordable housing project at 2550 Irving, where neighbors sued to stop the first proposed affordable housing project in the Sunset District. Exclusionary neighborhoods will use any tools available to avoid change. To comply with our legal and ethical duty to affirmatively further fair housing, the city needs to remove veto points (like discretionary review and conditional use authorization) that are used by NIMBYs to stop housing. Kenneth Russell [email removed] 8400 Oceanview Ter Apt 414 San Francisco, California 94132 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IMMIGRANT RIGHTS COMMISSION 1 1155 Market Street, First Floor San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: [phone removed] Email: [email removed] Website: sfgov.org/immigrant December 28, 2021 Honorable London N. Breed Mayor, San Francisco City and County City Hall, Room 200 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 President Shamann Walton and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors City Hall, Room 244 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 Director Eric Shaw Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development 1 South Van Ness Avenue, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Director Kate Sofis Office of Economic and Workforce Development 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place City Hall, Room 448 San Francisco, CA 94102 President Joel Koppel Planning Commission and Director Rich Hillis San Francisco Planning 49 South Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94103 Acting Director Christina Varner San Francisco Rent Board 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320 San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear City Leaders and Departments, On behalf of the Immigrant Rights Commission, we ask that the City and County of San Francisco reaffirm its commitment to the full integration of the immigrant population in San Francisco by including their concerns and perspectives on equitable and meaningful housing solutions for tackling displacement, promoting the preservation and acquisition of affordable housing stock, and creating greater access to housing and homeownership opportunities for low- to moderate-income residents. Representing more than one-third of San Francisco<U+2019>s population, immigrants are the backbone of the City and have contributed to its cultural and economic success and diversity for decades. As we have seen over the course of the pandemic, immigrants have been disproportionately impacted by socioeconomic challenges and risks of displacement. The Immigrant Rights Commission plays a significant role in uplifting the voices of immigrant residents, particularly in neighborhoods such as the Mission, Chinatown, Japantown, and Tenderloin. City departments such as the Planning Commission and others that address housing issues must work in conjunction with the Immigrant Rights Commission to advance inclusive housing accessibility strategies through a racial equity lens that includes equity analysis and neighborhood-based preservation area plans. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IMMIGRANT RIGHTS COMMISSION 2 1155 Market Street, First Floor San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: [phone removed] Email: [email removed] Website: sfgov.org/immigrant In 2019, the Planning Commission adopted the San Francisco Office of Racial Equity<U+2019>s Citywide Racial Equity Framework. The Planning Department<U+2019>s Action Plan is an essential component of the department<U+2019>s work that was supported by Mayor London Breed, the Board of Supervisors, the Office of Racial Equity, the Human Rights Commission, and many other racial equity champions across the City. To move forward with key principles of a racial equity framework on housing and land use issues, San Francisco must take a step further by enforcing the language included in the framework through meaningful legislation and substantial investments in housing projects that directly impact the immigrant community. The Immigrant Rights Commission acknowledges the City<U+2019>s efforts to expand programs that increase rental affordability and preserve affordable units where tenants face immediate risks of displacement. We would like to emphasize the need to include immigrants as part of the citywide efforts to address the housing crisis, abide by the principles of equity and inclusion, and protect vulnerable tenants who are facing financial hardship and threats of displacement due to the pandemic. We look forward to future collaborations to advance principles of racial equity and expand housing accessibility for all residents, including immigrant residents, families, and workers. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Celine Kennelly Mario Paz Commission Chair Commission Vice Chair Ryan Khojasteh and Nima Rahimi Executive Committee Members Sarah Souza Commissioner, Chair- Language Access Committee San Francisco Immigrant Rights Commission Yes to People. Yes to Housing. A Chapter of YIMBY Action yimbyaction.org April 4, 2022 Kimia Haddadan Project Manager, 2022 Housing Element San Francisco Planning Department Via Email: [email removed] SF YIMBY has carefully analyzed the San Francisco Planning Department<U+2019>s March 2022 draft Housing Element Sites Inventory and Rezoning Program Report, Goals, Objectives, Policies and Actions, and Analysis of Government and Non-Government Constraints Report from its draft housing element. As a member of the Campaign for Fair Housing Elements, led by YIMBY Action and YIMBY Law, our goal is to ensure San Francisco complies with the law and submits a housing element that succeeds in creating a future of abundant housing, armatively furthers fair housing, increases diversity, stabilizes at-risk populations, and builds an equitable, sustainable and thriving city for all. A summary of our state-wide policy goals can be found here. Our analysis focuses on the areas of the housing element we believe will have the greatest impact on the success of the RHNA process. As San Francisco works to accomplish our housing goals, we must also pursue policies that ensure development without displacement. Additional specic policies to advance tenant protections and funding for aordable housing should be pursued in addition to the critical changes outlined here. We thank the San Francisco Planning Department for their work on this draft and hope our comments are constructive in building a city that embodies the values of inclusivity and opportunity for all. 1 Executive Summary We have four major concerns with this current draft of the City<U+2019>s housing element: 1. The City<U+2019>s analysis signicantly overestimates the number of units that its current policies will accommodate during the next RHNA period, meaning the City<U+2019>s RHNA decit is larger than it discloses. The City underestimates its RHNA decit by asserting that its rate of construction will triple without making any policy changes. Under more realistic assumptions, we estimate the City<U+2019>s true RHNA decit is approximately 72,425 units, not 22,555. In order to accommodate this larger decit, the housing element must propose more signicant changes to policies (such as eliminating discretionary review, eliminating conditional use permits for demolitions, and removing the Board of Supervisors from project-level review) and a more signicant rezoning. 2. The City<U+2019>s proposed rezoning of well-resourced areas to accommodate its RHNA decit is unlikely to meaningfully accommodate housing due to constraints the City places on development. The City proposes to accommodate its RHNA decit by changing its zoning to allow low- and mid-rise projects in well-resourced areas. We applaud upzoning well-resourced areas. However, the City<U+2019>s own pro-forma analysis indicates that current constraints on development make these projects economically infeasible<U+2014>meaning its proposed rezoning is unlikely to realistically accommodate nearly any new housing under current policy.1 The City must commit to serious, specic reforms to its permitting process and other policies in order for its proposed rezoning to lead to the tens of thousands of new homes it claims, especially as we pursue building housing in neighborhoods that have historically resisted new neighbors. 3. Because the housing element fails to meaningfully accommodate multifamily developments in well-resourced areas, the housing element fails to armatively further fair housing, as required by state law. State law and guidance from HCD both indicate that a city<U+2019>s housing element is materially inconsistent with state law if they do not accommodate new multifamily housing in 1 See https://www.sfhousingelement.org/draft-analysis-government-and-non-government-constraints-rep ort, Figure 24. 2 well-resourced areas.2 Although the City<U+2019>s proposed rezoning ostensibly allows for low- and mid-rise multifamily development in well-resourced areas, as noted above, the City has failed to propose specic policies that would remove the constraints which its own analysis shows make such development infeasible. The current draft housing element therefore fails to armatively further fair housing. 4. The housing element fails to describe how the City will comply with state housing laws such as the Housing Accountability Act, the Permit Streamlining Act, and the State Density Bonus Law. Guidance from HCD<U+2014>including explicit instructions it issued to the City<U+2014>is clear that the housing element must describe how it will comply with state housing laws, but the current draft does not do so.3 Moreover, HCD cannot take the City<U+2019>s compliance with these laws for granted, as it explicitly stated in a recent letter to the City.4 Given that the city concedes its own noncompliance with the Permit Streamlining Act, the housing element must include a program to recognize and process entitlements that are <U+201C>deemed approved<U+201D> by operation of the PSA. We detail these concerns below, and provide an Appendix with our supporting analysis. In summary, though, in light of the City<U+2019>s recent historical record of only accommodating 2,929 housing units per year and largely accommodating these units outside well-resourced areas, the City<U+2019>s housing element falls far short of articulating a plan for accommodating the 11,797 units per year it must under its RHNA obligations and to armatively further fair housing.5 The City<U+2019>s RHNA obligations require it to accommodate four times as much housing per year as it has recently<U+2014>equivalent to accommodating a new 100-unit development every three days. The City<U+2019>s draft housing element clearly does not present a plan to accommodate the number of homes needed to meet these obligations. We close our letter with recommendations for bringing the City<U+2019>s housing element into compliance. 5 Similar to the City<U+2019>s reports, for shorthand, when we refer to RHNA obligations, we denote both the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation as well as HCD's recommended 15% No Net Loss buer. Likewise, when we refer to the city's RHNA decit, we denote the decit in accommodating the city's RHNA with HCD's recommended 15% No Net Loss buer. 4https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sfrsanfrancisco-loi-ta-112 221.pdf. 3 Ibid. 2 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/ah/docs/ah_document_nal_4-27-2021.pdf. 3 Explanation The City<U+2019>s Analysis Signicantly Overestimates The Number of Units Current Policies Will Accommodate, Thereby Understating the Units it Must Accommodate Through Rezoning. The City argues that current policy will accommodate 71,824 units of housing in San Francisco over the 2023-2031 RHNA period, leaving a decit of only 22,555 units. The implausibility of this claim is readily apparent by simply comparing recent rates of housing production to the rates of housing production the City assumes will occur during the 2023-2031 RHNA period under current policy. Eectively, the City<U+2019>s analysis presumes that the City is already on track to accommodate over two-thirds of the City<U+2019>s RHNA obligations under its longstanding policies. But this requires assuming the City is somehow already on track to nearly triple its recent rate of housing production. The City<U+2019>s most recent 10-year average of annual housing production is 2,929 units per year.6 At this annual rate, the City would accommodate only approximately 23,400 units over the next eight-year RHNA cycle. Yet, the City<U+2019>s draft housing element argues that the City would somehow realize 65,000 new units over the next RHNA cycle under current policy alone.7 We conducted an independent analysis of the City<U+2019>s projections, relying on the City<U+2019>s own data, analysis, and commissioned reports. Based on our analysis, we believe the City<U+2019>s March 2022 proposals only demonstrate capacity for accommodating 21,954 units of housing during the next RHNA period, meaning the City still must propose additional policies to accommodate an additional 72,425 units of housing in order to produce a compliant housing element. Our dierences with the Department<U+2019>s projections report fall into several main areas, which we elaborate in the Appendix to this letter: 7 This gure is a total of the 44,234 units the City is claiming from its <U+201C>housing pipeline<U+201D>, the 10,398 units it claims from <U+201C>underutilized sites<U+201D>, and the 10,518 units it claims from sites meeting low-income criteria. 6 https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/les/documents/reports/2020_Housing_Inventory.pdf. 4 Housing Pipeline. The City claims that housing projects already in its pipeline and that have not yet received building permits will produce 44,234 housing units during the next eight years. HCD has previously suggested that cities consider <U+201C>past completion rates<U+201D> for <U+201C>pipeline project[s]<U+201D> when crediting units towards a City<U+2019>s RHNA obligations.8 Based on historical rates of completion, the City<U+2019>s housing pipeline of projects currently without building permits only appears likely to accommodate approximately 9,254 units of housing during the next 8 years.9 By contrast, the City proposes to assume that the rate at which its housing projects <U+201C>in the pipeline<U+201D> will produce permitted housing will more than quadruple (from 17% to 80%) during the next RHNA cycle. This assumption is not reasonable, especially in light of the City<U+2019>s own ndings that the City has recently placed a number of new constraints on development. (Dierence: 34,980 units) Underutilized and Vacant Sites. The City relied on an econometric model to estimate the probability that currently underutilized and vacant sites would be developed. Although we applaud the use of such a model, the City used estimates capturing the probability that sites would be developed within the next 15 years, not within the next eight<U+2014>eectively assuming that the rate of development on underutilized and vacant sites would double during the next RHNA period. While the City points to the availability of state density bonuses and favorable changes in state law since the analysis took place to justify this decision, the City<U+2019>s reports also document new unfavorable challenges to development that have materialized since this analysis took place, making it unreasonable to assume that the rate of housing production on underutilized and vacant sites would double during the next RHNA period. The City also makes the unrealistic assumption that any developed parcel would accommodate the maximum number of units allowed under zoning, when its own reports show this is unlikely. (Dierence: 4,852 units) 100% Aordable Housing from Sites Meeting Low Income Criteria and Publicly Funded Projects. The City asserts that sites meeting low income criteria and publicly funded projects will accommodate 10,518 units in 100% aordable 9 https://drive.google.com/le/d/1gc8dEXA3ifCf7fjbTQ8bYwtRPMD4_OdT/view. 8 See https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/lanlacitydraft090321.pdf, page 3. 5 developments over the next eight years, a rate of 1,314 units per year. However, the City has only produced an average of 531 units in 100% aordable developments per year over the last ve years from these sources.10 The number of such units developed per year has not been on an upward trajectory over the last ve years,11 nor does the City project that funding for 100% aordable developments will meaningfully increase during the next RHNA cycle; the City actually projects a decrease in such funding.12 HCD should not credit these units towards the City<U+2019>s RHNA obligations unless the City provides both documentation of funding sources and a more realistic, detailed assessment of the probability this housing would be accommodated. (Dierence: 8,857 units) SB 9. The City predicts that SB 9 will produce 1,500 units during the 2023-2031 RHNA period. However, other City analysis has found that SB 9 projects are economically infeasible in San Francisco, and the City has only received ten SB 9 applications in the three months SB 9 has been in eect. Even assuming 100% of SB 9 applications result in completed projects, this trend suggests the City cannot reasonably assume it will receive any more than 40 SB 9 applications per year. Finally, the draft element ignores HCD<U+2019>s guidance about the requirements it must satisfy to count SB 9 units towards its RHNA obligations, including conducting a site-specic inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are being applied;13 if the City<U+2019>s element predicts it will accommodate 1,500 units under SB 9, HCD requires it to list the sites where these units will be built. (Dierence: 1,180 units) The Appendix to this letter provides further details on our analysis of each of these categories.14 14 We also note, although we do not include in our totals, that Planning failed to follow HCD guidance with regard to counting the number of ADUs the City is likely to accommodate during the next RHNA cycle. See https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fcea2bac5ab4f3059545081/t/603d407358b15d5dd4f6ba76/ 1614626932351/210219+Letter+to+HCD+-+Certied+HEs.pdf, section 4 for a review. 13 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/planning-and-community-development/sb9factsheet.pdf, page 6. 12 See https://www.sfhousingelement.org/draft-analysis-government-and-non-government-constraints-rep ort, Figure 3. 11 Ibid. 10 https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/les/documents/reports/2020_Housing_Inventory.pdf, Table 25. 6 In summary, the City proposes to meet over two-thirds of its RHNA obligations by assuming that housing production would nearly triple over the next eight years. Under current policy, this is not plausible based on the City<U+2019>s recent rate of housing construction and the City<U+2019>s own analysis that it has recently increased constraints on development. Indeed, the trends documented in the city<U+2019>s DRAFT Analysis of Government and Non-Government Constraints Report (Mar. 2022) suggest, if anything, that the City should expect its housing production rate under current policy to decline over the next RHNA cycle: construction costs have increased, and the Board of Supervisors has substantially increased fees, exactions, BMR mandates, and requirements for expensive design features like greywater systems. Indeed, a majority of developers <U+201C>have no plans to keep building in San Francisco after their current projects are entitled<U+201D> (p. 2). The City<U+2019>s housing element will not be compliant if it so blatantly ignores its own data and analysis about housing production under current City policy. In addition, as HCD has also noted, the Board of Supervisors has recently had a track record of vindicating dubious appeals of housing approvals, casting further doubt on the city<U+2019>s ability to increase housing production without substantially curtailing the Board<U+2019>s review of individual projects.15 Correcting the City<U+2019>s dramatic overestimation of how much housing it can reasonably accommodate under current policy reveals that its RHNA decit is much larger that it currently discloses. In order to accommodate this larger decit, the City<U+2019>s housing element must propose more signicant reductions in constraints on development, and a more signicant rezoning, than it currently proposes. Table 1 summarizes the implications of our analysis for the City<U+2019>s RHNA decit. The analyses described above indicate that the City<U+2019>s current RHNA decit is 72,425 units, not the 22,555 units the current draft of its housing element indicates. Given the City<U+2019>s ndings that only high-rise developments in high-demand areas are economically feasible under current policy,16 in order to meet this large decit the City likely must both a) more meaningfully reduce constraints on development, and b) expand its rezoning proposals to include high-rise development in certain well-resourced areas in high-demand neighborhoods where development is economically feasible. We elaborate on these needs below. 16https://www.sfhousingelement.org/draft-analysis-government-and-non-government-constraints-re port, Figure 24. 15https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sfrsanfrancisco-ta-02012 2.pdf. As HCD notes, <U+201C>the City/County should consider the eect of the Board of Supervisors<U+2019> decision-making process on the ability to meet housing element objectives and include program actions as appropriate to facilitate more eective housing programs.<U+201D> 7 Table 1. Units Accommodated Under Current Policy and Unmet RHNA Decit: Comparing SF Planning<U+2019>s Analysis to SF YIMBY Analysis SF Planning's Analysis, March 2022 Report Draft SF YIMBY Analysis Units Accounted for by March 2022 Housing Sites Inventory and Rezoning Program Report 71,824 21,954 Remaining Decit from 2023-2031 RHNA Obligations (with Buer) 22,555 72,425 The City<U+2019>s Proposed Rezoning Program Will Not Accommodate Its RHNA Decit Without Additional Policy Changes Reducing Constraints on Development Our second major concern with the City<U+2019>s draft housing element is that its proposed rezoning program of well-resourced areas to close its RHNA decit is unlikely to accommodate a meaningful quantity of housing unless the City commits to making other signicant policy changes that reduce constraints on development that would make new housing economically feasible under this rezoning. Because it would fail to result in new housing in well-resourced areas, the City<U+2019>s proposed rezoning fails to close even the City<U+2019>s own underestimate of its RHNA decit. The City<U+2019>s own analysis nds that the rezoning of well-resourced areas it has proposed would not accommodate additional housing because the housing it proposes to allow would be economically infeasible. In particular, the City<U+2019>s draft housing element proposes a rezoning program to accommodate the shortfall of capacity under current zoning solely by upzoning transit corridors in well-resourced areas for mid-rise projects, and residential neighborhoods in these areas for fourplexes. In its Draft Sites Inventory and Rezoning Program Report (Mar. 2022), the City claims it can accommodate 22,555 new housing units with this proposed rezoning over the next eight years. However, the City<U+2019>s own pro-forma analysis indicates that current constraints on development make both mid-rise and low-rise projects economically infeasible citywide. Indeed, in most of the well-resourced areas the City proposes to rezone for such projects, the City actually estimates that the rate 8 of return on such projects would be negative.17 As it stands, the City<U+2019>s own analysis therefore indicates that its proposed rezoning would accommodate little to no additional housing at all. DRAFT 3 of Goals, Objectives, Policies and Actions attempts to address this with Policies 25 (a), 25 (d), and 26 (a) to make small multi-family buildings feasible.18 However: The City<U+2019>s proposals are quite modest and overly vague. These proposals are modest because a) they are written to commit the City to only addressing a few constraints to housing development, when the City<U+2019>s own analysis of constraints claims on page 1 that housing is dying a <U+201C>death by a thousand cuts;<U+201D> and b) these incrementalist proposals do not match the scale of the problem when the City<U+2019>s own analysis indicates that low-rise apartments currently have negative returns on investment in most high opportunity neighborhoods.19 Additionally, policies 25 (a) and 26 (a) are vague because they merely list a series of possible policies as examples of what the City may eventually implement without committing the City to any particular course of action. Moreover, these actions include no scheduled timeline with start and end dates, as required under state law.20 Instead, these programs are given a <U+201C>timeframe<U+201D> classied as Medium; the draft describes Medium timeframes as lasting 6-15 years.21 The Department is therefore telling HCD that it knows that it plans to accommodate its 6th Cycle RHNA goals by permitting a building type which won<U+2019>t become feasible until<U+2014>at the earliest<U+2014>75% of the RHNA cycle has elapsed. Considering San Francisco<U+2019>s historical rates of housing production, the City will not be able to accommodate its RHNA goals using this policy. Additionally, HCD recommends that policies also provide specic, measurable outcomes that can be used to monitor and evaluate the success of these policies. We recommend that the specic, measurable outcome for tracking the success of 21 https://sfhousingelement.org/draft-3-goals-objectives-policies-and-actions, page 4. 20 Government Code section 65583(c). 19 See https://www.sfhousingelement.org/draft-analysis-government-and-non-government-constraints-rep ort, Figure 24. 18 https://sfhousingelement.org/draft-3-goals-objectives-policies-and-actions, page 26. 17 See https://www.sfhousingelement.org/draft-analysis-government-and-non-government-constraints-rep ort, Figure 24. 9 these policies be (1) building 8,220 units of low income housing, 3,430 units of middle income housing, and 8,868 units of above moderate income housing in high opportunity areas by mid-cycle. In other words, the City<U+2019>s policies should actually place high opportunity areas to be on track to accommodate 25% of the City<U+2019>s RHNA progress, as is the City<U+2019>s goal; and (2) updating the city<U+2019>s project tracking software and database so as to publicly document compliance with the timelines of the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov<U+2019>t Code 65950) as well as the notice requirements of the Housing Accountability Act (Gov<U+2019>t Code 65589.5(j)(2)) We believe a compliant housing element will require three adjustments to the City<U+2019>s upzoning proposal: 1. The City must make specic, meaningful proposals to reduce constraints on development in order for its proposed upzoning to help accommodate new housing. It must make these proposals on a faster and more specic timeline and tie them to specic, measurable outcomes. Unfortunately, the City did not make specic, meaningful proposals to reduce constraints on development in rezoned areas (e.g., impact fees and discretionary reviews), meaning there is no reason to expect the mid- or low-rise projects it proposes to rezone for would become economically feasible in rezoned areas during the next RHNA period. We applaud the City for proposing to upzone well-resourced neighborhoods. But if its upzoning of these areas is going to make a meaningful dent in the City<U+2019>s shortfall of realistic capacity, the City will have to make large commitments to reducing regulatory costs and uncertainty. This will probably require eliminating or substantially curtailing discretionary review, eliminating conditional use permits for demolitions, removing the Board of Supervisors from project-level review, recognized <U+201C>deemed approved<U+201D> permits as required by the Permit Streamlining Act, and substantially reducing the total per-square-foot cost of fees, exactions, inclusionary units, and requirements for bells and whistles 10 like greywater treatment systems.22 HCD should not credit any units from this proposed rezoning program towards the City<U+2019>s RHNA obligations unless this rezoning program is accompanied by specic, meaningful proposals to relax constraints on development in rezoned areas. In order to achieve a housing element that HCD should accept as credible, San Francisco will need to specify the legislative changes it will make to reduce constraints on development and when it will make them. 2. The City should commit to complete an economic feasibility study of its rezoning plan and adjust its claims of capacity based on a reasonable projection of the probability that rezoned sites will be developed. We laud the City<U+2019>s decision to project the probability that sites would be developed as part of the Underutilized and Vacant Sites portion of its RHNA obligations, but such an analysis (and/or an economic feasibility study) is conspicuously absent from its analysis of its upzoning proposal. (It would also be helpful to update the pro-forma analysis to account for post-Covid changes in demand, which may result in even high-rise projects being less feasible today than they were at the time of the study.) The City<U+2019>s own ndings indicate that many forms of development are currently economically unfeasible, including the very forms of development it plans to rezone to allow. As a result, we do not believe HCD should credit any units from the City<U+2019>s proposed rezoning program unless the City commits to studying whether any policy changes it proposes to make will render its proposed rezoning program eective at accommodating enough housing to cover its RHNA decit. 3. Finally, as noted in the rst part of our letter, it seems quite likely that accommodating the current shortfall of capacity (again, about 72,255 units per our estimate) will require further upzoning in well-resourced areas with strong rental markets. In particular, the City may wish to consider rezoning well-resourced 22 Although San Francisco<U+2019>s city charter provides for discretionary review, this provision of the charter is superseded by certain state laws that require or authorize ministerial review of certain types of housing projects. For example, sites that a city must rezone to accommodate its lower-income RHNA must be zoned to allow 20% low-income projects as of right (Gov<U+2019>t Code 65583.2(c)); so too for sites that are <U+201C>recycled<U+201D> from a previous housing element if the new housing element relies on them for accommodating the lower income RHNA (Gov<U+2019>t Code 65583.2(g)(2)). San Francisco also has authority to create <U+201C>Housing Sustainability Districts<U+201D> in which housing developments are reviewed ministerially (Gov<U+2019>t Code 66201), although larger projects in these districts are subject to labor requirements that may operate as a constraint. 11 areas in high-demand neighborhoods for the type of high-rise projects shown to be feasible by the City<U+2019>s pro-forma analysis.23 The Housing Element Is Materially Inconsistent With The City<U+2019>s Obligation to Afrmatively Further Fair Housing Because the housing element fails to take meaningful actions to reduce constraints on multifamily developments in well-resourced areas, the housing element fails to armatively further fair housing. Guidance from HCD indicates that housing elements are materially inconsistent with state AFFH law if they do not accommodate new multifamily housing in well-resourced areas.24 Although the City<U+2019>s proposed rezoning ostensibly allows for low- and mid-rise multifamily development in well-resourced areas, the City<U+2019>s own analysis shows that other constraints it places on development still make low- and mid-rise multifamily development in well-resourced areas infeasible, and its own program to address these constraints would have little to no eect until little time is left in the RHNA cycle.25 The current draft housing element therefore fails to armatively further fair housing because it still will not accommodate multifamily development in well-resourced areas. The City<U+2019>s draft AFFH analysis also does not supply meaningful actions to address key contributing factors identied in the element. The draft states, correctly in our view, that <U+201C>community opposition to aordable housing and permanent supportive housing development has been a signicant factor contributing to ongoing racial and economic segregation in San Francisco.<U+201D>26 The analysis then goes on to note, again correctly, that <U+201C>[b]y-right zoning laws and CEQA exemptions can ease the legal challenges with opening 26 https://sfhousingelement.org/draft-housing-needs-assessment-and-assessment-fair-housing, page 200. 25 See the prior sections of this letter. 24 See https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/ah/docs/ah_document_nal_4-27-2021.pdf, page 16. 23 Examining Figures 1, 23, and 24 from https://www.sfhousingelement.org/draft-analysis-government-and-non-government-constraints-rep ort suggests that well-resourced neighborhoods where upzoning for high-rises could plausibly create new housing under current law include, among others, areas of the Financial District, Russian Hill, North Beach, the Marina, Pacic Heights, and Noe Valley. 12 these programs.<U+201D>27 In response, CEQA streamlining is included in the draft in Policy 25, action (d),28 through <U+201C>Community Plan Exemptions or by adopting Housing Sustainability Districts within Well-resourced Neighborhoods outside of areas vulnerable to displacement.<U+201D>29 However, this program has a timeframe of 6<U+2013>15 years to complete while failing to commit to a single specic action, so it is insucient for the 6th Cycle: it will apply for a fraction of the cycle, if it is completed during the cycle. Failing to address this key barrier to accommodating new housing is materially inconsistent with armatively furthering fair housing. In fact, HCD guidance on AFFH even states that <U+201C>[local vetoes] of aordable and mixed-income housing in racially segregated concentrated areas of auence create fair housing issues.<U+201D>30 The Housing Element Fails To Describe How The City Will Comply With State Fair Housing Laws, Despite Explicit Instructions from HCD To Do So The housing element fails to describe how the City will comply with state fair housing laws such as the Housing Accountability Act, the Permit Streamlining Act, and the State Density Bonus Law, as HCD instructs.31 Guidance from HCD is clear that the City<U+2019>s housing element must describe how it will comply with these laws. This omission is particularly concerning because the City has received feedback from HCD that it believes the City may be failing to comply with laws around housing approval timelines, writing in a November 2021 letter, <U+201C>HCD is concerned about the signicant delays in the approval of housing generally and in the City/County in particular.<U+201D>32 32 See https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sfrsanfrancisco-loi-ta-1122 21.pdf, page 3. 31 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/ah/docs/ah_document_nal_4-27-2021.pdf, page 29. 30 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/ah/docs/ah_document_nal_4-27-2021.pdf, page 15. 29 https://sfhousingelement.org/draft-3-goals-objectives-policies-and-actions, page 76. 28 https://sfhousingelement.org/draft-housing-needs-assessment-and-assessment-fair-housing, page 204. 27 Ibid. 13 In that same letter, HCD directed the City to describe how it complies with the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) and the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) in its 6th Cycle element: Academic research continues to show that San Francisco<U+2019>s processing and entitlement timeframes and procedures exceed the norms for other jurisdictions of similar size and complexity and act as a constraint on the development of housing. As part of the housing element<U+2019>s analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints on housing pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(5), it must describe and analyze the permit process from application to approvals, including a discussion on timeframe for each step in the process, impediments, and how it addresses state law application processing requirements such as those found in the Permit Streamlining Act and the HAA.33 [emphasis added] If one were to doubt the seriousness of this directive, HCD repeated it for good measure in another letter it sent to the Department in February.34 HCD has asked the City to take these steps for good reason: the City routinely openly and agrantly violates multiple state fair housing laws. For instance, the City openly admits it does not follow the Permit Streamlining Act on its public website, telling the public that <U+201C>[the Planning] Department does not have a system in place for tracking compliance with Permit Streamlining Act time limits.<U+201D>35 The same website even states outright, <U+201C>[t]he Planning Department is not operating in compliance with State time limits on development project applications.<U+201D>36 The City<U+2019>s own website also admits that it is clearly cognisant of the PSA<U+2019>s provisions related to permit timelines, that it regularly and agrantly violates said provisions, and has done so since 2001 and probably earlier: The [Planning Department<U+2019>s] process for determining completeness is unclear and often consumes more than 30 days. Median processing time for a sample of 19 cases approved in 2001 that did not require environmental impact reports was 80 36 Ibid. 35 https://sfbos.org/permit-streamlining-act. 34https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sfrsanfrancisco-ta-02012 2.pdf, page 2. 33 Ibid, page 5. 14 days, which is 20 days more, or 33 percent, than the 60 maximum days allowed by State law. A similar analysis of environmental review case processing time is not possible because the Department does not keep records of when applications are determined complete, the starting point for State environmental review time limits. However, median processing time for a sample of 56 environmental review cases was 211 days, or 31 more than the 180 day maximum allowed by State law. Even if sta took the full 30 days allowed by State law to determine application completeness on all these cases before beginning their evaluation, 28 cases, or half of the cases reviewed, still exceeded the State time limits.37 The City<U+2019>s draft element briey notes a subset of the requirements of the HAA38 and the PSA,39 but it otherwise provides no analysis of how applications are processed in accordance with the PSA or HAA. The draft does describe the permit process, and the Department<U+2019>s descriptions of its own timelines shows permit processing times that it itself would characterize as violations of state law. The City<U+2019>s draft element demonstrates that City violations of the PSA have only worsened since 2001. For instance, gures from 2015<U+2013>2021 show that the median Negative Declaration takes 788 days to publish,40 and that the median Discretionary Review period for applications takes 154 days.41 Additionally, the same table shows that approval of an Environmental Impact Report takes 1,004 days on average,42 when state law generally imposes a time limit of one year.43 Despite these agrant violations of state law and HCD<U+2019>s explicit instructions to the City to detail how they will remedy these violations specically in the context of a 6th Cycle housing element, the City<U+2019>s draft does not commit to<U+2014>nor plan to<U+2014>become compliant with the PSA or the HAA. The draft also fails to dene scheduled programs to bring down permitting timelines into compliance with the PSA. While the draft does list programs like Policy 25, action (a) to establish streamlining processes for applications,44 this program 44 https://sfhousingelement.org/draft-3-goals-objectives-policies-and-actions, page 77. 43 Public Resources code section 21151.5. 42 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 40 Ibid, 36. 39 Ibid, 23. 38 https://sfhousingelement.org/draft-analysis-government-and-non-government-constraints-report, page 20. 37 https://sfbos.org/permit-streamlining-act. 15 does not set a goal of compliance with state law, nor does it set a date by which it will do so. Given the city<U+2019>s long history of violating the PSA, the city must, at a minimum, commit to recording (and making publicly available) for each project (1) the date on which the project application was determined or deemed to be complete, and (2) the date of the project<U+2019>s CEQA clearance (exemption, negative declaration, or certication of EIR), so that the city and the developer can know the date on which the project becomes <U+201C>deemed approved<U+201D> per the PSA. At that point, the planning review is complete by operation of law and the city has a duty to issue building permits.45 45 Government Code 65943, 65950. 16 Recommendations We share the City<U+2019>s goal of producing a compliant housing element for the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle. We also appreciate the hard work the Planning Department has done on its housing element drafts to date. However, the City<U+2019>s current analyses of both how much housing it is likely to accommodate under current policy and the impact of its proposed rezoning program are, unfortunately, highly unrealistic. We remind the Planning Department that the City<U+2019>s RHNA obligations require it to accommodate four times as much housing per year as it does currently<U+2014>equivalent to accommodating a new 100-unit development every three days. The City<U+2019>s draft housing element clearly does not present a plan to so dramatically increase how much housing the City accommodates. The draft element also fails to armatively further fair housing because it does not present a plan that would accommodate new housing in well-resourced areas, and the draft element does not follow HCD<U+2019>s explicit instructions to detail how it will comply with state fair housing laws. As the City is well aware, failure to produce a compliant element would pose drastic consequences for State funding and allow developers to ignore City zoning and general plan requirements<U+2014>including its inclusionary zoning requirements<U+2014>when proposing new developments. Nor can the City assume that CEQA will act as a backstop to allow it to disapprove projects, as housing developments in the City with only 10% aordable units are likely to become exempt from CEQA review under SB 35 in several years if the City does not build the housing it promises. In order to produce a compliant housing element, we believe the City<U+2019>s housing element must therefore make the following changes: More accurately account for the number of units it is likely to accommodate under current policy and, correspondingly, the true size of its RHNA decit. Propose specic, meaningful changes to City policies that constrain development, such as CEQA streamlining, by right ministerial review for all rezoned sites, eliminating or substantially curtailing discretionary review, eliminating conditional use permits for demolitions, removing the Board of Supervisors from project-level review, and substantially reducing the total per-square-foot cost of fees, exactions, inclusionary units, and requirements for bells and whistles like greywater treatment 17 systems. State law is clear that the City must also propose timelines for when these changes will come into eect. HCD further recommends that the City outline measurable outcomes to monitor success. Commit to completing an economic feasibility study of its rezoning plans and/or adjusting its claims of capacity based on a reasonable projection of the probability that rezoned sites will be developed. Commit to additional rezonings of economically feasible housing in well-resourced areas in order to accommodate its true RHNA decit and armatively further fair housing. Commit to compliance with state fair housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act, the State Density Bonus Law, and the Permit Streamlining Act, per HCD<U+2019>s explicit instructions to the City. Sincerely, Robert Fruchtman, David Broockman, and Salim Damerdji, San Francisco YIMBY Laura Foote, Executive Director, YIMBY Action Anne Paulson, Volunteer with YIMBY Law CC: Shelley Caltagirone, San Francisco Planning Department Malena Leon-Farrera, San Francisco Planning Department Lisa Gluckstein, Oce of San Francisco Mayor London Breed Commissioners, San Francisco Planning Commission Paul McDougall, California Department of Housing and Community Development Gustavo Velasquez, California Department of Housing and Community Development Megan Kirkeby, California Department of Housing and Community Development Melinda Coy, California Department of Housing and Community Development David Zisser, California Department of Housing and Community Development Matthew Struhar, California Attorney General<U+2019>s Oce Housing Strike Force Keith Diggs and Sonja Trauss, YIMBY Law 18 Appendix In this Appendix, we elaborate in further detail on our analysis of the number of units the City is likely to accommodate under existing policy during the next RHNA period. Table A1 summarizes our analysis of the SF Planning Department<U+2019>s March 2022 draft of its Housing Element Sites Inventory and Rezoning Program Report. In this Appendix we detail several areas where we believe the City<U+2019>s report signicantly overstates the amount of housing it is reasonable to assume will be accommodated during the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle. Table A1. Summary of Disputes with San Francisco Planning Projections Unit Counts Category SF Planning's Analysis, March 2022 Report Draft SF YIMBY Analysis Dierence Dispute with SF Planning Projections Existing "Housing Pipeline" (DAs/Large Projects; Privately Funded Developments) 44,234 9,254 -34,980 Underutilized and Vacant Sites Modeled Estimate of Units 10,398 5,546 -4,852 100% Aordable Housing: Sites meeting Low Income Criteria and 100% Aordable Publicly Funded 10,518 1,661 -8,857 SB 9 1,500 320 -1,180 No Dispute with SF Planning Projections ADUs 2,000 Aordable Preservation Rehab & Acquisitions 1,674 Preservation Acquisitions 1,500 Totals Units Accounted for by March 2022 Housing Sites Inventory and Rezoning Program Report 71,824 21,954 2023-2030 RHNA Obligation with 15% Buer 94,379 94,379 Remaining Decit from 2023-2031 RHNA Obligations (with buer) 22,555 72,425 49,870 19 Overestimating <U+201C>Housing Pipeline<U+201D> Units Likely to Be Constructed First, according to the Department<U+2019>s Sites Inventory and Rezoning Program Report, San Francisco Planning proposes to count projects in the City<U+2019>s housing pipeline with Planning Approval or Filings and with Building Permit Filings <U+2013> but without approved building permits <U+2013> towards its 2023-2031 RHNA obligations. In particular, the Report proposes to count: 25,683 units from DAs/Large Projects that have been entitled but do not have building permits (p. 9), 5,209 units from DAs/ Large Projects Not Yet Entitled that are not entitled and do not have building permits (p. 10), and 13,342 units from Privately Funded Developments without DAs in the pipeline that do not have building permits (p. 10) towards the City<U+2019>s RHNA obligations. These three categories total to 44,234 units in the City<U+2019>s housing pipeline that the Report counts towards the City<U+2019>s RHNA obligations, representing nearly half of the City<U+2019>s 2023-2031 RHNA obligations. The Report notes that these totals are adjusted and discounted, in the case of the rst two categories, <U+201C>to more realistically reect units likely to be delivered within the period of 2023-2030<U+201D> (p. 8) and, for the third category, <U+201C>based on the rates of projects that are cancelled, expired, or withdrawn in each phase<U+201D> (p. 9). However, the Report does not provide details on how these adjustments and discounts were made. UC Berkeley professor David Broockman conducted an analysis of the number of units that are likely to receive approved or issued building permits or to start construction among those currently in the City<U+2019>s housing pipeline and have not yet received building permits.46 In particular, in order to form expectations about the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle, Broockman examined the eight most recent years in the City<U+2019>s housing pipeline data,47 Q1 2013 - Q4 2021, in order to estimate the probability that units in projects at various stages <U+201C>in the pipeline<U+201D> typically receive building permits or start construction within an eight year period. 47 https://sfplanning.org/project/pipeline-report. 46 See https://drive.google.com/le/d/1gc8dEXA3ifCf7fjbTQ8bYwtRPMD4_OdT/view. Broockman<U+2019>s gures did not count 5,124 units in the <U+201C>Building Permit Filed<U+201D> category. In correspondence, Broockman conrmed these units were not and should have been included, meaning his analysis underestimated the City<U+2019>s RHNA decit. 20 HCD has previously endorsed this methodology for forecasting how many units a City is likely to accommodate.48 Broockman found that only approximately 17% of units in San Francisco<U+2019>s <U+201C>housing pipeline<U+201D> as of eight years ago but without building permits at that time received issued or approved building permits or started construction within the following eight years. Further, City data shows that 55,300 units are currently in its <U+201C>housing pipeline<U+201D> and do not yet have building permits. Combining these two gures (17% of 55,300) indicates that the City cannot reasonably count much more than approximately 9,254 of these 55,300 units currently <U+201C>in the pipeline<U+201D> without building permits towards its 2023-2031 RHNA obligations. By contrast, the City<U+2019>s report assumes that 44,234<U+2014>or 80%<U+2014>of these units will receive building permits within the next eight years. In other words, the City proposes to assume that the rate at which its housing projects <U+201C>in the pipeline<U+201D> will produce permitted housing will more than quadruple (17% to 80%) during the next RHNA cycle.49 Of course, it is possible that that pipeline yield over the next eight years will more than quadruple. But the trends documented in the city<U+2019>s DRAFT Analysis of Government and Non-Government Constraints Report (Mar. 2022) if anything suggest the City should expect to see a decline in yield from its housing pipeline: construction costs have increased, and the Board of Supervisors has substantially increased fees, exactions, BMR mandates, and requirements for expensive design features like greywater systems. In fact, given these headwinds, the City<U+2019>s pro-forma analysis found that, as a general matter, the only type of housing project that currently <U+201C>pencils<U+201D> in the city is a 24+ story apartment tower in an inner-ring, high-demand neighborhood. Under these circumstances, the yield from the pipeline over the last eight years should probably be treated as an optimistic proxy for the yield over the next RHNA cycle<U+2014>unless the city can convincingly document economic feasibility and intended construction start dates for current pipeline projects and provide a 49 Even if the City wishes to quibble with the details of this analysis, the big picture is clear: its <U+201C>pipeline<U+201D> of units without building permits is only 44% larger than it was eight years ago, yet the City proposes to assume that its recent rate of housing construction will more than triple even absent other changes in City policy. WIthout signicant policy changes, this assumption is untenable. 48 In particular, HCD encouraged Los Angeles to consider <U+201C>supporting information for past completion rates and identify the actual completion rate applied to pipeline project[s].<U+201D> See https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/lanlacitydraft090321.pdf. 21 comparable retrospective analysis showing that the <U+201C>pipeline prospects<U+201D> were substantially worse eight years ago.50 Overestimating Likely Construction on Underutilized and Vacant Sites The City relied on a model from Blue Sky Consulting Group to estimate the probability that currently underutilized or vacant sites would be developed during the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle. We applaud the City<U+2019>s decision to model the probability that these sites would accommodate housing during the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle. However, the City notes that Blue Sky<U+2019>s model produces estimates of the amount of housing the City would produce on these sites over the next thirty years. The City<U+2019>s draft housing element simply cuts Blue Sky<U+2019>s 30-year estimates by 50% to account for the fact that its next RHNA period is eight years long, not 30 years long. But it seems more reasonable to multiply Blue Sky<U+2019>s 30-year estimates by , not , given that the next RHNA period covers eight years, not 15 years. 8 30 15 30 Multiplying Blue Sky<U+2019>s forecasts by instead of yields an estimate of only 5,546 units 8 30 15 30 that existing underutilized and vacant sites are likely to accommodate, or 4,852 fewer than the City assumes. By contrast, the City<U+2019>s approach eectively assumes that the rate of housing production on underutilized and vacant sites would double during the next RHNA period. The City also uses unrealistic assumptions to translate Blue Sky<U+2019>s predictions into unit estimates, which predicts the probability a parcel will be developed at all, into the number of units a parcel is likely to accommodate. In particular, the City appears to assume that any developed parcel will result in the maximum number of units allowed under zoning. But this is unrealistic. For instance, the City elsewhere notes that <U+201C>sculpting at or reduced upper stories to match two- or three-story environments<U+201D> often makes it illegal to build at the maximum density zoning allows (constraints report, p. 24). The City justies its assumption that the rate of housing production on these sites would nearly double by noting that <U+201C>the model analysis did not account for increased use of State Density Bonus, or the impact of SB 9 and other housing related legislation passed since 2020<U+201D> (p. 15-16). However, the City<U+2019>s reports also document a number of new unfavorable 50 Even if the city could make this showing, it<U+2019>s not clear that the housing element should rely on it or that HCD should accept it. The simple rule of thumb used in Broockman<U+2019>s analysis (projecting pipeline yields from one planning period into the next) is hard to manipulate and creates good incentives for cities to facilitate the development of pipeline projects. 22 challenges to development that have arisen since the Blue Sky model was constructed, making it unreasonable to assume that the rate of housing production on underutilized and vacant sites would double during the next RHNA period.51 Moreover, the impact of SB 9 was already considered elsewhere in the element, meaning the City is double counting SB 9 units by relying on SB 9 for this justication. In summary, the City has not presented a systematic analysis or justication regarding why the <U+201C>other housing related legislation<U+201D> the draft element references would more than double the City<U+2019>s rate of developing these sites despite the new governmental and non-government headwinds that new housing also faces since 2020. Absent such an analysis, the City<U+2019>s decision to roughly double Blue Sky<U+2019>s estimates appears arbitrary, and it is more reasonable for the City to stick to Blue Sky<U+2019>s original estimates<U+2014>which, as we note, may already be overestimates given new headwinds to development in the City. The City must also explain and defend how it is translating Blue Sky<U+2019>s estimates that a parcel will be developed into estimates of the number of units that those parcels will accommodate. 100% Affordable Housing: Sites Meeting Low-Income Criteria and 100% Affordable Publicly Funded The City asserts that sites meeting low income criteria and publicly funded projects will accommodate 10,518 units in 100% aordable developments over the next eight years, a rate of 1,314 units per year. However, the City has only produced an average of 531 units in 100% aordable developments per year over the last ve years.52 The number of such units developed per year has not been on an upward trajectory over the last ve years,53 nor does the City<U+2019>s own report project that funding for 100% aordable developments will meaningfully increase during the next RHNA cycle; the City actually projects a decrease in such funding.54 The City<U+2019>s nearly 250% projected increase in 100% aordable housing development therefore appears without basis; the City oers no justication for why it is 54https://www.sfhousingelement.org/draft-analysis-government-and-non-government-constraints-re port, Figure 3. 53 Ibid. 52 https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/les/documents/reports/2020_Housing_Inventory.pdf, Table 25. 51 As we note elsewhere, the trends documented in the city<U+2019>s DRAFT Analysis of Government and Non-Government Constraints Report (Mar. 2022) if anything suggest the City should expect to see a decline in housing construction: construction costs have increased, and the Board of Supervisors has substantially increased fees, exactions, BMR mandates, and requirements for expensive design features like greywater systems. Indeed, a majority of developers <U+201C>have no plans to keep building in San Francisco after their current projects are entitled<U+201D> (p. 2). 23 reasonable to expect its rate of aordable housing construction to increase so dramatically. As a consequence, HCD should not credit these units towards the City<U+2019>s RHNA obligations unless the City provides both documentation of funding sources and a more realistic, detailed assessment of the probability this housing would be accommodated. Much of the City<U+2019>s proposed RHNA accommodations in this area arise from 8,688 units of housing the City argues will likely be developed on <U+201C>sites meeting low income criteria.<U+201D> However, to reach this estimate, the City assumed that fully 50% of such sites would be developed during the 2023-2031 RHNA period, but provided no supporting evidence. We have been unable to locate comparable historical statistics on sites meeting this criteria in order to independently evaluate this claim, but it is unlikely any such evidence would be supportive of the City<U+2019>s assumptions: given the City has never before produced 1,086 units in 100% aordable developments in any year,55 it seems unlikely that the City would average this number over the next RHNA period just in this subcategory of aordable housing development. Overestimating SB 9<U+2019>s Impacts And Failing To Comply with HCD Rules on Forecasting SB 9<U+2019>s Impacts The City predicts that SB 9 will produce 1,500 units during the 2023-2031 RHNA period. However, the city<U+2019>s draft element links to analyses of SB 9<U+2019>s impact from the City<U+2019>s Planning Department and from a consultancy it commissioned, Century | Urban.56 Both analyses nd that SB 9 would have essentially no impact in San Francisco as SB 9 lot splits and duplex conversions are economically infeasible in the City. Indeed, the City<U+2019>s report notes that it has only received ten SB 9 applications to date. Even assuming 100% of these applications result in completed projects, this suggests the City cannot reasonably assume it will receive any more than 40 SB 9 applications per year, many of which are not likely to add more than one unit. According to the Terner Center<U+2019>s analysis of SB 9, San Francisco SB 9 projects yield only 1.3 additional units per parcel where SB 9 would increase the number of economically feasible units.57 57 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SB-9-Brief-July-2021-Final.pdf, page 13. 56 https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/les/documents/citywide/SB9_Summary_FinancialFeasibilityAnal ysis.pdf. 55 https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/les/documents/reports/2020_Housing_Inventory.pdf, Table 25. 24 Finally, the draft element ignores HCD<U+2019>s guidance about the numerous requirements its element must satisfy to count any SB 9 units towards its RHNA obligations. In particular, HCD guidelines explicitly indicate that the City must provide a list of the site-specic inventory of sites where its SB 9 projections are being applied; if the City wishes to count 1,500 units from SB 9 towards its RHNA obligations, it must provide an inventory of such sites.58 58 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/planning-and-community-development/sb9factsheet.pdf, page 6. 25show more

Paul Anderson · email · 2022-04-07 · support · source packet

Item 10, April draft of the housing element
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am a long term resident and homeowner living in Monterey Heights on the West side of San Francisco. The housing element plan should be much more aggressive in pursuing more housing and greater density on the West side. As you know, the West side constitutes a majority of the land in the City, but accounts for a small fraction of its housing. Most of these homes were bui… show more

Trey Matkin · email · 2022-04-07 · support · source packet

Reduce segregation in the housing element draft (Agenda Item 10 - Housing Element Draft)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Hello, I am a resident of District 5 in San Francisco and registered voter. We need more housing of all kinds in San Francisco. I am becoming more politically engaged after watching our Board of Supervisors obstruct new housing at every turn. It<U+2019>s turned me into a pro-housing activist! SF Planning recognizes that our current land use system in the city amount… show more

Scot Conner · email · 2022-04-07 · oppose · source packet

Item 10, April draft of the housing element
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I ask that you take housing affordability in the housing element seriously: the city needs a realistic plan to hit its housing targets in the next decade. Over the last decade, we<U+2019>ve only built an average of 2,929 units per year with our current policies, but this housing element assumes our current policies are enough to accommodate 8,978 units per year over… show more

Jonathan B<U+00FC>nemann · email · 2022-04-07 · support · source packet

Agenda Item 10 - Housing Element
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Dear Commissioners, I ask that you take housing affordability in the housing element seriously: the city needs a realistic plan to hit its housing targets in the next decade. Over the last decade, we<U+2019>ve only built an average of 2,929 units per year with our current policies, but this housing element assumes our current policies are enough to accommodate 8,978… show more

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

Re: Follow up on yesterday's housing element webinar YIMBY
Hello Team YIMBY etc, sorry, but I feel no one is reading and or listening to my emails. But I will see what's up for tomorrows SFPC agenda. And I will try to chime in before tomorrow's SFPC meeting. But thanks for all that you do over there. Your thoughts here good or bad, anyone(?). Thanks for inviting me to chime in here. Sincerely, Dennis is adapting 2.5 On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 12:00:45 PM … show more

Raymond Cheng · email · 2022-04-07 · support · source packet

Agenda item 10: housing element update
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This housing element is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to tackle the housing crisis, and we desperately need solutions that match the scale of the crisis. But instead of proposing solutions that would triple SF<U+2019>s housing production so we can hit our housing targets, the City is predicting that it will be able to to meet RHNA goals using pipeline projects and … show more

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

Unbelievable 1230 Grant Ave + Housing Element 2022
Good morning Honorable Arron Peskin and everyone. Its April 7th, 2022 and its Dennis here, I hope you and all are doing well. Wow! Today's SF Chron was full of interesting topics/news. Specifically El Farolito @ 1230 Grant Ave brings back old memories for me both professionally and the former House of Hong restaurant...no relation but had a very tasty and unique menu. The other topic "State won't a… Good morning Honorable Arron Peskin and everyone. Its April 7th, 2022 and its Dennis here, I hope you and all are doing well. Wow! Today's SF Chron was full of interesting topics/news. Specifically El Farolito @ 1230 Grant Ave brings back old memories for me both professionally and the former House of Hong restaurant...no relation but had a very tasty and unique menu. The other topic "State won't accept fanciful plans" page A10. In today's hot item on the SF Planning Commission the agenda #10. Housing Element 2022.But that's for another day and email topic. Which I fully support this Draft DEIR. OK with that shocking news, I fully support the new restaurant here, what were these folks thinking when this was approved? Isn't the a simple check off list to make sure these issues don't fall thru the crack as the flow thru the process? Issues like this is very costly to these small business and now I can see why it is so difficult to have a business here in San Francisco. Take for example poor the fellow that just wanted to open up an Ice Creme shop. Food for thought, how can that chain store of 11 be changed to national vs local...or even exempt? These are the types of business that we need to help....because they provide employment, business taxes, unique services and mostly the all too many vacant store fronts. The list goes on. Excuse me while I continue to ramble on here. Need to get my composure ready for today's Planning Commission at 1pm. Given our city's, State and the feds housing needs, vision and etc. I still do not understand why there is so much opposition to our housing issues. Our developers are a god-sen to helping fill the gap. Well this is another subject for another email. Mr. Peskin, we all appreciate all that you do down there it takes a know how to fix these issues. Not many of my emails to the BoS get to the weekly petitions letters to the Board, but again, its my options. Been a tax payer, property owner (district 7) and a Native San Franciscan for seventy-five plus years, grew up in North-Beach Chinatown, right there at Union and Grant (Dupont Ave.) three blocks from 1230. ....I would really appreciate anything you can do for the new 1230 Grant Ave vacant store front, I support this 100%. As usual if anyone has any question with my rambling email here, please feel free to chime back with your thoughts, good or bad. Feel free to share this with the Dept of Health and others as needed. All the best, Dennis...is adapting.show more

2022-05-12 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Mark Mac Manus · email · 2022-05-12 · oppose · source packet

SF must affirmatively further fair housing (Agenda Item 10 - Housing Element Draft)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, SF Planning recognizes that our current land use system in the city amounts to government-led discrimination. Decades of housing scarcity have driven up rents, evictions, and displacement; and BIPOC communities experience the worst of these hardships. It is beyond time for high opportunity neighborhoods to do their fair share to accommodate desperately needed housing at a… show more

2022-05-26 · 2 comments · 0 / 2

Sue Hestor · email · 2022-05-26 · oppose · source packet

Urge continuance 5/26 on Affordable House Code Enforcement - item #9
Planning Commission calendar 5/26 has (220262) Mayor's proposal to amend Codes to shift responsibility to enforce construction and occupancy of Affordable Housing (BMR) units - and ability to collect funds - from Planning to the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. I request that Planning Commission defer action on proposed amendment. The Housing Element Draft EIR is scheduled for June 9.… Planning Commission calendar 5/26 has (220262) Mayor's proposal to amend Codes to shift responsibility to enforce construction and occupancy of Affordable Housing (BMR) units - and ability to collect funds - from Planning to the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. I request that Planning Commission defer action on proposed amendment. The Housing Element Draft EIR is scheduled for June 9. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation for SF also will be discussed, in part in zoning proposals. The Mayor's proposed code amendment should be part of this discussion of providing housing for very low, low and moderate income residents. For years the Planning Code has specifically listed responsibility of the Zoning Administrator to take actions to ensure compliance on BMR units. Proposed legislation amends codes calls for Memorandum of Understanding between Planning and MOHCD. Then states that they have been meeting for a year to draft a detailed MOU to set out responsibilities and collect fees for monitoring compliance with BMR requirements. In 2021 Planning reorganization placed the Zoning Administrator under Current Planning. In 2022 it appears that Zoning Administrator responsibilities on BMR units are being shifted to Mayor's office. At bare minimum Presidents (Koppel, Tanner) and Vice President (Moore) should have been consulted by Planning Director on this proposed shift from Zoning Administrator/Planning to Mayor's office. Were they? For several years several Supervisors, organizations that advocate for and build BMR housing, tenant organizations, and others have been raising concerns about failure to timely construct and occupy BMR units. Given the concern about projects, such as 2867 San Bruno Ave, and others where BMR units were not occupied by low income households, the Mayor's proposed shift of enforcement and funding from Planning to Mayor should have been at least an information item at Planning Commission. There must be opportunity for full discussion AT PLANNING COMMISSION before responsibility and shifts to Board of Supervisors to consider proposed legislation. Instead of the current shift to providing upscale market rate units, SAN FRANCISCO URGENTLY NEEDS PROVISION OF REAL VERY LOW, LOW and MODERATE INCOME HOUSING UNITS and vigorous enforcement of same. The Planning Commission should START discussion at Planning of the Mayor's proposed 220262 legislation. Not end it. Sue Hestorshow more

Tes Welborn · email · 2022-05-26 · oppose · source packet

Planning Commission: Defer action on proposed BMR amendment - Item 9
The Planning Commission calendar 5/26 has (220262) Mayor's proposal to amend Codes to shift responsibility to enforce construction and occupancy of Affordable Housing (BMR) units - and ability to collect funds - from Planning to the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. I request that Planning Commission defer action on proposed amendment. The Housing Element Draft EIR is scheduled for … The Planning Commission calendar 5/26 has (220262) Mayor's proposal to amend Codes to shift responsibility to enforce construction and occupancy of Affordable Housing (BMR) units - and ability to collect funds - from Planning to the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. I request that Planning Commission defer action on proposed amendment. The Housing Element Draft EIR is scheduled for June 9. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation for SF also will be discussed, in part in zoning proposals. The Mayor's proposed code amendment should be part of this discussion of providing housing for very low, low and moderate income residents. For years the Planning Code has specifically listed responsibility of the Zoning Administrator to take actions to ensure compliance on BMR units. Proposed legislation amends codes calls for Memorandum of Understanding between Planning and MOHCD. Then states that they have been meeting for a year to draft a detailed MOU to set out responsibilities and collect fees for monitoring compliance with BMR requirements. Where's the transparency?? In 2021 Planning reorganization placed the Zoning Administrator under Current Planning. In 2022 it appears that Zoning Administrator responsibilities on BMR units are being shifted to Mayor's office. At bare minimum Presidents (Koppel, Tanner) and Vice President (Moore) should have been consulted by Planning Director on this proposed shift from Zoning Administrator/Planning to Mayor's office. Were they? For several years several Supervisors, organizations that advocate for and build BMR housing, tenant organizations, and others have been raising concerns about failure to timely construct and occupy BMR units. Given the concern about projects, such as 2867 San Bruno Ave, and others where BMR units were not occupied by low income households, the Mayor's proposed shift of enforcement and funding from Planning to Mayor should have been at least an information item at Planning Commission. There must be opportunity for full discussion AT PLANNING COMMISSION before responsibility and shifts to Board of Supervisors to consider proposed legislation. Instead of the current shift to providing upscale market rate units, SAN FRANCISCO URGENTLY NEEDS PROVISION OF REAL VERY LOW, LOW and MODERATE INCOME HOUSING UNITS and vigorous enforcement of same. The Planning Commission should START discussion at Planning of the Mayor's proposed 220262 legislation. Not end it. Tes Welbornshow more

2022-06-16 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Glynis Nakahara · email · 2022-06-16 · oppose · source packet

HOUSING ELEMENT 2022 DRAFT EIR - Public Comment
President Tanner, Vice President Moore, and Members of the Planning Commission: Attached is a record of my public comment today, June 9. (I apologize for the terrible phone connection). Best regards, Glynis Nakahara ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- My name is Glynis Nakahara and I am a community organizer in Japantown. … President Tanner, Vice President Moore, and Members of the Planning Commission: Attached is a record of my public comment today, June 9. (I apologize for the terrible phone connection). Best regards, Glynis Nakahara ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- My name is Glynis Nakahara and I am a community organizer in Japantown. I first want to thank the Planning Department for their long effort on this opus and for regularly engaging Japantown in good faith. We are most grateful for your outreach to us. I am concerned that the Draft EIR (DEIR) exerts extreme development pressure and impacts on Japantown. Japantown is a City Cultural District and one of only three remaining in the United States and without care and rigorous vetting and collaboration with the community <U+2013> especially with proposed measures to facilitate entitlements and permitting <U+2013> I worry about the sustainability of our community. I support the need of every neighborhood to share the responsibility to address the housing crises, however, the DEIR includes proposals that seem to overburden Japantown. I would like to note the following in particular. - Figure 2-7 Shows an increase by almost 5 times in height limits from the current 50 feet to 240 feet (on page 185) and exceeds the 85<U+2019> height limits proposed in the Housing Element report in January 2022. It also doubles the height limit north of the Japan Center to 85<U+2019>. - It proposes a 108% increase in Japantown<U+2019>s housing supply compared to current numbers and designate Japantown as a Housing Sustainability District - These proposals will exert significant impacts to Japantown and yet there are no analyses related to these impacts as part of the EIR. - At the same time, the Housing Element includes policies that seek to redress harm to the Japanese community caused by past discriminatory government actions, including Urban Renewal, which reduced Japantown from 40 blocks to its 6 blocks today and displaced hundreds of Japanese American businesses and families. How will this priority align with the aforementioned proposals? If the Housing Element provides a path for subsequent legislation and policy that leads to massive development in Japantown without measures in place to protect vulnerable cultural assets <U+2013> both tangible and intangible <U+2013> and a commitment to early collaboration and vetting with the community on such developments, I see the end of Japantown. After the evisceration of WWII and Redevelopment, I doubt our community can endure another well-intentioned, government sanctioned solution. Thank you for your time today. GNshow more

2022-06-23 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2022-06-23 · oppose · source packet

General Public Comment 6/22
Dear Commissioners, Good morning and I hope you are all well. Happy Summer! Attached are links to three projects where the entitlements are for sale. I think I previously sent the info for the 2 units on 24th Street. Frankly this one really rankles because the long time owner next door had some relatively minor requests for changes to the project at the CUA hearing. The second one on 26th Street was one of the las… Dear Commissioners, Good morning and I hope you are all well. Happy Summer! Attached are links to three projects where the entitlements are for sale. I think I previously sent the info for the 2 units on 24th Street. Frankly this one really rankles because the long time owner next door had some relatively minor requests for changes to the project at the CUA hearing. The second one on 26th Street was one of the last projects to receive an RH -1 Administrative Approval for the Demo, but four neighbors filed DR due to the enormous size of the project. But I have to wonder if even four units on this large lot as described in the Heather Knight article from last year would have been built on the site? For both the 26th Street proposal and the 24th Street proposal would it have been better to have a policy that encouraged some reasonable <U+201C>rehabilitation<U+201D> and preservation of the existing building on either site to provide housing? The last FYI from Socketsite is a big Home SF project recently approved. I recognize this is a conundrum given the Sword of Damocles hanging over the Commission between the HAA, YIMBY Law (i.e the two letters in the Commission correspondence threatening law suits) and the 2022 Housing Element/RHNA goals. However the sale of entitlements like this seems to do nothing more than inflate prices. Thanks and take care. Georgia Schuttish https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.compass.com/listing/4234-24th-street-san-francisco-ca- 94114/1048326064803695809/___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo0MGJiZGQ0ZDYzYWYyMmYwZjM5ZDFmODU3ZGUyNGI3ZDo2Ojc3YmE6Y2I2MDEzNWQwZjI4YzBmNjAwODE4MmEwN2IzZGQ5OWFlMTFiMzU5ZmJlZDIyOTNlZTEzMzkxYTgyMmZmZTViZTp0OlQ https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.compass.com/listing/4250-26th-street-san-francisco-ca- 94114/1003664395314612865/___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo0MGJiZGQ0ZDYzYWYyMmYwZjM5ZDFmODU3ZGUyNGI3ZDo2Ojg4NzQ6NDkxNjkxYzcwOTMyOWZhMmU0MTk4OTBhNjQ4OGFlOGY4MmYzZjMyNDJkOWE1ZjA1MWM4OThmNmU3OWJiNmM0Nzp0OlQ https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/06/another-approved-tower-not-positioning-to-break- ground.html___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo0MGJiZGQ0ZDYzYWYyMmYwZjM5ZDFmODU3ZGUyNGI3ZDo2OmI0MmI6NGIwYjA5NWZjNDNiNTdjN2NjZmVlNDI3ODI1OTE0MGExZTVhMjU2MDkwN2Y2MTJlMDE2ZWRjOWY1MzFkMmYzYTp0OlQ Page 1 Ginny Dawes 85 Homestead St. San Francisco, CA 94114 Rachael Tanner, President June 22, 2022 San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: Project Address: 79-81 Homestead Street - Hearing Date: June 30, 2022 Discretionary Review Neighbor Ginny Daws<U+2019> Reply to Opposition Just Received Building Permit Application No.: 202105120274 <U+201C>Remodel (e) 2-story 2-fam residence. Raise (e) building 15'-9 1/2". Add garage at street lvl, curb cut/infill at front yard for (n) driveway. Remodel/reconfig interior of both dwellings- stairs, kitch & bath rms. Rear yard decks. Reconfig (e) rear deck stairs. (n) rear deck & stairs at 3rd flr.<U+201D> President Tanner and Members of the Commission: Immediate neighbor Ginny Daws urges that this reply is timely and should be included in the Planning Commission packet.1 This discretionary review follows the Sponsor invoking the Ellis Act to evict my long-term neighbor Suzanne from her rent controlled apartment. The Sponsor has lived in her home south of Mount Davidson and been the landlord for two rent controlled apartments for 32 years, according to her narrative. At the preapplication meeting, the Sponsor boldly announced that she is merging two rent controlled apartments into a single home. Her Opposition echos this merger, on page 8. <U+201C>My remodel proposes a single car garage for my house and my car, with potential to add a car elevator for a second car in the future if needed.<U+201D> Regarding scale and massing, when comparing 79 and 85 Homestead, it is necessary to consider the main body of these houses separately from the pop outs with their decks. The issues of scaling and intrusion of 79 Homestead into the mid-block are completely different for the main body of the house than for the pop out with decks. 1 This reply is timely both under the posted rules governing this DRP and in consideration that staff overlooked forwarding Sponsor<U+2019>s Opposition from May 18 until June 17. The posted rules, at, https://sfplanning.org/resource/rules-regulations-san-francisco-planning-commission, Appendix A, A. Submittals, permit a submission for inclusion in the PC packet up until the end of the day today, eight days before the Planning Commission hearing. Even more persuasively, we first received the Sponsor<U+2019>s Opposition the day after staff wanted this reply. The DRP information packet, https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/forms/DRP_InfoPacket.pdf, gives requestors six weeks between the required submission of any Opposition and the date for this reply. Staff accepted a tardy opposition, without consequence. Then, staff only forwarded the Opposition to us, a month after receiving it, in response to an email from a Requestor that confirmed that no Opposition had been submitted. This reply is a mere two business days after staff forwarded the Opposition to the DRP01 representative. Page 2 In the main body, the existing hip roof of 79 Homestead could be replaced by a gable story to improve the upper unit. The existing storage cellar has portions with an 8<U+2019> headspace. The cellar could be developed into a walk out, garden apartment living space to improve the lower unit. These substantial improvements in the main body of the house would be consistent with neighbors and would preserve two units. Or, the main body of the house could be raised one story to replace the lower unit with a garage, as long as the pop out were not raised. The 79 pop out and decks already dominate the neighbors, already exceed the scale and massing of three neighbors to the north and of 85 to the south. The decks intrude into the mid-block open space further than surrounding decks. The north neighbors<U+2019> decks are on top of or primarily tucked under their pop outs, except near grade. In contrast, 79 has existing elevated decks that start at the east edge of the neighbors<U+2019> pop outs and extend at height into mid-block beyond the line of surrounding decks. The 79 decks already exceed the neighbors<U+2019>. The latest proposed plan adds one more deck that pushes into the open space, at 33<U+2019> 8 <U+201D> above grade. The existing 79 pop out is 2 stories. Sponsor proposes to expand the pop out to 4 stories. The Sponsor acknowledges that the neighbors to the north have one story pop outs, so there is no dispute that the 79 pop out would be 3 stories larger than the north neighbors<U+2019> pop outs. The Sponsor inaccurately characterizes 85 Homestead as having a two-story pop out. In the Sponsor<U+2019>s Exhibit 2, sheet 2.11, South Elevation, and in Exhibit 3, Photograph from Location 5, it is clear that 85 Homestead has a one-story pop out suspended over a deck. Thus, the proposed pop out would be 3 stories more massive than the four surrounding properties on equally down sloped lots. Even if the main body of the house were allowed to be raised by a story, the pop out should not be elevated. It is already bigger (2 stories vs 1) and as high as pop outs of the surrounding buildings (as shown in drone photos, deck photos, and renderings.) Raising the pop out from 2 to 4 stories should not be allowed. The proposal also would elevate north and south facing windows of the 79 pop out to a level that invades the neighbors<U+2019> privacy. On the north side, 79 proposes to raise two large lot line windows so they would look into the bedroom of 65 Homestead. Documents supporting DRP02 include drone photos and 3D renderings of this condition. On the south side, facing my house, 79 proposes to raise a south facing window by 13 feet, so it would look into my bedroom. The renderings on the following page, from a 3D model, illustrate privacy issues that would be caused if the whole building were raised 13 feet, as proposed. Page 3 Vantage points of three people on the 85 deck and two 79 decks The Opposition, page 6, first paragraph, complains that the existing 85 deck looks into the bedroom of the upper rent controlled unit of 79 Homestead. Raising 79 would position a new upper deck to look into my bedroom and a middle deck to look into my dining room, as shown. While our 3D model reproduces an earlier deck configuration, the Sponsor<U+2019>s renderings depict the same vantage points shown above in the latest proposal. Thus, the decks of 79 and the south facing window, if raised 13 feet, would create privacy issues that should not be dismissed Page 4 lightly. These privacy issues are why the DRP requestors commissioned creation of a 3D model <U+2013> the Sponsor refused to allow the requestors to use the architect<U+2019>s 3D model to a envision and document resulting invasions of privacy. Sadly, staff did not require the architect to produce views from the perspectives depicted above. All of the south and north facing windows should be eliminated or restricted to frosted glass, as provided in the Design Review Guidelines. The Planning Commission should require resubmission of this application for a conditional use permit under Section 317, because the Sponsor announced and planned the building for residential merger of two rent controlled apartments into a three bedroom home for her personal use, with space for her daughter to visit occasionally. The withdrawal of two rent controlled apartments from the housing stock should not be rewarded by approval of a luxuriated three bedroom tower. Thus, this DRP01 should be accepted and either a conditional use permit required or the plan rejected outright. Sincerely, Ginny Dawsshow more

2022-06-30 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Justin Truong · email · 2022-06-30 · support · source packet

We need equitable planning in the draft housing element (Item 10)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, SF Planning has set goals for the draft housing element which reflect San Francisco<U+2019>s values of diversity and equity. By building more housing in high opportunity neighborhoods on the west side, we can give kids from working class families a leg up on life. As research from Professor Chetty<U+2019>s team at Harvard has shown, kids from working class fam… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, SF Planning has set goals for the draft housing element which reflect San Francisco<U+2019>s values of diversity and equity. By building more housing in high opportunity neighborhoods on the west side, we can give kids from working class families a leg up on life. As research from Professor Chetty<U+2019>s team at Harvard has shown, kids from working class families enjoy higher upward economic mobility when they grow up in high opportunity areas. However, SF has a long way to go on this front. According to the city<U+2019>s site inventory report, <U+201C>since 2005 only 10% of all housing produced in San Francisco, including affordable housing, has been in [well-resourced] areas<U+201D> (p. 18). To correct this historic injustice, we need to do far more. This point cannot be overstated: the city<U+2019>s plan is to permit new housing on the west side that the city<U+2019>s own constraints analysis claims is not feasible to build. And the city only commits to making apartment buildings feasible to build by 2038. This is a plan to maintain the status quo. To actually build more housing across the income spectrum on the west side, we need to lift the ban on high rises on the west side since, according to the city<U+2019>s own analysis, only high rises pencil out. Furthermore, we need to remove veto points that can be used to block housing. The housing element<U+2019>s analysis of fair housing points out that neighborhood opposition contributes to our scarcity of fair housing. Just look at the proposed affordable housing project at 2550 Irving, where neighbors sued to stop the first proposed affordable housing project in the Sunset District. Exclusionary neighborhoods will use any tools available to avoid change. To comply with our legal and ethical duty to affirmatively further fair housing, the city needs to remove veto points (like discretionary review and conditional use authorization) that are used by NIMBYs to stop housing. Justin Truong [email removed] 33 Junior Terrace San Francisco, California 94112show more

2022-07-14 · 6 comments · 1 / 5

Miles&Company Inc. · email · 2022-07-14 · oppose · source packet

Comments Housing Element 2022 Draft EIR
HOUSING ELEMENT 2022 Draft EIR Questions Why did the Planning Department bury the notification of this monstrous plan to change our City on page 154 of the Draft EIR? The neighborhoods affected should have been notified by mail at the very least. What happened to honest and transparent Public Outreach to the citizens of San Francisco? As a tax-paying resident, I believe it is only just, that given the enormity of … HOUSING ELEMENT 2022 Draft EIR Questions Why did the Planning Department bury the notification of this monstrous plan to change our City on page 154 of the Draft EIR? The neighborhoods affected should have been notified by mail at the very least. What happened to honest and transparent Public Outreach to the citizens of San Francisco? As a tax-paying resident, I believe it is only just, that given the enormity of this project, which will affect at a minimum, the next three decades of this city<U+2019>s existence, San Franciscans should be given the opportunity to voice their questions and concerns in an open forum <U+2013> not buried in an email in someone<U+2019>s queue. The July 12th deadline for public comment needs to be rescheduled for a future date AFTER the Planning Department has conducted a thorough Public Outreach effort that includes all citizens affected by this project. Questions and Comments: 1. Pg 2-5 Housing Element Background states: <U+201C>Adoption of the Housing Element Update WILL NOT modify existing controls on land use, height or density<U+201D> 2. Pg 2-11 Project Objectives states: <U+201C>In well-resourced areas, the proposed action recommends promoting small and midrise multi-family development through height increases along certain transit corridors and through removing density limits or increasing density limits in low-density areas<U+201D> 3. Pg 2-24 Changes in Land Use Density and Distribution states: <U+201C>Modifying allowable density limits and increasing allowable height limits along existing and projected rapid network transit corridors<U+201D> and <U+201C>removing or increasing allowable density limits within 800 ft of these corridors<U+201D> Contradictions anyone??? 4. The business and residential landscape of the City has changed tremendously with the last several years, even before the pandemic ravaged our borders. High taxes and the sky-rocketing cost of living, not to mention the ever-growing homeless problem, have decimated our City<U+2019>s growth and reputation as a destination spot for tourists. The monoliths Oracle and Hewlitt-Packard were only two of the 74 California based company headquarters that have left San Francisco in the first half of 2021 alone. Our city had the largest decline in population of any city in the country during the pandemic <U+2013> 6.3% packed up and left. That equals 54, 813 residents. 5. Question: Did the Planning Department take into account those 54,813 homes that are now vacant? What about the empty buildings that housed the 74 companies that departed? Do we just leave them to disintegrate into the landscape and build anew?? 6. Climate change is an ever-increasing devastation to our planet. California is in a constant state of drought with no good news in sight. The Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, which is our main source of water, supplies 2.6 million residents with fresh water. Wildfires are a given fact of nature in this state, amplified by climate change and continual drought, and intensify the strain on our natural resources, which continue to decrease with climate change and population growth. 7. Question: Where are we going to get the additional 7.5 million gallons of water for those new residents? Are we going to build another reservoir and hire a rainmaker?? These are only a few of the questions that need to be considered and discussed in an open and transparent Public Outreach forum, where all neighborhoods and residents can be involved in the future of our City. After all, it is OUR CITY, too <U+2013> not just yours. Best Regards, Calla Winkler Resident, Laurel Heightsshow more

Sallie Robbins · email · 2022-07-14 · oppose · source packet

Housing Element 2022 - Draft EIR
To: Elected and Appointed SF Government Representatives I have been the owner of 189 Collins St. 94118 for 34 years. The length of my property adjoins the back of a commercial building at 2900 Geary. The Draft EIR proposal threatens my children's entire inheritance. If and when a developer constructs an 85 foot high apartment complex at 2900 Geary, my 1915 Edwardian will collapse into the excavations! OR will t… show more

Mary Ann Massenburg · email · 2022-07-14 · oppose · source packet

Comments on Draft EIR for SF Housing Element 2022
To Whom It May Concern: We have been residents of Laurel Heights (near the corner of Laurel and California) for 50 years. We are in strong support of the State and City<U+2019>s goals to create more low-and middle income housing. In reviewing the Housing Element update, we generally support the placement of this new housing in all well- resourced neighborhoods, including our own. The update also mentions a pr… show more

Sallie Robbins · email · 2022-07-14 · oppose · source packet

Re: Housing Element 2022 - Draft EIR
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 1:05 PM Sallie Robbins [email removed]> wrote: To: Elected and Appointed SF Government Representatives I have been the owner of 189 Collins St. 94118 for 34 years. The length of my property adjoins the back of a commercial building at 2900 Geary. The Draft EIR proposal threatens my children's entire inheritance. If and when a developer constructs an 85 foot high apartment complex at 29… On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 1:05 PM Sallie Robbins [email removed]> wrote: To: Elected and Appointed SF Government Representatives I have been the owner of 189 Collins St. 94118 for 34 years. The length of my property adjoins the back of a commercial building at 2900 Geary. The Draft EIR proposal threatens my children's entire inheritance. If and when a developer constructs an 85 foot high apartment complex at 2900 Geary, my 1915 Edwardian will collapse into the excavations! OR will the developer be required to pay me the 3 million dollars the property is worth? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THIS PROPOSAL IMPACTS THE CONSTANT EFFORTS OF AN 80 YEAR OLD WIDOW TO MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE HER PROPERTY FOR HER CHILDREN? THIS PROPOSAL COULD LITERALLY WIPE ME OUT. In addition to my GRAVE personal threats, I quote a diligent local resident who has informed the neighborhood of the absence of public notice: " There has been no open and transparent process and no public hearings whatsoever. No notifications have ever been issued on this subject to the public at large. 3. Burying such a critical issue within the Planning Department's website is not an open and transparent method of notifying the public, it's quite the opposite-it's opaque and secretive. As the Washington Post states "Democracy Dies in Darkness." 4. No public hearings on what is clearly a once-in-a-generation change to the heights, sze, bulk, density as well as the character of neighborhoods have taken place. This needs to be rectified. 5. Historical significance neighborhoods are being demolished under this plan. This needs to be analyzed in great detail." The Housing Element Draft EIR is based on a Process that is flawed, opaque, secretive and absent any public outreach program whatsoever. On behalf of all the homeowners and residents of the Geary St. Corridor, I appeal for more information and PROTECTION for residents such as myself who are more DIRECTLY impacted by the 85 foot height and density proposals. Thank you......Sallie Robbinshow more

Kelly Roberson · email · 2022-07-14 · oppose · source packet

Housing Element<U+2019>s Draft EIR - a few more comments
Hello SF Planning Dept and Commission, I hope that you all had a great weekend. I spend a little time over the weekend reading more of the Housing Element EIR Draft and have additional comments. Shadowing and Daylight Access - As you know, increasing building heights creates significant shadowing and daylight access issue for adjacent buildings, homes, yards, etc. In fact taller buildings "privilege'"… show more

Sujata Srivastava · email · 2022-07-14 · support · source packet

SPUR comments on San Francisco Housing Element Draft 3
Dear Housing Element Team, Please find SPUR's letter on the March draft of San Francisco's Housing Element, attached. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Sujata Srivastava (she <U+2022> her) San Francisco Director | SPUR [phone removed] [email removed] SPUR Join | Get Newsletters | Twitter | LinkedIn Most SPUR public programs are now free for … Dear Housing Element Team, Please find SPUR's letter on the March draft of San Francisco's Housing Element, attached. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Sujata Srivastava (she <U+2022> her) San Francisco Director | SPUR [phone removed] [email removed] SPUR Join | Get Newsletters | Twitter | LinkedIn Most SPUR public programs are now free for everyone! See our events calendar July 1, 2022 Kimia Haddadan Shelley Caltagirone Maia Small San Francisco Planning Department 49 South Van Ness Ave, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Dear Housing Element Team: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on San Francisco<U+2019>s Draft Housing Element dated March 2022. As you know, the Housing Element is a state-mandated policy document that guides future housing development and investments to accommodate population growth at a range of income levels. We appreciate the time and care that the Housing Element Team has put into drafting the Housing Element Sites Inventory and Rezoning Program Report; Goals, Objectives, Policies and Actions; and the Analysis of Government and Non-Government Constraints Report. We laud the Planning Department for its thoughtful outreach and engagement with community groups and residents across the city. SPUR is a public policy non-profit organization in the Bay Area with offices in Oakland, San Francisco and San Jos. We employ a big tent approach working across the political spectrum to solve the big problems confronting our cities and region, including the housing affordability crisis. As you know, state law requires that the housing element identify sites that can accommodate planned housing growth at a variety of income levels, and develop strategies and policies to improve affordability. San Francisco<U+2019>s Housing Element must also achieve the objective of affirmatively furthering fair housing by ensuring that affordable housing is located in high-opportunity neighborhoods. We are committed to working in partnership with the City to develop a housing element that complies with state law and contains strong implementation mechanisms to remove barriers to housing development, stabilizes vulnerable communities, and meaningfully addresses social and racial equity in San Francisco. We submit the following comments for your consideration. 1. We encourage the Planning Department to develop a clear set of implementation policies to achieve equitable development in priority equity geographies and cultural districts. We commend the Housing Element for its emphasis on preventing displacement in low-income communities of color. However, we are concerned that the Housing Element lacks specificity about how new development will be accommodated in cultural districts and in priority equity geographies (Policy 18). Many of these neighborhoods have historically been attractive for housing development in San Francisco because of their strong access to transit, jobs, and other amenities. We believe it is important for these neighborhoods to continue being welcoming places for all San Franciscans, especially for lower income residents. The Housing Element seems to assume that allowing for more mixed-income housing in priority equity geographies will necessarily cause displacement of lower income people and people of color, and that those impacts cannot be mitigated. Recent research published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco suggests that it is possible to accommodate new mixed-income housing without worsening gentrification and displacement, provided that it is accompanied by new investments to enable more affordable housing production, policies to preserve existing affordable homes and commercial businesses, and protections for tenants and low-income homeowners. We understand that the Planning Department<U+2019>s scope for a racial and social equity impact analysis is intended to provide a better understanding of the potential outcomes of the Housing Element for communities that have been historically harmed by racist laws and practices. However, that analysis is not scheduled to be complete until September 2022, and it is not clear how the findings of that analysis will lead to specific zoning changes without triggering a drawn out, politicized process. We are concerned that this analysis will only result in the adoption of highly discretionary approvals and onerous requirements for new development on a project-by-project basis that will make it impossible to feasibly build mixed-income housing in these areas. It is urgent for the City to develop specific policies and implementation strategies for equity priority geographies and cultural districts on a faster timeline. We believe it is possible to create zoning and land use policies that will enable mixed-income housing development in equity priority geographies, while also strengthening community stabilization strategies. SPUR recommends that the Housing Element specifically call out the need to prepare additional neighborhood plans, especially for equity priority geographies and cultural districts. 2. We support planning for growth in well-resourced neighborhoods to meet fair housing goals, but we have questions about how to achieve these outcomes without also providing incentives to developers. The sites inventory report assumes that San Francisco can accommodate 22,555 units in the next RHNA cycle in high-resourced neighborhoods by upzoning transit corridors and residential neighborhoods. The Housing Element has proposed policies to remove density controls and increase height limits along transit corridors and transit hubs in well-resourced areas (Policy 20a and Policy 24c), and to allow a minimum of 4 units on every lot without deed restrictions (Policy 20c). There are many benefits to the approach of intensifying the central and westside neighborhoods of the city. It provides more equitable outcomes by creating more housing opportunities in areas that have been historically exclusive, and it encourages more sustainable growth patterns by developing underutilized commercial sites on transit corridors. However, such planning must be realistic, and take into account the likelihood of site redevelopment given 1) the limited number of appropriate sites available for redevelopment, 2) the political challenges housing sponsors will face, and 3) the economic viability of development. Specifically, we are concerned that the financial feasibility analysis conducted for the Housing Affordability Strategies indicates that low-rise and mid-rise development in most of the upzoned areas was infeasible, even prior to the pandemic. The rental rates in most of the Westside and central neighborhoods were insufficient to compensate for the cost of development. The feasibility equation has likely worsened with the drop in rents and skyrocketing construction costs. Additionally, the Controller<U+2019>s financial feasibility analysis of fourplex projects in San Francisco found that the redevelopment of single-family homes into four rental or ownership units would be infeasible, even if all of the units were priced for market-rate households. The recently approved legislation from the Board of Supervisors to legalize fourplexes is unlikely to have much of an impact on production because it places so many constraints on development in low-density neighborhoods. When you also consider the likely opposition of many neighborhood groups, it does not appear to be realistic to expect the development of 22,555 new units in neighborhoods and corridors without the provision of some types of incentives and streamlining of the approvals process. SPUR recommends that the Planning Department explore coupling the upzoning of the high- resourced neighborhoods with other incentives, including a temporary reduction of the on-site inclusionary requirement, reduction of city fees, exempting projects from discretionary review, and other similar strategies to make mixed-income projects in the well-resourced neighborhoods and corridors more feasible in the short term. 3. The March 2022 site inventory relies on large Development Agreements and large projects to accommodate RHNA. However, many of those major development projects will require significant attention and investment in order to move forward, and those needs are not addressed in the Housing Element. The site inventory calculates that nearly 26,000 units will be permitted at Hunters Point Shipyard, Treasure Island, Parkmerced, Mission Rock and many other large projects that have entitled development agreements (DA projects) during this RHNA cycle. However, though entitled for many years, development has been stalled for projects like ParkMerced, Schlage Lock and Hunters Point. Neither the analysis of constraints nor the proposed policies of the Housing Element meaningfully address how to remove the barriers to housing construction at those sites, which include substantial environmental and infrastructure needs. A June 2022 report for the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard from the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury found that there are hazardous environmental and health risks related to climate change and groundwater rise that have to be resolved to make it safe for future residents, workers, and visitors. Yet, the Grand Jury determined that the City and its partners have done little to uncover these issues and invest in the solutions. SPUR recommends that the City take a more proactive role to correct the failures of the cleanup effort and provide the funding recommended in the report for further studies. Given the magnitude of the cleanup required at the site, the unanswered questions about the impacts of groundwater rise, and the lack of progress on these issues, it is hard to believe that Hunters Point can be reasonably expected to contribute towards meeting the RHNA in this cycle. If DA projects are to be included in the RHNA, the Housing Element should contain more concrete actions for how to unlock these sites. This could include actions such as infrastructure investments and the provision of other incentives to accelerate housing development. 4. The Housing Element should prioritize the need to revisit the cost of city impact fees, including the inclusionary housing requirements, which have rendered many housing development projects infeasible. San Francisco has the highest construction costs in the world. And on top of that, the city has a number of additional fees that cost $20,000 per unit or more. The city<U+2019>s current inclusionary requirement for rental housing is almost 22% - higher than any other California city - and it goes up every year. Financial feasibility studies have repeatedly demonstrated that this rate is not feasible for most housing projects. The Housing Element<U+2019>s Policy 24a recommends that the City review inclusionary requirements regularly via the Technical Advisory Committee. However, this simple review is unlikely to be sufficient to comprehensively address the big picture of the City<U+2019>s cost structure that penalizes housing development. SPUR has long recommended that the City establish a technical committee of experts to audit the building code to find ways of reducing costs. We have also recommended that the Controller<U+2019>s office be given the authority to set the inclusionary housing rates to depoliticize the process and make sure that it is financially feasible. 5. One of the largest constraints on development is the City<U+2019>s burdensome approvals process, including discretionary review and associated environmental analysis. The Housing Element must include a commitment to reform the approvals process, which creates uncertainty, increases costs and delays the construction of much-needed housing. A new study by Moira O<U+2019>Neill and Eric Biber found that San Francisco has the longest time frames for housing approvals than any other large city in California. The median time frame for multi-family housing approvals for applications between 2014 and 2017 was 27 months<U+2014> two and a half times longer than the median for other California cities. CEQA-exempt projects that meet all the code requirements take more than two years to approve. When you also add in CEQA lawsuits the time frame for approvals is extended to nearly 8 years. Developers and investors have a choice about where they build, and it is increasingly difficult to justify pursuing projects in San Francisco under these deeply problematic conditions. The Housing Element contains some modest streamlined approvals for a selected group of mid-rise and small projects, provided that they also include community benefits such as increased affordable units, middle income units and below-market rents for commercial space (Policy 25 and Policy 25b). However, much more aggressive reform of the discretionary review process will be needed to make a dent in the housing production goals for this RHNA cycle. San Francisco is the only jurisdiction in the state that makes every permit discretionary and thus requires CEQA review of every permit, adding time, cost and uncertainty to housing development entitlements. SPUR recommends that the Housing Element address this structural constraint head on. Among recommended actions for the City to commit to implement would be: (1) amending Section 26 of the Business and Tax Regulation Code to remove discretionary review for any code-compliant housing projects; (2) asking the voters to amend the Charter to remove discretionary review of code-compliant housing projects; and (3) amending the Planning Code to remove or reduce current conditional use, downtown project authorizations and large project authorization requirements for even modestly sized code-compliant housing projects, such as lot size thresholds in neighborhood commercial districts and density or square footage thresholds in other zoning districts. The City should also explore expediting approvals by setting specific time tables for processing housing projects. As described in the analysis of constraints, there is currently no systematic way for the Planning Department to track the amount of time that it takes to move through the permitting process. The Planning Department needs to commit to complying with the Permit Streamlining Act and establish a ministerial review process similar to SB-35 for all code-compliant housing projects which would require completed review periods of 90 days for small and medium projects (150 units or less) and 180 days for large projects (more than 150 units). The City also needs to reduce the time it takes to conduct environmental review of those housing projects that remain discretionary. For example, community plan exemption initial studies should be based on a simple checklist rather than the lengthy text heavy documents now produced, reaching about 70 pages each, to simply determine that a project has no peculiar features impacts not previously analyzed in an area plan EIR. The City should also commit to issuing Class 32 and other CEQA exemptions in a more timely manner. Please see the Appendix table on the following page for a summary of our comments relating to actions that could be undertaken to remove governmental constraints and strengthen the Housing Element. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Sujata Srivastava San Francisco Director Cc: San Francisco Planning Commission Planning Director Rich Hillis SPUR Housing Policy Board SPUR San Francisco Board of Directors California Department of Housing and Community Development Appendix: Summary of Constraints and Recommended Response Governmental constraint Proposed Response in draft Policies and Actions Recommended Response General Plan and Area Plans No policy recommending that additional area plans be prepared Create additional neighborhood plans especially for equity priority geographies and cultural districts to address equitable development strategies Zoning Constraints, including density limits and height limits Policy 20.a: Remove density controls and increase height limits along transit corridors in well resourced areas Consider increased height limits and density decontrol citywide 20.c: Allow a minimum of 4 units on every lot without deed restrictions 24.b: Expand density bonus programs 24.c: Increase height limits and remove density controls at transit hubs in well resourced areas Simplify the Planning Code and align development standards to mid-rise and high-rise building types, rather than low-rise buildings as currently structured (for example, large rear yard and open space requirements) Impact fee burden, including inclusionary housing requirements 24.a: Via TAC, review inclusionary requirements regularly to maintain feasibility and deliver maximum number of inclusionary units With input from TAC, give decision making on inclusionary rates to the Controller, rather than BOS. 25.k: Expand fee exemptions for projects with units up to 120% of AMI Should be a policy to eliminate or reduce TSF, child care and infrastructure fees as a burden on housing production Burdensome approval processes, including discretionary review; C/U requirements on lot size only; discouragement of lot consolidation; demolition controls; 25.a: Establish streamlined and ministerial approvals only for mid- rise and small housing projects that provide various community benefits such as middle income units and reduced rent commercial space Amend section 26 of the Business and Tax Regulation Code to not apply to housing; amend charter to limit discretion of the Board of Appeals regarding housing projects; amend Planning Code to eliminate C/U and LPA thresholds. 25.b: Ministerial approvals only for projects that provided more on-site inclusionary units than required. Expand ministerial approvals for project that comply with inclusionary requirements Governmental constraint Proposed Response in draft Policies and Actions Recommended Response 25.d: Eliminate Planning Commission hearings for state density bonus projects "when not required." Eliminate Planning Code requirements for density bonus hearings Housing Sustainability districts (no policy currently) 25.f: Continue to implement Mayor Lee's 2017 directive 25.g: Prioritize D.R.s filed by tenants and those that add density in well resourced neighborhoods Reform discretionary review for all types of housing projects 25.h: Develop objective design standards Processing time (see table on page 36) No policy Reduce processing time by making housing projects ministerial Length of CEQA review 25.c: Pursue streamlining through use of CPEs or Housing Sustainability Districts Use addenda process when available; use Class 32 CEQA exemptions rather than CPE's.show more

2022-09-29 · 3 comments · 2 / 1

Benjam Sumers · email · 2022-09-29 · oppose · source packet

Fix the housing element before it"s too late
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Commissioners - I'm a father in Mission Bay here in San Francisco. Earlier this year I organized 125 parents to write letters to help build a public school in the neighborhood. That didn't teach me much about housing or construction. It did teach me about what families are thinking here in the city. I that many families - including mine - know that San Francisco… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Commissioners - I'm a father in Mission Bay here in San Francisco. Earlier this year I organized 125 parents to write letters to help build a public school in the neighborhood. That didn't teach me much about housing or construction. It did teach me about what families are thinking here in the city. I that many families - including mine - know that San Francisco isn't on track to build enough homes. Developers are fleeing the city just as we can see the cranes from the last projects starting to break to sky. We need more homes. Families are bunking up, leaving, moving - just as it needs every drop of economic juice it can get. And those families are watching you. We know there are just four months to the January 31 deadline to turn in a plan for state approval. We know the city is under investigation from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. We know that the current plan includes projects that aren't going to work. Most of all we know that Planning has decided to let the element expire. No more affordable housing dollars. No more public transit dollars for nearly-bankrupt Muni. We urge you to: 1. Insert programs into the housing element to ensure San Francisco complies with all state housing laws 2. Rezone high-opportunity neighborhoods for more housing, to reduce the city<U+2019>s reliance on pipeline projects in the housing element. 3. Demonstrate that San Francisco will make housing projects feasible to build starting in 2023, or cut back on development standards and exactions as necessary to make housing projects feasible. 4. Include programs to automatically rezone at the midway point in the RHNA cycle if the City is off-track to meet goals. 5. Schedule housing element adoption hearings at the Board of Supervisors in January 2023, not April. Simple enough on paper. I'm sure it is complicated to execute. Fortunately, you are in the position to do it. May be a few late nights. What an opportunity to make a difference. Benjam Sumers [email removed] 708 Long Bridge San Francisco, California 94158show more

Alan Billingsley · email · 2022-09-29 · support · source packet

It is time to decide
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, It is clear by now that the Board of Supervisors and most of their PC appointees oppose new housing in our City. Let<U+2019>s just be honest. Let<U+2019>s reject state money for housing, transit and planning and freeze all housing approvals. Let<U+2019>s then announce that the homeless are welcome to live on ant sidewalk or public space. That is clearly … show more

Weston Cooper · email · 2022-09-29 · support · source packet

SF Housing Element
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Hello - I love San Francisco and remain hopeful we will submit a realistic housing element to account for future population growth. Past failures in this regard have helped put us at or near the top of the list of most expensive cities in the world. My father is a city planner, and I have appreciation for the difficult balance of interests between existing residents (like… show more

2022-10-06 · 2 comments · 1 / 1

Charlie Sciammas · email · 2022-10-06 · support · source packet

RE: Housing Element & Commissioner Tanner"s Request to Planning Staff
Dear Ms Caltagirone, Thank you for your clear and thorough presentation of the Housing Element to the Planning Commission last Thursday, September 29th. Attached please find a letter from the Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO) and the Race & Equity in All Planning Coalition (REP-SF) following up on Commissioner Tanner's request to Planning staff to put forward a serious proposal for how the c… Dear Ms Caltagirone, Thank you for your clear and thorough presentation of the Housing Element to the Planning Commission last Thursday, September 29th. Attached please find a letter from the Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO) and the Race & Equity in All Planning Coalition (REP-SF) following up on Commissioner Tanner's request to Planning staff to put forward a serious proposal for how the city can meaningfully produce the 46,598 affordable housing units mandated by HCD in the next 8 years. CCHO staff has a meeting scheduled with the Planning Department's equity team on October 13th, and we are very open to broadening the scope of the discussion and to including representatives of the REP coalition to include this topic. Warm regards, Charlie Sciammas, CCHO Joseph Smooke, REP-SF -- Charlie Sciammas, Policy Director Council of Community Housing Organizations / CCHO Action Cell: [phone removed] Office: [phone removed] 325 Clementina Street, San Francisco 94103 www.sfccho.org. www.sfcchoaction.org Follow us on Twitter and Facebook! October 4th, 2022 Shelley Caltagirone, Interim Project Manager, Housing Element SF Planning Department 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 via email: [email removed] Dear Ms Caltagirone, Thank you for your clear and thorough presentation of the Housing Element to the Planning Commission last Thursday, September 29. We heard in your presentation a concern for meeting the affordable housing goals in the upcoming eight-year Housing Element period and Commissioner Tanner<U+2019>s comments about the importance of tackling this question head-on with an ambitious and proactive strategy. Following your presentation, Commissioner Tanner requested Planning staff to put forward a serious proposal for how the city can meaningfully produce the 46,598 affordable housing units mandated by HCD in the next 8 years. The Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO), a citywide coalition of affordable housing development, service, and advocacy organizations, and the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition (REP-SF), a citywide coalition of community based and grassroots organizations advocating for racial, social and economic equity in land use, are reaching out through this letter to work collaboratively with you and the Housing Element team to identify and lift up solutions and strategies for meeting this critical and ambitious goal. Based on the experience of our member organizations, we know that meeting this goal will require a whole set of strategies and approaches to expanding our affordable housing portfolio that are entirely different from those that we have relied on for the past couple of decades. As Commissioner Tanner noted, it will require <U+201C>leadership and strategy to put forward the dollars, the land banking, the resources, the new types of institutions, the new types of financing, as well as bolstering existing programs.<U+201D> We urge you to convene community, technical, and public sector experts in a series of discussions to outline a proactive strategy that is responsive to Commissioner Tanner<U+2019>s request. Our coalitions, both the Race & Equity in All Planning Coalition (REP-SF) and the Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO) are more than happy to help convene representatives from our member organizations to participate in this process. Page 1 One of the key strategies we would love to explore would be to generate new local capital subsidy resources, and to partner with the State for new capital subsidies from Sacramento to fund affordable housing development in ways that expand our current options and reach beyond what is currently possible with programs such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Another facet of this strategy would be to work with communities to identify and prioritize sites for purchase for affordable housing development, then aggressively purchasing those sites. We have many more ideas, and there is a whole set of innovation that the Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board has collected that we would love to work with you and MOHCD on thinking concretely around so we can incorporate a real strategy for meeting the RHNA affordable housing goals for this Housing Element. We have already met with Director Hillis and Equity Director Chion about some of these ideas. We would love to have the opportunity to meet with you to figure out how to explore these ideas in light of both the directive from Commissioner Tanner and the tight deadlines you have for updates that you are required to submit to HCD. We look forward to hearing your ideas and timeline for how to proceed with Commissioner Tanner<U+2019>s request to address our unprecedented affordable housing mandates. Sincerely, Charlie Sciammas, CCHO Joseph Smooke, REP-SF Cc Planning Director, Rich Hillis Planning Equity Director, Miriam Chion Planning Commissioners Board of Supervisors MOHCD Director, Eric Shaw Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board Page 2show more

Lee Markosian · email · 2022-10-06 · oppose · source packet

Fix the housing element before it"s too late
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I'm afraid that San Francisco is on track to offer an unacceptable housing element that will be rejected by the state, costing us tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in transit and affordable housing grants that will no longer be available to the city, not to mention the loss of control over our own housing policies. On the other hand, I think our current housing… show more

2022-10-20 · 3 comments · 2 / 1

Robert Fruchtman · email · 2022-10-20 · support · source packet

[SF YIMBY] Housing Element Draft Four Response Letter
Dear Shelley Caltagirone: On behalf of San Francisco YIMBY, please find attached our public comment submission on Draft Four of the Housing Element 2022 Update. Best regards, Robert Fruchtman Volunteer Lead, San Francisco YIMBY Yes to People. Yes to Housing. sfyimby.org Shelley Caltagirone Interim Project Manager, Housing Element 2022 Update San Francisco Planning Department Via Email: [email removed] October 13, 202… Dear Shelley Caltagirone: On behalf of San Francisco YIMBY, please find attached our public comment submission on Draft Four of the Housing Element 2022 Update. Best regards, Robert Fruchtman Volunteer Lead, San Francisco YIMBY Yes to People. Yes to Housing. sfyimby.org Shelley Caltagirone Interim Project Manager, Housing Element 2022 Update San Francisco Planning Department Via Email: [email removed] October 13, 2022 Response to Draft 4 of the 2022 Housing Element Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Identify mandatory programs to remain in substantial compliance, as well as consequences for failure to satisfactorily complete the mandatory actions. 2. The City should select one of the three rezoning scenarios and provide corresponding <U+201C>post-rezoning<U+201D> densities on HCD<U+2019>s electronic sites inventory form. 3. The City must add a mid-cycle <U+201C>circuit breaker<U+201D> to the element, as stipulated in HCD<U+2019>s review letter. This would be a program to trigger robust mid-cycle permitting adjustments if pipeline yields fall short of projections, or if San Francisco misses deadlines for scheduled programs which are essential for substantial compliance.. 4. We recommend jump-starting housing production with (A) a clean ballot measure to remove discretionary review from the San Francisco Charter, and (B) a social housing program which replaces impact fees and aordability mandates. ### 1 Dear Shelley Caltagirone: While Draft 4 represents a distinct improvement over the previous housing element draft, we remain concerned about the City<U+2019>s desire and ability to resolve the housing crisis and comply with state housing law. There are good ideas in this draft, including actions to armatively further fair housing through place-based revitalization in addition to programs which strengthen tenant protections and reduce displacement and homelessness. However, the draft is fuzzy on many programmatic details, and it<U+2019>s not clear that the programs proposed would meaningfully reduce constraints on the development of housing. The City must do more in response to the August review letter written by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). We are greatly concerned that the programs in the housing element do not reect the dire economic reality in San Francisco with regards to the widespread infeasibility of housing projects<U+2014>and the role of the city<U+2019>s regulatory framework in creating that reality<U+2014>or the seriousness of the City<U+2019>s lack of compliance with state law. HCD<U+2019>s multiple letters to San Francisco indicate that such issues must be addressed in the housing element. The consequences for non-compliance could hardly be higher, ranging from the loss of aordable housing funding to the potential for <U+201D>builder<U+2019>s remedy<U+201D> projects. With a tight January deadline, this letter includes our 1 programmatic recommendations to achieve compliance by the January 31, 2022 deadline. 1. Identify mandatory program actions, and consequences for failure to satisfactorily complete the mandatory actions. HCD describes housing elements as <U+201C>contracts<U+201D> between the City and the state. Although housing elements often include some programs which are not strictly 1 California Gov<U+2019>t Code 65589.5(d) 2 necessary for compliance, San Francisco<U+2019>s draft housing element is unusually long 2 and contains literally hundreds of proposed actions, each with a timeframe. To avoid misunderstandings between San Francisco and HCD, we urge that the housing element explicitly designate which programmatic actions are fundamental and individually necessary to remain in substantial compliance. For programs which deal with issues of compliance with state law, it may be especially wise for San Francisco to include fundamental programs in which the City consults with HCD for a period to ensure compliance. The housing element could also pre-specify certain remedial 3 measures, such as the <U+201C>circuit breaker<U+201D> discussed below. Such measures would kick in automatically if an essential milestone is missed. Although it would not be acceptable if the City designates a few programs as individually fundamental but then fails to implement a host of less individually-essential programs, the demarcation would focus the City<U+2019>s attention on the programs which matter most. 2. Designate one of the three rezoning scenarios as the default scenario and provide corresponding <U+201C>post-rezoning<U+201D> densities on the electronic sites inventory form. The draft Sites Inventory and Rezoning Program describes three rezoning scenarios (pp. 28-32), without committing the City to any of them. If the City adopts its housing element on time, it will have three years to implement one of these scenarios, or a combination, or an equivalent alternative. However, it is clear from HCD<U+2019>s Sites Inventory Form, and from the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), that the housing element must at least provisionally choose one of the three scenarios and record the corresponding <U+201C>post-rezoning<U+201D> densities in the sites inventory spreadsheet. 3 HCD<U+2019>s Housing Policy and Practice Review would provide an opportunity to put such a program into practice. 2 California Gov<U+2019>t Code 65583 states that housing elements must include programs for <U+201C>the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.<U+201D> 3 The HAA specically disallows a city from relying on its zoning code or general plan to deny or <U+201C>render infeasible<U+201D> an aordable housing project on a site the housing element designates as <U+201C>suitable<U+201D> for low- or moderate-income housing, if the density of the project is <U+201C>consistent with the density specied in the housing element.<U+201D> This 4 provision operates as a fallback in the event that a city fails to complete its rezoning on time. For it to work as intended, however, the housing element must designate future densities for the sites contemplated for rezoning, as HCD requires, lest there 5 be no way of saying whether the density of a proposed project is consistent with <U+201C>the density specied in the housing element.<U+201D> To be clear, the designation of post-rezoning densities on the sites-inventory spreadsheet does not bind a city council to adopt a rezoning plan that allows the same densities on the inventory sites. A city council is always free to adopt an alternative plan, so long as the City does so by the statutory deadline and the alternative plan fully accommodates the RHNA shortfall. If the City adopts an alternative plan, the City would submit an updated electronic inventory to HCD and, if necessary, housing element amendments, in connection with the rezoning. 3. Add a mid-cycle <U+201C>circuit breaker<U+201D> to the housing element, as stipulated in HCD<U+2019>s review letter. The housing element<U+2019>s plan for accommodating the City<U+2019>s share of regional housing need relies heavily on yield from development-agreement (<U+201C>DA<U+201D>) and other projects that are already in the housing pipeline. However, these housing-element projections are speculative, and given that housing production in the City has nearly ground to a halt (in part because of regulatory burdens and fees that have made development of 5 Electronic Housing Element Site Inventory Form Instructions, p. 7, Table B, Columns O & P 4 Gov<U+2019>t Code 65589.5(d)(5)(A) 4 multifamily housing on most sites in the City economically infeasible ), we think it is 6 doubtful that the projections will be realized. HCD<U+2019>s review letter told the City to account for these uncertainties by establishing a mid-cycle adjustment plan: [G]iven the element<U+2019>s reliance on pipeline projects, the element must include programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the projects with a commitment to alternative actions (e.g., rezoning) if assumptions are not realized [emphasis added].7 However, the current draft of the housing element does not include a circuit-breaker or any other provision for mid-cycle adjustment. We think it is imperative that the City heed HCD<U+2019>s directive to commit through the adopted housing element to a robust mid-cycle adjustment that would be implemented automatically in the event that pipeline yields fall short of projections. The circuit breaker should also be automatically triggered if the City fails to implement the program milestones it denotes as essential. 4. Give the City<U+2019>s voters the opportunity to Jump start housing production at all income levels with (A) a clean ballot measure to remove discretionary review from the San Francisco Charter, and (B) a revenue measure and social housing program to replace impact fees and aordability mandates. The draft housing element promises that the City will jump start housing production by adopting a Housing Sustainability District no later than January 31, 2024, and by removing Planning Commission hearings on HAA-protected projects for a four-year 7 Letter from Paul McDougal, Senior Program Manager, HCD, to Rich Hillis, Planning Director, City and County of San Francisco, Aug. 8, 2022, Appendix p. 2 6 DRAFT Analysis of Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints, Subattachment 6 5 period. Although these actions are welcome, there is little guarantee that they will be sucient. The draft element includes feasibility analysis by Century Urban which shows that housing projects are economic losers in essentially the entirety of San Francisco as of this writing. Moreover, in response to HCD<U+2019>s demand for an analysis 8 of the cumulative impact of constraints on housing development, the City threw up its hands and declared that the <U+201C>tremendous range<U+201D> of constraints makes such an analysis impossible. The pro forma studies by Century Urban do not consider 9 whether large-scale reductions in impact fees, inclusionary requirements, and other regulatory burdens would<U+2014>cumulatively<U+2014>make housing development feasible at scale. Simultaneously, the City has not committed enough resources toward the accommodation of new aordable housing. Although the draft includes programs to seek more funding for aordable housing, it does not commit to concrete funding 10 sources, and the City should be planning to nance 4,111 lower-income units per year until 2031. This target is nearly fourfold the City<U+2019>s yearly production record for aordable housing in the last ve years. One important question left unanswered is 11 how such funding, once acquired, will be operationalized. Given the serious limitations of the housing element<U+2019>s programs for making housing development feasible again and the lack of aordable housing funding, our position is that large-scale changes to constraints must be made quickly to take maximum eect during the planning period. This will require the electorate to vote to adopt several aspects of these changes due to provisions of the San Francisco Charter and the California Constitution. Given that voters have chosen to place Proposition D on the ballot this year, it is clear that there is a serious appetite for this kind of action. 11 2021 Housing Inventory, p. 5 10 DRAFT 4 of Goals, Objectives, Policies and Actions, pp. 80<U+2013>81 9 Ibid., p. 9 8 DRAFT Analysis of Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints, Subattachment 6 6 Specically, we urge that the housing element commit to placing several measures on the ballot: A) A clean repeal of the charter provision that makes all city permits subject to discretionary review B) A progressive parcel tax on parcels that are rezoned for higher-density housing, which would replace inclusionary mandates and impact fees for aordable housing and infrastructure with a social housing program. (The tax could be proportionate to the square footage of the parcel, or, better, to the square footage of the allowable building envelope.) C) A measure to authorize 100,000 units of mixed-income social housing As to the rst proposal, Propositions D and E on the November 2022 ballot, would eect partial repeals of discretionary review<U+2014>but only for projects meeting a number of costly requirements. And in the case of Proposition E, the requirements are so dicult to satisfy that few<U+2014>if any<U+2014>projects would take advantage of it. The ne 12 distinctions between these measures will probably be lost on most voters. Given that discretionary review has long been recognized as a serious barrier to housing production in the City, especially in auent neighborhoods, the City<U+2019>s voters deserve a chance to get rid of it once and for all. Our second proposal, for a progressive parcel tax that would replace impact fees and inclusionary mandates, would allow the City to capture the value created by upzoning and make serious headway toward its lower-income RHNA target<U+2014>without inadvertently killing market-rate projects in the process. Because owners of rezoned parcels would have to pay the tax whether they redevelop their property or not, the tax would not discourage development. The revenue stream would also be far more stable than the revenue from impact and in-lieu fees in recent history. Notably, after 12 San Francisco Chronicle. September 25, 2022. <U+201C>Endorsement: San Francisco needs aordable housing, not Prop. E<U+2019>s cheap theater<U+201D> 7 the City ratcheted up inclusionary zoning requirements and in-lieu fees starting in 2017, fees collected by the City crashed as housing developments became increasingly infeasible. There are many precedents for a progressive parcel tax, 13 including Proposition 0 on the November 2022 ballot, and the so-called Mello-Roos fees that are commonly used to nance infrastructure for suburban, greeneld development projects. With a progressive parcel tax established, San Francisco could then issue bonds against the new tax revenue, as well as tax revenue collected from Proposition I (November 2019), to create a funding stream at the scale needed to fund a social housing measure. This is where the third ballot measure comes in. Voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition K in November 2020 to authorize 10,000 units of social housing. A larger scale version of that ballot measure would allow San Francisco to meet its RHNA goals<U+2014>especially for lower-income households<U+2014>by building housing itself. The City should commit to completing the social housing study specied in the draft element within one year and subsequently commit to enacting 14 a social housing program. In conclusion, there is still much work to be done. We appreciate the dedication of the hard-working public servants at San Francisco Planning and urge the department to take the necessary steps needed to write a housing element capable of achieving substantial compliance with state law. We look forward to engaging with the City as it moves toward the end of the housing element update cycle. 14 DRAFT 4 of Goals, Objectives, Policies and Actions, pp. 81 13 San Francisco Chronicle. June 27, 2022. <U+201C>San Francisco housing development has slowed to a crawl, with no uptick in sight: The costs are simply too high<U+201D> 8 Best regards, Robert Fruchtman, Armand Domalewski, David Broockman, Salim Damerdji San Francisco YIMBY Nadia Rahman Political Director, San Francisco YIMBY CC: Kimia Haddadan, San Francisco Planning Department Maia Small, San Francisco Planning Department Malena Leon-Farrera, San Francisco Planning Department Lisa Gluckstein, Oce of San Francisco Mayor London Breed Commissioners, San Francisco Planning Commission Sohab Mehmood, California Department of Housing and Community Development Paul McDougall, California Department of Housing and Community Development Gustavo Velasquez, California Department of Housing and Community Development Megan Kirkeby, California Department of Housing and Community Development Melinda Coy, California Department of Housing and Community Development David Zisser, California Department of Housing and Community Development Matthew Struhar, California Attorney General<U+2019>s Oce Housing Strike Force Sonja Trauss, YIMBY Law Rafa Sonnenfeld, YIMBY Law Keith Diggs, YIMBY Law 9show more

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · email · 2022-10-20 · oppose · source packet

Comment re: Draft Four of the Housing Element 2022 Update
14 October 2022 Shelley Caltagirone Interim Project Manager 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 and [email removed] Comment re: Draft Four of the Housing Element 2022 Update Dear Shelley Caltagirone, I agree with the State of California's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)'s assessment that the SF Planning Department needs to present a more compelling stra… 14 October 2022 Shelley Caltagirone Interim Project Manager 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 and [email removed] Comment re: Draft Four of the Housing Element 2022 Update Dear Shelley Caltagirone, I agree with the State of California's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)'s assessment that the SF Planning Department needs to present a more compelling strategy for reaching our city's affordable housing development goals. As a low income SF tenant, member of SF Tenants Union and The Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition, it is my opinion that if housing production is based solely on market based strategies, then San Francisco's affordable housing goal to build nearly 47,000 affordable housing units in Housing Element 2022 won't be realized. SF residents are already being priced out of housing. Relying solely on a "market based housing strategies" for housing production would only cause further displacement of SF residents, who can barely afford to live and work in the city. Inevitably, relying on market based solutions for production of the affordable housing needed, would deepen our housing imbalance-in flagrant disregard of key principles of racial and social equity, which, are supposed to form the basis of San Francisco's Housing Element 2022. Some concerns I share about how this latest draft deals with our affordable housing goal are: continued over-reliance on market based strategies and under-reliance on community- based and public strategies for accomplishing this affordable housing goal; no clear land use and accompanying resource plan for expanding affordable housing development to parts of the city with smaller lot sizes, including high resource areas or for setting aside land exclusively for 100% affordable development; no clear roadmap to building and adopting the resource and budget plan to assure San Francisco<U+2019>s ability to achieve the 46k affordable units; lengthy processes for figuring out innovative strategies with no clear indication as to how any of these strategies might be implemented Lack of clear community participation and governance practices to ensure ongoing partnership and accountability to implementation I am encouraged that SF Planning has recently begun to collaborate with the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition and The Council of Community Housing to develop strategies to implement funding of affordable housing -- as now noted in Policy 22 of Draft Four of the Housing Element 2022 Update. Since SF Planning will need to work within existing legislation to ensure the total requisite 82,069 units needed in this next Housing Element cycle, I am forwarding principles developed by housing advocates statewide for you to use in developing the framework to guarantee equity for SF's residents. Five Principles to ensure that Housing Production Legislation meets Minimum Standards for Equity: 1. Protect low-income families and communities vulnerable to displacement, particularly communities of color. 2. Respect the voices of those who have been historically disenfranchised by safeguarding and strengthening public participation and self-determination in vulnerable communities and for lower-income residents and people of color. 3. Preserve and strengthen existing state and local policies that promote housing development for those most in need at the bottom of the income spectrum, affirmatively further fair housing, and advance housing opportunities in all regions of the state. 4. Ensure all policies that create value for landowners or developers recapture a significant portion of that value in the form of affordable homes for lower-income people and/or equivalent financial resources dedicated to affordable housing production. 5. Ensure that land use planning, siting, and investment decisions protect and advance public health, housing, and environmental justice and do not further concentrate polluting land uses in disadvantaged and BIPOC communities. Sincerely, Anastasia Yovanopoulos cc Planning Director, Rich Hillis Planning Equity Director, Miriam Chion Planning Commissioners Planning Commission Clerk, Jonas Ionin Board of Supervisors, Legislative Aides Council of Community Housing Organizations Board of Supervisorsshow more

Joseph Smooke · email · 2022-10-20 · support · source packet

REP-SF Comment to Oct 6 Housing Element Draft
Hi Shelley Please find attached the comment letter from the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition (REP-SF) to the October 6 draft of the Housing Element. We look forward to continuing to work with Planning's Housing Element team on the next round of revisions. Best, --joseph co-founder of People Power Media Creators of PRICED OUT See the animation that will change the way you think about housing! 1… Hi Shelley Please find attached the comment letter from the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition (REP-SF) to the October 6 draft of the Housing Element. We look forward to continuing to work with Planning's Housing Element team on the next round of revisions. Best, --joseph co-founder of People Power Media Creators of PRICED OUT See the animation that will change the way you think about housing! 14 October 2022 Shelley Caltagirone Interim Project Manager 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 [email removed] Re: Housing Element October 6 Release Dear Shelley, This letter in no way supersedes our July 12, 2022 letter that commented on the Housing Element Draft Environmental Impact Report, and provided extensive detail about our concerns about the profit-driven, market-based approach to the Housing Element. The Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition (REP-SF) does, however, appreciate Planning staff's recent interest in working with REP-SF and the Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO) to determine strategies for meeting the daunting affordable housing goals in this new Housing Element. We especially see this statement in the summary of "key changes to the documents": "New actions - including development of a comprehensive strategy to get to the new scale of sustained affordable housing funding and implementation required to reach 46,000 units over the next 8 years, as proposed by key affordable housing stakeholders." Some of our concerns about how this latest draft addresses this affordable housing goal are: continued over-reliance on market based strategies and under-reliance on community-based and public strategies for accomplishing this affordable housing goal; no clear land use plan for expanding affordable housing development to parts of the city with smaller lot sizes, including high resource areas or for setting aside land exclusively for 100% affordable development; no clear roadmap to building and adopting the resource and budget plan to assure San Francisco<U+2019>s ability to achieve the 46k affordable units; lengthy processes for figuring out innovative strategies with no clear indication as to how any of these strategies might be implemented lack of clear community participation and governance practices to ensure ongoing partnership and accountability to implementation Since the Housing Element process started and has unfolded over the past couple of years as a market-based housing plan, we have a lot of catching up to do. Working together, we believe that we can create a scalable and accountable affordable housing plan, but we feel that it is critically important for this plan to be clear and detailed before the Housing Element is finalized. REP-SF acknowledges the effort Planning staff has made to reach out to REP-SF and CCHO in the couple of days leading up to Planning's Oct 6 submittal to HCD, and we look forward to continuing to work collaboratively for significant and substantive progress toward a Housing Element that is truly centered on racial and social equity. The Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition appreciates Planning's stated goal to "ensure that we adopt a housing plan truly centered in racial and social equity in 2023." REP-SF continues to want to collaborate as an active and engaged partner with Planning to make this goal a reality. Respectfully submitted, The Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition, San Francisco (REP-SF) cc Planning Director, Rich Hillis Planning Equity Director, Miriam Chion Principal Planner, Maia Small Planning Commissioners Planning Commission Clerk, Jonas Ionin Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors, Legislative Aides Council of Community Housing Organizations 2show more

2022-11-03 · 8 comments · 7 / 1

Lawrence Dann-Fenwick · email · 2022-11-03 · support · source packet

I support the rezoning of my neighborhood
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am writing in regards to the housing element hearing item for November 3. You have asked to hear from San Franciscans in neighborhoods which would be affected by the proposed rezoning<U+2014>and I am one of them. This rezoning is the right call. I own a two story house and it makes zero sense that homes are limited to three stories. I don<U+2019>t want skysc… show more

Housing Element Team At Sf Yimby · email · 2022-11-03 · support · source packet

Tell the Planning Commission You Support More Homes
SF YIMBY Logo Tell the Planning Commission You Support More Homes! San Francisco's Planning Commission asked to hear from San Franciscans in neighborhoods which would be affected by the rezoning proposed in the current draft of the housing element <U+2014>and based on your location you are likely in one of them. Now, let's tell our Commissioners that we love to see the upzoning of our neighborhoods.… show more

Elizabeth Blackburn · email · 2022-11-03 · support · source packet

I support the rezoning of my neighborhood
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I think the housing element hearing item for November 3, on the topic of proposed rezoning of our neighborhood is important because San Francisco can lead the way: the proposed rezoning is the right thing to do for social and environmental reasons. I am glad that the Planning Department wants to rezone my neighborhood. I will be a proud resident of our neighborhood if we … show more

Prodan Statev · email · 2022-11-03 · support · source packet

Build taller in the Inner Richmond (and everywhere else) -- I strongly support rezoning
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Hey, as a new homeowner in SF, I support increasing the density of my neighborhood, including the Inner Richmond where I live and work, which is part of the SF Planning housing element redistricting. I personally support 0 height/density limits of any kind for residential land, and these plans get us closer to that ideal. In conclusion, I would be very affected by the hou… show more

Barak Gila · email · 2022-11-03 · support · source packet

Build taller in the Castro (and everywhere else) -- I support the rezoning
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Hey, as a new homeowner in SF, I support increasing the density of my neighborhood, including the Castro where I live, which is part of the SF Planning housing element redistricting. I personally support 0 height/density limits of any kind for residential land, and these plans get us closer to that ideal. Barak Gila [email removed] 1950A 15th St SF, California 94114

Dick Morten · email · 2022-11-03 · support · source packet

Support for careful rezoning in the Housing Element
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am writing in regards to the housing element hearing item for November 3. You have asked to hear from San Franciscans in neighborhoods which would be affected by the proposed rezoning<U+2014>and I am one of them. This rezoning is the right call. In the 1980s the Planning Commission downzoned the city. A Planning Dept. planner wrote a white paper indicating that th… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am writing in regards to the housing element hearing item for November 3. You have asked to hear from San Franciscans in neighborhoods which would be affected by the proposed rezoning<U+2014>and I am one of them. This rezoning is the right call. In the 1980s the Planning Commission downzoned the city. A Planning Dept. planner wrote a white paper indicating that the downzoning would result in constrained housing supply through new construction with the result in significantly higher rents and home prices which may force residents to leave San Francisco and may not account housing needed for increased household formation. The zoning has had all of those impacts. I have lived in the Parkside for several decades. A three floor apartment (33rd Avenue @ Vicente) with underground parking was built containing about 12 units was built on a former gas station lot. There are several factors that make this project work. 1. Underground parking reduces the already constrained neighborhood parking, 2. Architectural design is good; it is not the ugly "Richmond Specials" which has caused resistance to new development. 3. The landscaping could have better maintenance. 4. The small Chinese emersion preschool animates the site with happy children's activities. These points must be considered to gain neighborhood acceptability of new construction. I support incentives for higher density housing above retail on major retail nodes on transit corridors such as Taraval, Judah, Noriega, Irving Streets. To reduce impacts the new development must include parking because the neighborhoods above are difficult to find parking when going to their retail and for residents. Care needs to be taken to ensure that there are no negative impacts in adjacent residential areas. After many years I am mystified why the fully permitted Park Merced development has not built there development. I have followed the Stonestown proposed development where at this writing I think is worth support. Is there anything in the proposed Housing Element which move these major projects forward? In conclusion, I would be very affected by the housing element<U+2014>and in a good way. I would like my daughter to be able stay in San Francisco. I urge you and San Francisco Planning to do everything they can to rescue the city from its housing affordability crisis. And this is a good first step. Dick Morten Dick Morten [email removed] 2578 33rd Avenue San Francisco, California 94116show more

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2022-11-03 · oppose · source packet

Deadline for Housing Element
Dear Senator Wiener, Good afternoon to you. I don<U+2019>t know if you or your staff watched the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing today when the Staff updated the Commission on the new deadline for a completed Housing Element. It is very unfortunate that there was this confusion over the grace period. I really don<U+2019>t understand how HCD could not <U+201C>catch<U+201D> the Departm… Dear Senator Wiener, Good afternoon to you. I don<U+2019>t know if you or your staff watched the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing today when the Staff updated the Commission on the new deadline for a completed Housing Element. It is very unfortunate that there was this confusion over the grace period. I really don<U+2019>t understand how HCD could not <U+201C>catch<U+201D> the Department<U+2019>s error given that from the very beginning this was the timeline proposed by the Department. And the Public was (or should have been) fully aware of this proposed timeline as well, particularly the very savvy housing activists who are seeking even more development beyond what has occurred in San Francisco in the past decade and what could occur in the next 10 years. Certainly if not from the beginning of the process for the Housing Element, on August 14, 2022 when the investigation by the State was announced in the SF Chronicle, that would logically seem to have been a time when this could have been <U+201C>discovered<U+201D> by HCD. Here is my point: San Francisco has shown good faith effort to comply with the RHNA goals (which may be questionable) in the Drafts of the Housing Element. As you know, Sacramento has passed a lot of legislation to push development that will increase housing in San Francisco. It seems that it would be really unfaira Pyrrhic victory for the various groups advocating for more housingif the HCD is allowed to create a situation where the "Builder<U+2019>s Remedy" kicked in for San Franciscodue to this honest confusion that frankly it seems HCD with all their expertise should have caught. Please help your City to solve this time crunch so the Housing Element can be concluded in a fair manner to allow all the Citizens of San Francisco to have a fair share in this Housing Element, this document for the future, without the added negative pressure from the Builder<U+2019>s Remedy and other threats from Sacramento. Thank you. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttishshow more

Chris Chidsey · email · 2022-11-03 · support · source packet

I support the rezoning of my neighborhood
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am writing in regards to the housing element hearing item for November 3. I own a home near Noriega and 24th Ave. As with Judah and Taraval in the Sunset, Noriega has many lots that should be permitted to be developed as multistory, multiunit residential housing. Increased residential density along these transit corridors will allow more frequent and reliable bus and tr… show more

2022-11-17 · 18 comments · 8 / 10

Peter Lynch · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

The November 10 housing element is troubling
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I think the Planning Department is failing the transparency test in this situation. I urge you, and all the commissioners to dig deeper. Thank you. Peter Lynch [email removed] 141 Alpine Ter San Francisco, California 94117

Carrie Kingman · email · 2022-11-17 · support · source packet

Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan for the Planning Commission
Please forward this email to all Planning Commissioners. On behalf of Senior and Disability Action's Housing Collaborative, I write to urge you to amend the Housing Element to include the REP Coalition's Citywide People's Plan! In particular, please include the need to expand Senior Operating Subsidies, create Disability Operating Subsidies, and redefine affordable to be meaningful to people living on… show more

Dawn Ma · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

The November 10 housing element is unacceptable. Period.
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am outraged by the housing element the city intends to pass. Residents are facing high housing costs and people are struggling to stay afloat. We need more housing, affordable AND market rate, to address our massive housing shortage. That's supposed to be addressed in the housing element reviewed by California Department of Housing and Community Development. While … Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am outraged by the housing element the city intends to pass. Residents are facing high housing costs and people are struggling to stay afloat. We need more housing, affordable AND market rate, to address our massive housing shortage. That's supposed to be addressed in the housing element reviewed by California Department of Housing and Community Development. While I support the Housing Element<U+2019>s vision for upzoning the high-opportunity areas of the city to create the potential capacity for the additional housing we need to meet the State<U+2019>s RHNA goals and create a more equitable and accessible city for both current and future citizens. However, as the Housing Element<U+2019>s constraints analysis states, we need to do much more to remove the additional layers of process and discretionary review that currently plague our entitlements and production system, otherwise the additional zoning will be an empty promise and fail to deliver the additional housing we so clearly need Therefore, it is critical that the Board of Supervisors adopt this Housing Element, and not add any additional constraints, requirements, or process, and rather work with the Planning Department to further remove these barriers that add cost and time, and ultimately make even small-scale improvements and increases infeasible to ordinary citizens. I urge the city to make the following changes to the housing element without delay: 1. Incorporate all the accountability mechanisms California HCD has requested from San Francisco 2. Commit to making housing projects feasible to build starting in 2023, or cut back on development standards and exactions as necessary to make housing projects feasible. 3. Insert language into the housing element to prevent the Board of Supervisors from worsening project feasibility. 4. Include programs to automatically rezone at the midway point in the RHNA cycle if the City is off-track to meet its RHNA goals. There is still time. San Francisco can still meet state requirements for the housing element and address its housing crisis. I urge you to be bold and act now. The future of housing in San Francisco is at stake. Dawn Ma [email removed] 25th Street San Francisco, California 94114show more

Jessica Lehman · email · 2022-11-17 · support · source packet

Citywide People"s Plan
Please forward this email to all Planning Commissioners. On behalf of Senior and Disability Action's Housing Collaborative, I write to urge you to amend the Housing Element to include the REP Coalition's Citywide People's Plan! In particular, please include the need to expand Senior Operating Subsidies, create Disability Operating Subsidies, and redefine affordable to be meaningful to people living on … show more

Yesi Koopman · email · 2022-11-17 · support · source packet

CITY WIDE PEOPLE PLAN
Hello, On behalf of Senior and Disability Action's Housing Collaborative, I write to urge you to amend the Housing Element to include the Citywide People's Plan! In particular, please include the need to expand Senior Operating Subsidies, create Disability Operating Subsidies, and redefine affordable to be meaningful to people living on SSI, Social Security, or very low wages. Please empathize and reconsid… show more

Barry Mccardel · email · 2022-11-17 · support · source packet

Concerns about the housing element proposal
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Dear all, I'm concerned and confused as to why we're messing around with the State on the housing element. We need to build housing <U+2013> now <U+2013> and it's a true embarrassment that our city is not taking this seriously. Instead you're trying to preserve the barriers to building housing that have caused this affordability crisis. Why… show more

Justin Oneill · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

The November 10 housing element is unacceptable. Period.
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, You<U+2019>ve no doubt received thousands of messages explaining why the November 10 housing element is unacceptable. But at the end of the day, it boils down to this: it doesn<U+2019>t meant the legal requirements for a compliant housing element. Please don<U+2019>t force San Francisco to blatantly violate the law. We<U+2019>ll lose so much state … show more

Shahin Saneinejad · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

Please fix the November 10 housing element. It is unacceptable
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, After 15 years of watching the Planning Department and Commission strangle new housing in San Francisco, I'm outraged by the missing solutions in the housing element. It does not eliminate subjective standards, residential design standards designed to discourage apartments, conditional use hoops for residential development, or threats of discretionary review and CEQA… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, After 15 years of watching the Planning Department and Commission strangle new housing in San Francisco, I'm outraged by the missing solutions in the housing element. It does not eliminate subjective standards, residential design standards designed to discourage apartments, conditional use hoops for residential development, or threats of discretionary review and CEQA litigation on every attempt to build homes. It does not commit the city to following state permit streamlining laws. I am outraged by the housing element the city intends to pass. Residents are facing high housing costs and people are struggling to stay afloat. We need more housing, especially affordable housing, to address our massive housing shortage. That's supposed to be addressed in the housing element reviewed by California Department of Housing and Community Development. So why is the city ignoring feedback from the State of California? In August, HCD gave San Francisco crystal clear feedback that its next housing plan needs to include backup plans in case housing production does not increase as projected, and that the city needs to make development easier based on a careful review of governmental constraints. San Francisco's response: "Nah." At the November 3rd hearing of the Planning Commission, the Planning Department declared that they were "studying" backup plans. At the November 15 Board of Supervisors hearing on the housing element, the Planning Department glossed over the fact that they were ignoring the state. This is pure arrogance. The result is a housing element which cannot be trusted. The Planning Department is enabling the Board of Supervisors to do what it has always done: Make vague platitudes toward doing better and then later make housing development harder and more expensive when they think nobody is looking. How can San Franciscans trust a housing plan with no guardrails, to be implemented by a Board of Supervisors that wants no guardrails? I won't stand for this. The Planning Department is pretending that everything is fine, that these are minor details. Things are not fine. San Franciscans are paying attention. I urge the city to make the following changes to the housing element without delay: 1. Incorporate all the accountability mechanisms California HCD has requested from San Francisco 2. Commit to making housing projects feasible to build starting in 2023, or cut back on development standards and exactions as necessary to make housing projects feasible. 3. Insert language into the housing element to prevent the Board of Supervisors from worsening project feasibility. 4. Include programs to automatically rezone at the midway point in the RHNA cycle if the City is off-track to meet its RHNA goals. There is still time. San Francisco can still meet state requirements for the housing element and address its housing crisis. I urge you to be bold and act now. The future of housing in San Francisco is at stake. Shahin Saneinejad [email removed] 263 Lee Ave San Francisco, California 94112show more

Rachel Novak · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

The November 10 housing element is not going to address the city"s problems.
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am outraged by the housing element the city intends to pass. Why is the city ignoring feedback from the State of California? How can San Franciscans trust a housing plan with no guardrails, to be implemented by a Board of Supervisors that wants no guardrails? I urge the city to make the following changes to the housing element without delay: 1. Incorporate all the accou… show more

Alexander Boutelle · email · 2022-11-17 · support · source packet

SF"s HE drafts are fantasies
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am frustrated but not surprised that SF has produced a housing element draft that has no hope of ever being achieved. They've done this for years. We need state-enforced guardrails to keep us honest. As a bay area resident (who had to leave SF to buy a house, because of the 40 years of underbuilding), my number one priority is that sufficient housing is built so th… show more

Sarah Preisler · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

The November 10 housing element is unacceptable. Period.
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am outraged by the housing element the city intends to pass. Residents are facing high housing costs and people are struggling to stay afloat. We need more housing, especially affordable housing, to address our massive housing shortage. That's supposed to be addressed in the housing element reviewed by California Department of Housing and Community Development. So … Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am outraged by the housing element the city intends to pass. Residents are facing high housing costs and people are struggling to stay afloat. We need more housing, especially affordable housing, to address our massive housing shortage. That's supposed to be addressed in the housing element reviewed by California Department of Housing and Community Development. So why is the city ignoring feedback from the State of California? In August, HCD gave San Francisco crystal clear feedback that its next housing plan needs to include backup plans in case housing production does not increase as projected, and that the city needs to make development easier based on a careful review of governmental constraints. San Francisco's response as usual has been to ignore it. At the November 3rd hearing of the Planning Commission, the Planning Department declared that they were "studying" backup plans. At the November 15 Board of Supervisors hearing on the housing element, the Planning Department glossed over the fact that they were ignoring the state. The Planning Department has had years to "study" our housing issues and has done absolutely nothing to address them. Enough is enough. The Planning Department is enabling the Board of Supervisors to do what it has always done: Make vague platitudes toward doing better and then later make housing development harder and more expensive when they think nobody is looking. The Planning Department needs to stand up and do it's job - make housing feasible in San Francisco instead of doing everything in their power to make it impossible to build. I urge the city to make the following changes to the housing element without delay: 1. Incorporate all the accountability mechanisms California HCD has requested from San Francisco 2. Commit to making housing projects feasible to build starting in 2023, or cut back on development standards and exactions as necessary to make housing projects feasible. 3. Insert language into the housing element to prevent the Board of Supervisors from worsening project feasibility. 4. Include programs to automatically rezone at the midway point in the RHNA cycle if the City is off-track to meet its RHNA goals. Again, enough is enough. Sarah Preisler [email removed] 1001 Potrero Avenue San Francisco, California 94110show more

Kathy Lipscomb · email · 2022-11-17 · support · source packet

CITY-WIDE PEOPLE"S HOUSING ELEMENT
DEAR COMMISSIONERS: AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSING COLLABORATIVE OF SENIOR AND DISABILITY ACTION, I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO AMEND THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO INCLUDE RACIAL & EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION'S CIITYWIDE PEOPLE'S PLAN. IN PARTICULAR, PLEASE INCLUDE THE NEED TO: EXPAND SENIOR OPERATING SUBSIDIES CREATE DISABILITY SUBSIDIES REDEFINE AFFORDABLE TO BE REALISTIC TO PEOPLE LIVING ON SOCIAL SECURITY… show more

Lori Yamauchi · email · 2022-11-17 · support · source packet

Board of Supervisors Nov. 15 Agenda Item 221033 - Public comment on Draft
Housing Element 2022 Update President Walton and members of the Board, I am Lori Yamauchi, a 41 year resident of San Francisco. I serve on the board of the Japantown Task Force, whose mission is to preserve and develop San Francisco<U+2019>s Japantown. As one of three remaining Japantowns in the country, San Francisco<U+2019>s Japantown is a community that has been eviscerated by government policy, thr… Housing Element 2022 Update President Walton and members of the Board, I am Lori Yamauchi, a 41 year resident of San Francisco. I serve on the board of the Japantown Task Force, whose mission is to preserve and develop San Francisco<U+2019>s Japantown. As one of three remaining Japantowns in the country, San Francisco<U+2019>s Japantown is a community that has been eviscerated by government policy, through the WW II incarceration and the City<U+2019>s Redevelopment program. Japantown Task Force has been engaged in discussions with the Planning Department about the Housing Element over the past two years. Japantown has long enjoyed a collaborative relationship with the Planning staff, since it became San Francisco<U+2019>s first cultural district in 2013. The Task Force greatly appreciates that the 2022 Housing Element is focused on racial and social equity, with attention to communities of color harmed by governmental actions. The Task Force affirms the need for more housing, particularly affordable housing, in Japantown. We appreciate that Japantown has been designated in the Housing Element as an Area of Vulnerability and therefore a Priority Equity Geography. At the same time, Japantown is located along Geary Boulevard, a transit corridor, where the Housing Element is promoting more housing and is located in a Well Resourced Neighborhood. Given its past collaboration with Planning staff, Japantown Task Force was surprised when it discovered in the April Draft EIR for the Housing Element that the Planning staff was evaluating potential rezoning to increase the height limit from 50<U+2019> to 240<U+2019>, a nearly fivefold increase, and removal of housing density limits on the superblocks between Laguna and Fillmore, where the Peace Plaza, malls and theater are located. We were assured that the height limit increases are a hypothetical and not a legislative proposal, and any changes in zoning in a Priority Equity Geography like Japantown will not occur unless requested through community-led processes. However, we were concerned about the signals to property owners that the Housing Element maps send about potential height increases and the inflationary pressures on property value. Since registering our concerns with the Planning Commission and staff over the past few months, we were notified today by Planning staff (and heard Director Hillis state to Supervisor Preston) that no rezoning of Japantown will occur unless requested by community led processes, and Japantown has been REMOVED from the increased height limit and density maps. The Task Force looks forward to engaging our community in working with the City on creating an area plan, building on previous planning processes, to inform the development of community benefits that would mitigate effects of new development with affordable housing. Thank you for receiving my testimony. Sincerely, Lori Yamauchishow more

Betty Traynor · email · 2022-11-17 · support · source packet

S.F. Housing Element and Affordability for Seniors and People with Disabilities
Dear Planning Commissioners, On behalf of Senior and Disability Action's Housing Collaborative, I urge you to amend the Housing Element to include the REP Coalition's Citywide People's Plan! In particular, please include the need to expand Senior Operating Subsidies, creation of Disability Operating Subsidies, and redefine affordable to be meaningful to people living on SSI, Social Security, or very lo… show more

Emily Murase · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

[Japantown Task Force] Letter on DEIR Response to Comments
Planning Department Colleagues, Thank you for the continued opportunity to engage with the Housing Element DEIR. The Japantown Task Force has been carefully reviewing the latest documents and discussed a report at this week's JTF Land Use and Transportation Committee. Please see the attached letter addressed to President Tanner for the full Planning Commission to consider at its next meeting. Kindly confirm re… Planning Department Colleagues, Thank you for the continued opportunity to engage with the Housing Element DEIR. The Japantown Task Force has been carefully reviewing the latest documents and discussed a report at this week's JTF Land Use and Transportation Committee. Please see the attached letter addressed to President Tanner for the full Planning Commission to consider at its next meeting. Kindly confirm receipt and include it in the public record. Thank you! Emily Emily M. Murase, PhD Executive Director Japantown Task Force, Inc. 1765 Sutter Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94115 www.japantowntaskforce.org [phone removed] (Office) [phone removed] (Cell) November 10, 2022 Rachael Tanner President San Francisco Planning Commission VIA EMAIL RE: San Francisco Housing Element 2022 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - Responses to Comments Dear President Tanner: The Japantown Task Force offers the following comments on the Housing Element Draft Environmental Impact Report responses to comments issued on October 3, 2022. Given the short period before certification by the Planning Commission, it was incredibly difficult for us to review and analyze in a week<U+2019>s time, and virtually impossible for us to discuss the document with the broader Japantown community. Therefore, we continue to encourage the Planning Department and Commission to conduct targeted outreach with San Francisco communities in order to ensure that community needs are reflected in the Housing Element. Comments on Project Description In response to JTF<U+2019>s concern [O-JTF-1] that the EIR contains proposals that unfairly overburden Japantown <U+2013> specifically the dramatic increase (almost five-fold) in height limits and the lifting of density limits <U+2013> that could exert extreme development pressure and harmful impacts on have on Japantown, the DEIR Response to Comments states that the proposal is just a hypothetical and not a legislative proposal. We have been assured that additional CEQA analysis will be performed when a future zoning change is proposed and that there are alternative example maps that show different projected heights and density controls. Although JTF acknowledges that these maps are hypothetical, it is unclear how and by what methodology the hypothetical example was constructed. Furthermore, in all three example maps, Japantown is consistently designated for dramatic height and density increase without variation. There is no explanation why Japantown has been singled out and no other Cultural District has been identified as potentially absorbing such significant growth. In addition, we have not seen any examples of analyses that would meet the projected future housing production and distribution without dramatically increasing height and density in Japantown. JTF appreciates that the Housing Element Draft 4 Policy 20 states that any changes in zoning in a Priority Equity Geography (like Japantown) will come through community-led processes. However, we are concerned about the signals to property owners that the report sends about the potential height limit increases and the concomitant increases in property value. Finally, JTF requests more detailed maps that depict changes in height limits and density controls. The Responses to Comments states that <U+201C>When viewed electronically in PDF format, as opposed to printed, readers can zoom in on any map to see more details.<U+201D> However, even when zooming in, it is impossible to see the names of specific streets. Comments on Cultural Resources In response to JTF<U+2019>s concern [O-JTF-8] about the lack of protections for tangible and intangible historic resources, the DEIR Response to Comments discusses that there will be a San Francisco Cultural Resources Survey completed by 2026 to identify, document, and evaluate places and resources, including tangible and intangible aspects. This survey is intended to guide departments working on future landmark designations, heritage based initiatives, environmental review, new development projects, area plans, and building permit applications. JTF supports conducting a Cultural Resources Survey, as it will be important to protect Japantown<U+2019>s historical and cultural assets. However, we feel this survey needs to be completed as soon as possible; 2026 is too late. Departments will act without this resource for at least four years, potentially resulting in significant and irreparable damage to Japantown<U+2019>s historic resources and similar resources in other communities. When conducting the Cultural Resources survey, Priority Equity Geographies such as Japantown should be analyzed first. JTF recommends that other tools be leveraged to support the Cultural Resources Survey, and protect historic resources until the Cultural Resources Survey is completed: The Japantown community has already identified historic and cultural resources in the Japanese Cultural Heritage & Economic Sustainability Strategy (JCHESS) Report, as well as the upcoming Cultural History, Housing, and Economic Sustainability Strategies (CHHESS) Report. JTF urges that these reports be used to support a speedy identification, documentation, and evaluation of cultural resources. JTF acknowledges that any changes to height limits and density controls will be determined by a community led process, and that this will serve as an important tool to protect historical resources. JTF encourages the development of neighborhood plans that identify specific assets for preservation and measures to protect tangible and intangible cultural resources. Comments on Transportation and Circulation In response to JTF<U+2019>s concern [O-JTF-12] about the impact on the Japan Center Garage and parking in Japantown, the DEIR states that the Department<U+2019>s 2019 Transportation Guidelines include a screening criterion to determine if a proposed project has a substantial parking deficit. JTF acknowledges that the Transportation Guidelines could be a helpful mitigator. However, we remain concerned that a significant increase in housing could impact the Japan Center Garage, a crucial community resource that supports Japantown<U+2019>s small businesses, as well as accommodates visitors from all over the Bay Area, including Japantown community members who were otherwise forcibly displaced by urban redevelopment. JTF requests a detailed traffic 1765 Sutter Street, 3RDFloor, San Francisco, CA 94115 - [phone removed] [email removed] - www.japantowntaskforce.org 2 study be completed for the Japantown area as part of any proposed zoning changes that will allow for greater housing density in the Japantown area. Comments on Wind In response to JTF<U+2019>s concern [O-JTF-16] that the DEIR should provide wind analyses of taller buildings in Japantown and propose mitigation measures, the DEIR Responses to Comments states that under CEQA, all projects greater than 85 feet will require a screening-level assessment from a qualified wind expert and, based on Planning Department experience, buildings under 85 feet in San Francisco have no potential to create wind hazard impacts. JTF would like to review and understand the research and analysis that informs the assumption that buildings less than 85 feet have no potential to create wind hazards. Japantown<U+2019>s senior population is particularly sensitive to existing wind conditions and JTF is concerned that any potential increase in wind warrants analysis, even if less than 85 feet tall. Comments on Shadow In response to JTF<U+2019>s concern [O-JTF-13, O-JTF-15] about the lack of a shadow analysis on the City-owned Peace Plaza, the DEIR Responses to Comments discusses that they analyzed 30 representative open spaces, and that it is not feasible or necessary to study all open spaces. Additionally, we appreciate that the City would evaluate shadow impacts of new development as applicable under CEQA. JTF strongly supports shadow analysis on the Peace Plaza as an historically significant open space and cultural gathering space for Japantown to comply with Proposition K, the Sunlight Ordinance, and the resulting Planning Code Section 295 that requires the Planning Commission to evaluate and make a determination about shadow impacts on the city<U+2019>s open spaces. Given the risk of losing Japantown<U+2019>s limited open spaces, JTF also supports due diligence in requiring shadow analysis of the Buchanan Mall / Osaka Way and Cottage Row. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Emily M. Murase, PhD Executive Director Cc: Director Hillis 1765 Sutter Street, 3RDFloor, San Francisco, CA 94115 - [phone removed] [email removed] - www.japantowntaskforce.org 3show more

Ryan Oconnell · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

The November 10 housing element is unacceptable
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am upset by the housing element the city intends to pass. You have a responsibility to adopt a housing element that addresses the community's needs over the next several years. We need more housing, especially affordable housing and missing middle housing. I work with countless San Francisco residents who are facing the realization that there is no housing for thei… show more

Paul Westcott · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

Item 14: The housing element draft is lying to the State of California
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Please make sure San Francisco's housing element plan allows this city to become denser and actually comply with HCD requirements. I urge the city to make the following changes to the housing element without delay: 1. Incorporate all the accountability mechanisms California HCD has requested from San Francisco 2. Commit to making housing projects feasible to build s… show more

Frank Noto · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

Item 14: The housing element draft is lying to the State of California
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I write about the housing element the city is trying to pass. We need more housing, especially affordable housing, to address our massive housing shortage. This was supposed to be addressed in the housing element reviewed by California Department of Housing and Community Development. In August, HCD gave San Francisco clear instructions that its next housing plan needs to … show more

2022-12-01 · 2 comments · 1 / 1

Joseph Smooke · email · 2022-12-01 · oppose · source packet

REP-SF Comments on San Francisco Final Housing Element 2022
Dear Miriam Chion Please find the attached letter from the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition on the Final set of Actions for San Francisco's Housing Element 2022. Please let us know when you would like to discuss these further. Thanks so much, --joseph co-founder of People Power Media Creators of PRICED OUT See the animation that will change the way you think about housing! 28 November 2022 Mir… Dear Miriam Chion Please find the attached letter from the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition on the Final set of Actions for San Francisco's Housing Element 2022. Please let us know when you would like to discuss these further. Thanks so much, --joseph co-founder of People Power Media Creators of PRICED OUT See the animation that will change the way you think about housing! 28 November 2022 Miriam Chion, SF Planning Department The Race and Equity in all Planning Coalition (REP-SF) is gravely concerned that this Final Housing Element will work against equity, affordability, democracy, and self-determination of the communities it purports to deliver equitable outcomes for. At the Planning Commission hearing on November 17, 2022, some Commissioners appear to have thought that the Housing Element, as proposed, is responsive to REP-SF's Citywide People's Plan for Equity in Land Use. REP-SF hopes that this extensive response will provide clear direction for how the Housing Element's Actions can be revised in order to achieve outcomes that in fact support racial and social equity. It is very worrying to us to see so many affordable housing related Actions indicated as "Medium" which we can<U+2019>t help but interpret as a lack of true commitment from Planning to achieve the affordable housing goals within the RHNA cycle. For instance, securing funds and sites are critically urgent Actions that need to be prioritized above all other Actions. Below, you will find all of Planning's proposed Actions. We have expanded the table format to include a third column on the right side titled "REP-SF's Recommended Revisions,<U+201D> with these recommended revisions in blue text. The Race and Equity in all Planning Coalition (REP-SF) has not provided a specific response to every Action. In addition to the recommended revisions of the Actions below, REP-SF has the following general recommendations: 1. A few Actions indicate an intention for State legislative advocacy. This being the case, REP-SF requests that San Francisco advocate to the State to exclude Priority Equity Geographies from all streamlining provisions, to be consistent with Planning's goals to protect Priority Equity Geographies, especially in light of the recently passed AB2011, and to anticipate similar measures in upcoming State legislative sessions that will likely cause further pressures of speculation and displacement on these vulnerable communities. 2. With reference to Section 3, "Preventing and Eliminating Homelessness", REP-SF finds that there are too many Actions focused on providing temporary shelter accommodations. It is critical that Planning recognizes the fact that expanding shelter accommodations is not a housing solution. San Francisco's Housing Element must focus on funding and land use solutions for providing stable, dignified, affordable housing for all. a. Regarding the Actions relating to "Coordinated Entry," REP-SF stands by the comment we provided to Planning on March 21, 2022: "The Coordinated Entry system must be improved so that it can be used to assess unhoused people<U+2019>s need for various housing options (permanent supportive housing, housing with on-site behavioral health or other medical services, need based subsidies, time-limited subsidies, vouchers, etc.) and inform the City as to the number of units, wrap-around services, vouchers, and subsidies that must be added to the system in order to provide appropriate exits from homelessness for unhoused people. Additionally, supportive housing units sit vacant due to an overly bureaucratic process that should be replaced with a <U+201C>no wrong door to entry<U+201D> system that includes self-referral by unhoused people to case managers in their communities, and the ability for case managers to refer unhoused people to community based shelter beds and housing units, reducing the time it takes to transition people from shelter to permanent housing with a greater success as they remain in the support network of their chosen community. b. The Coordinated Entry system should be used to assess need and target appropriate placements as opposed to prioritizing applicants in the queue. It should be used as an assessment tool to match people with the most suitable housing for their situation. The ONE System must do a better job of describing the units that are available (including requirements, disability accommodations, etc.) and documenting clients' needs. With this updated system, we will be able to evaluate the full scope of need, what types of housing and services are lacking, and where we need to be investing additional resources. c. As a system for shelter placement, Coordinated Entry is a biased system that presents unnecessary barriers. It must be replaced by a low barrier system that advocates have been demanding for several years. d. REP-SF is in alignment with the recommendation from the Coalition on Homelessness regarding the Coordinated Entry system. We need to eliminate "Coordinated Entry" as the system for shelter placement: We must change San Francisco<U+2019>s shelter system to be in line with national standards for shelter access. This means using a first come, first serve system that is clear and easily accessible via phone or drop-in without barriers such as eligibility requirements. Shelter is an emergency service and should be treated as such. San Francisco must ensure individuals and families can directly access shelter themselves (known as self referral) through a system modeled after the 311 system, with direct placement by shelter providers for urgent situations for a portion of the beds (in addition to existing set asides, such as those for the VA and SFUSD). Any unused beds must be released for the night and an easy system to access them must be put in place, such as calling 311. 3. The entirety of Sections 4.2 "Community Planning" and 4.4 "Cultural Districts" are undermined by Section 8 " Reducing Constraints on Housing" We also want to clarify a couple of key Actions that REP-SF has recommended that are top priorities to be coordinated with HCD at this stage. The first is the need to retain public input into all project reviews and entitlements that currently require Conditional Use Authorization or mandatory Discretionary Review, or are projects utilizing either the State or Local density bonus programs. 1. Support creation of a network of Community Boards led by Low Income, American Indian, and other Communities of Color throughout the City. These Community Boards will be led by the Cultural District where there is a Cultural District. 2. Upon receipt of a Preliminary Project Application from a developer, Planning will refer the developer to the appropriate Community Board or Cultural District. 3. This referral starts the sixty-day clock. During these sixty days, the Community Board or Cultural District will schedule a Project Review meeting that the Developer must attend, and that will be open to the public. The Project Review meeting will be held in the community and on a weekday evening, with full physical and language access. 4. Based on input from the community, and responses from the Developer, the Community Board or Cultural District will make Project Recommendations in writing that will be submitted to Planning. 5. Planning will then begin their staff review of the Project and will ensure that the Project Recommendations are adhered to as the Project progresses through Planning Staff Review. 6. If, during Planning Staff Review, there are changes to the Project, Planning Staff will consult with the Community Board or Cultural District. Updated Project Recommendations based on the Project Revisions may necessitate a new Project Review meeting. Updated Project Recommendations will be submitted back to Planning staff no more than thirty days after Planning Staff has notified the Community Board or Cultural District of the Project Changes. The other is the need to protect tenants from displacement when demolitions of existing residential units are proposed. Planning's current proposal to exempt certain demolition scenarios from Conditional Use Authorization (which includes a public hearing) creates incentives for property owners to coerce tenants into leaving through unofficial, unrecorded means such as harassment and unrecorded buyouts. Planning's current proposal also creates incentives for property owners to remove kitchen facilities from unpermitted Accessory Dwelling Units to make it seem like the property is not subject to rent control. Planning also does not seem to be aware of the fact that a single family home where there are more than one resident and each is on a separate lease, is also a rent controlled situation. Therefore, in order to protect tenants from displacement by property owners seeking a streamlined process based on Planning's proposal for expediting demolitions, REP-SF advises the following: 1. 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 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." 2. 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. i. 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. 3. These "replacement rent controlled units" are additional to any BMR units that the developer is required to provide. 4. 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's current rent and the rent in the temporary rental unit for the entire duration of the temporary relocation. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. REP-SF hopes that this document helps to clarify our recommended changes to the Housing Element. With these significant changes, San Francisco's Housing Element 2022 will steer toward being a set of housing policies that move San Francisco toward greater racial and social equity while still meeting the State's RHNA mandates for the 2023-2031 period covered by this Element. Respectfully submitted, REP-SF cc: SF Planning Commission SF Board of Supervisors California Department of Housing and Community Development Public Advocates Implementing Programs Per California Government Code Section 65583(c)., the Housing Element must include a program of actions that San Francisco intends to undertake to implement the Housing Element<U+2019>s policies and achieve the goals and objectives. Implementing actions could include administration of land use and development controls, planning and community engagement processes, regulatory concessions and incentives to support housing development, protections and services to stabilize renters and housing, and the use of federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs for affordable housing production and preservation. The Implementing Programs are presented below under broad program areas. Each Implementing Program is organized in a table that contains various implementing actions, ongoing activities associated with those actions, a timeframe for initiating the action, responsible agencies, and funding sources. All program areas and programs are listed in the table of contents at the start of the document to more easily navigate to programs of interest. Implementing actions included in each program table include existing City programs as well as newly proposed actions. The broad program areas include: Affordable Housing Resources and Equitable Access Stabilizing Tenants and Rental Housing Preventing and Eliminating Homelessness Redressing and Preventing Discrimination Centering Equity Communities and Cultural Heritage Serving Special Needs Groups Expanding Housing Choices Reducing Constraints on Housing Development, Maintenance, and Improvement Healthy, Connected, and Resilient Housing and Neighborhoods Timeframes for each program action is provided using the following categories: Short (0-2 years) Medium (3-5 years) Long (6-8 years) Ongoing Various actions support Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) law in one or more of the following ways: 1. Addressing significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity. 2. Replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns. 3. Transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) into areas of opportunity. 4. Fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. Actions related to AFFH are summarized in a table below and include metrics for measuring their progress. The Implementing Programs also must include quantified objectives, particularly for housing units to be planned for, built, or preserved. The quantified objectives are summarized in a table concluding this section and are shown for applicable programs that involve specific housing units targets. 1. Affordable Housing Resources and Equitable Access Affordable housing programs and rent assistance help subsidize housing to make it more accessible for lower income renters who otherwise would spend large amounts of their income on housing and/or live in substandard or crowded conditions. For many low, moderate, and middle income residents in high cost cities like San Francisco, homeownership can also be out of reach and homeownership assistance programs can help people buy and keep a home. San Francisco<U+2019>s RHNA targets over the 8-year Housing Element period include over 46,000 units that should be affordable at VLI (including ELI), Low, and moderate incomes. The programs covered under the Affordable Housing and Housing Assistance program area illustrate a path to meet the needs of low and moderate income households and include: Affordable Housing Funding, Affordable Housing Production, Inclusionary Housing, Affordable Housing Preservation, Deep Affordability and Rent Assistance for the Lowest Income Households, Homeownership Support, and Eligibility and Access for Affordable Housing. The Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD), the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII), and the San Francisco Housing Authority, along with the Planning Department, are key implementing agencies of affordable housing programs. Related actions on affordable housing and housing assistance can also be found in the program areas on Stabilizing Tenants and Housing, Preventing and Eliminating Homelessness, Redressing and Preventing Discrimination (within Housing Programs to Redress Harm), and in Reducing Constraints on Housing Development. 1.1. Affordable Housing Funding Related Policies: 22, 35 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.1.1 Convene City leadership, staff, policymakers, affordable housing advocates, and industry experts to collaborate on an Affordable Housing Implementation and Funding Strategy that provides specific recommendations and responsible parties to achieve and sustain the substantial public funding from local, state, and federal sources, that would join with public-private partnerships, needed to achieve the RHNA targets of over 46,000 units affordable at low- and moderate-incomes. Complete this effort by January 31, 2024. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 22a Short Revise this to "Short, Ongoing". This stakeholder group must be formed and start convening in January 2023 to advance funding recommendations in the Mayor's 2023 budget for local funding and the State's 2023 budget as well. This stakeholder group will need to continue to meet throughout this RHNA cycle to ensure ongoing resource development for meeting the affordable housing mandates. 1.1.2 Include affordable housing investment needs in the annual City budget process and Capital Planning process to identify existing housing funding sources, funding gaps, and potential new funding sources, including local bonds or others that require voter approval. Existing programs: City Budget; Capital Planning Draft 4 Action Number: 22b Short This Action should be more specific. No later than June 1 of each year, the Mayor shall submit an Annual Affordable Housing Allocation Report included with the Mayor's proposed budget presented to the Board of Supervisors. This Allocation Report shall include all sources and proposed allocations of funds that are specifically earmarked for or could potentially be allocated to affordable housing including but not limited to affordable housing production, affordable housing preservation, capital maintenance and operating subsidies. MOHCD and HSH and all other departments and agencies that design or plan affordable housing and supportive housing programs must present an Annual Affordable Housing Allocation Progress Report within 90 days following the end of each fiscal year with a summary of all Loans and Grants from all sources for Affordable Housing for the prior fiscal year. This report must also include an assessment of the City's bonding capacity. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.1.3 Create a budgeting tool to track housing investments, including permanently affordable housing production, preservation, and housing services; including investments that advance community identified priority actions, per Action 4.1.3; tracking investments that advance racial and social equity, per Action 4.1.1 and achieve targets for investment in Well-resourced Neighborhoods as referenced in Action 1.2.1 and in Priority Equity Geographies. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 22c, 22d Short, Ongoing 1.1.4 Explore the development of public financing tools such as Infrastructure Finance Districts to leverage the City<U+2019>s co-investments in order to lower direct City subsidy for permanently affordable housing and/or increase feasibility of approved projects. Existing programs: Infrastructure Finance District Draft 4 Action Number: 22e Medium REP organizations are opposed to Infrastructure Financing Districts and similar financing constructs that encourage greater intensity of market rate development that incentivize speculation and displacement. Since there are no actions focused on creation of a Municipal Bank, this Action should be re-written to support the creation of a Municipal Bank with new financial offerings that specifically support affordable housing. 1.1.5 Continue to 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. Existing programs: Housing Accelerator Fund Draft 4 Action Number: 22f Medium All efforts to identify and develop new sources of funding for affordable housing should be on a "Short" time frame and moved in coordination with Action 1.1.1 above. 1.1.6 Support the Bay Area Housing Financing Authority<U+2019>s expected efforts to secure voter approval for a regional measure to fund permanently affordable housing. Existing programs: Bay Area Housing Financing Authority; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 22g Medium All efforts to identify and develop new sources of funding for affordable housing should be on a "Short" time frame and moved in coordination with Action 1.1.1 above. It will take at least a year to draft a ballot measure and assemble a campaign strategy, so this effort needs to start right away. 1.1.7 Advocate for federal legislation to increase Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and Private Activity Bonds (PAB), for example, by changing federal rules to lower the minimum bond financing needed to access 4% LIHTC (currently 50 percent) or increase the cap on PAB to help unlock more LIHTC in San Francisco and statewide. Existing programs: City<U+2019>s Annual State and Federal Advocacy Draft 4 Action Number: 22h Short 1.1.8 Advocate for State legislation to change the voter approval threshold for General Obligation Bonds from two-thirds to at most 55 percent. Existing programs: City<U+2019>s Annual State and Federal Advocacy Draft 4 Action Number: 22i Medium 1.1.9 Advocate for State legislation to expand non-competitive, permanently affordable housing funding sources that would be distributed to jurisdictions by formula, like the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA). Existing programs: City<U+2019>s Annual State and Federal Advocacy Draft 4 Action Number: 22j Medium This Action should be "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1. Based on the number of units that need to be produced in the three income categories from Extremely Low to Moderate Incomes, this Housing Element should indicate how much will be needed from various sources so the advocacy goals are clear. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.1.10 Collaborate with key organizations to reform Proposition 131 for commercial property to provide funding support for local jurisdictions to meet their permanently affordable housing targets. Existing programs: City<U+2019>s Annual State and Federal Advocacy Medium Draft 4 Action Number: 22k 1.1.11 Assess the City<U+2019>s capacity to finance a mixed-income and/ or mixed-use, social housing program. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 22m Medium Planning doesn't define what is meant by "mixed income social housing". REP-SF assumes that this means social housing for a range of incomes from zero and extremely low to low incomes, but we are concerned that Planning may intend for "mixed income" to include market rate housing here. 1.1.12 Maintain the jobs housing linkage program and adjust the fee levels based on an updated nexus study and feasibility study on a regular basis. Existing programs: Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee Draft 4 Action Number: 35d Ongoing REP-SF feels that this should be a more immediate concern. The most recent Jobs Housing Linkage report recommended a higher fee than was implemented. The higher fee should be implemented immediately, and the updated nexus study should be completed no later than June 2023. REP-SF also recommends including into the next iteration of the nexus study, an evaluation of a reduction in the Jobs Housing Linkage Fee commensurate with commitments to hiring San Francisco residents. With a greater percentage of the workforce hired from SF, the more the fee would be reduced. This hiring commitment would have to be enforced through a written agreement with OEWD, and enforced by OEWD. 1.1.13 Conduct a feasibility study to assess large employers affordable housing funding on an ongoing basis to complement the jobs-housing linkage requirements and provide paths for large employers to contribute funding to and/or partner with non-profit developers to provide homeownership opportunities. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 35a, 35c Medium This should be "Short" and given a deadline that coordinates with Action 1.1.12. 1.1.14 Explore expanding jobs housing linkage fees to large employer institutional developments (medical and educational) who are currently not subject to jobs housing linkage fees. Existing programs: Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee Draft 4 Action Number: 35e Medium This should be "Short" and given a deadline that coordinates with Action 1.1.12. 1.1.15 Increase staffing at responsible agencies for analysts and community development specialists to implement expanded affordable housing programs in relation to increased funding and targets. Existing programs: City<U+2019>s Annual Budget Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Short 1.1.16 Expand redevelopment tax increment financing to complete the affordable housing programs of the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII) and to replace affordable units destroyed and never replaced. Existing programs: Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Long 1 A 1978 ballot measure that reduced property tax rates on homes, businesses and farms, and capped assessed property taxes at 1% for assessed values with no more than 2% annual increase. Prop 13 significantly reduced the tax revenue of local jurisdictions to fund schools, services, and infrastructure. Actions Timeline Responsible Agencies: Mayor/BOS, MOHCD, OEWD, SF Planning Funding Sources: Local Sources: Impact Fees, General Fund, Housing Trust Fund, General Obligation (GO) Bonds, Certificates of Participation, Federal Sources: LIHTC, HOME and CDBG et.al., State sources: LHTF, PLHA, NPLH, AHSC, MHP et. Al. 1.2. Affordable Housing Production Related Policies: 15, 19, 22, 24, 29, 34, 35 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.2.1 Build between 25% and 50% of the City<U+2019>s new permanently affordable housing within Well- resourced Neighborhoods over the next two RHNA cycles, implementing the zoning strategies of Policy 20. Existing programs: MOHCD Consolidated Plan Draft 4 Action Number: 19a Long This should be "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1. 1.2.2 Strategically acquire sites, including lots for consolidation, that can accommodate permanently affordable housing of at least 50 to 100 units or more through publicly funded purchases, in balance with investment in affordable housing preservation and production and in strategic coordination with sites owned by religious, nonprofit, and public property owners. Existing programs: N/A Draft 4 Action Number: 19c Medium This should be "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1. This must also include a strategy for purchasing sites for 100% affordable housing that are less than 50 units which will be made possible through new funding sources from the efforts in Action 1.1.1. 1.2.3 Pursue land dedication, donation, or purchase of sites for affordable housing, including social housing and shared equity cooperatives, through partnerships with religious institutions, or other philanthropic or private property owners, and non-profit developers, including ownership models referenced under Action 1.6.1. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 19d Medium All site acquisition and land banking strategies must be moved to "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1. 1.2.4 Regularly track the pipeline of development sites and land banked for affordable housing development funded by OCII, MOHCD, and other relevant agencies, and develop strategies to ensure sufficient sites to accommodate affordable housing production relative to available funding over a rolling 4- to 8-year outlook and to meet goals to construct housing in Priority Equity Geographies and Well-resourced neighborhoods per Action 1.2.1. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Medium All development pipeline related activities need to be moved to "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.2.5 Develop land acquisition process and program that permits inexpensive long-term leases for land developed with high affordability. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 22l Medium All site acquisition and land banking strategies must be moved to "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1. 1.2.6 Expand the Public Land for Housing Program through public-private partnerships and use City resources to support the maximum number of permanently affordable housing units on underutilized publicly owned and surplus sites, balancing the financial needs of enterprise agencies, and ensuring adequate space and resources to address the gaps in community infrastructure, services, and amenities. Existing programs: Public Land for Housing; Development Agreements Draft 4 Action Number: 24f Long This "Public Land for Housing" program works directly against equity. Public lands must be used for 100% affordable housing. In order to meet the affordable housing mandates, we need roughly 4,200 new affordable housing units in every one of our 11 Supervisorial Districts if these units were distributed evenly throughout the City. If we continue to sell our public lands to market rate housing developers, we will never achieve this goal. We need for every possible site to be developed for 100% affordable housing. All site acquisition and land banking strategies for affordable housing must be "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1. 1.2.7 Support the maximum number of permanently affordable housing units and improved transit facilities on SFMTA-owned sites slated for development through leveraging private investment in market-rate units with public funding. Existing programs: Public Land for Housing; Inclusionary Housing; Development Agreements Draft 4 Action Number: 24g Medium All site acquisition and land banking strategies must be moved to "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1. 1.2.8 Partner with affordable housing developers to purchase privately-owned entitled sites where construction may be stalling. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 24l Short 1.2.9 Support and expedite delivery of the permanently affordable housing projects in former Redevelopment Areas led by the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII). Existing programs: Redevelopment Areas Draft 4 Action Number: 15f Ongoing 1.2.10 Support co-housing developments on parcels owned by non-profits, like sites owned by religious institutions, to further encourage philanthropically financed affordable housing. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 34d Short 1.2.11 Study the removal of the Central Freeway stub between Interstate 80 and Octavia Blvd as a means of making new parcels available for housing uses, especially for affordable housing. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: (New) Long REP-SF opposes the removal of the freeway unless the resulting lands are committed to being developed as 100% affordable housing consistent with REP-SF's demand for all public lands to be developed as 100% affordable housing. This must be coordinated with Action 1.1.1. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.2.12 Encourage and provide opportunities for large commercial developments to build housing or dedicate land in lieu of their jobs housing linkage fee with affordability requirements that align with the income levels of the households anticipated to fill new jobs. Existing programs: Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee; (New) Draft 4 Action Number: 35b Medium This should be "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1. Responsible Agencies: Mayor/BOS, MOHCD, OEWD, OCII, SF Planning, SFMTA Funding Sources: General Fund; ROPs (OCII); Impact Fees; Housing Trust Fund; General Obligation (GO) Bonds; Certificates of Participation; State sources awarded to City: LHTF, PLHA, NPLH, AHSC, IIG; Federal Sources awarded to City: (HOME) 1.3. Inclusionary Housing Related Policies: 5, 24 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.3.1 Through the Controller<U+2019>s Office study of financial feasibility of the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program, including feedback from the Technical Advisory Committee, study a new more regular and systematic methodology for evaluating the inclusionary rates so they are better tied to local conditions and can maximize total number of Below Market Rate units delivered without public subsidy, in balance with the directions of Action 1.3.2. Existing programs: Controller<U+2019>s Study of Inclusionary Housing and Technical Advisory Committee Draft 4 Action Number: 24a Medium When evaluating the Inclusionary program, REP-SF expects a comprehensive look at the program that goes beyond "developer feasibility" to include: 1) whether the amount of BMR units actually provided has reduced the displacement impacts caused by market rate development; 2) whether the affordability levels of the BMR units meets the affordability needs of existing residents who are struggling to retain their housing; 3) what the experiences are for the households that apply for and actually get placed in these BMR units. 1.3.2 Through the Controller<U+2019>s Office study of financial feasibility of the Inclusionary housing policy, including feedback from the Technical Advisory Committee, assess by 2024 whether affordability levels of rental and ownership units created through the could be made accessible to lower income groups in balance with ensuring financial feasibility as referenced in Action 1.3.1. Existing programs: Controller<U+2019>s Study of Inclusionary Housing and Technical Advisory Committee; Inclusionary Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 5b Short 1.3.3 Simplify inclusionary tiers and requirements to address financial feasibility, increase certainty for housing projects, and reduce staff time and specific support expertise. Existing programs: Inclusionary Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 24b Medium REP-SF understands that managing the BMR units is complicated, but this effort needs to prioritize lowering the rents and purchase prices (and HOA fees) of BMR units, because people and families in our communities can't afford them. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.3.4 Modify proximity inclusionary requirement to allow for more flexibility in locating offsite 100% affordable housing, beyond a half mile radius from the market-rate project site if the off- site housing will be located in a Priority Equity Geographies or Well-resourced Neighborhoods. Existing programs: Inclusionary Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 24c Medium REP-SF rejects this proposal. The impact of market rate housing on our communities is direct and devastating. When evaluating these impacts combined with the high levels of required affordable housing for this RHNA cycle, and the fact that SF fell far short of its affordable housing for the past RHNA cycle, it's clear that our communities are suffering. Despite the planned upzoning of Well Resourced Neighborhoods, this Housing Element maintains the current zoning and incentives for market rate development in Priority Equity Geographies which will lead to most of the new market rate housing continuing to be built in these areas. If this is not balanced with as much affordable housing as possible, displacement will continue to escalate, and opportunities for stability and affordability for our current residents will continue to disappear. 1.3.5 Explore new tier for onsite inclusionary choice at 80-120 AMI levels in Well-resourced Neighborhoods to reduce the financial burden on small, multifamily projects and create more workforce housing. Existing programs: Inclusionary Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 24h Medium REP-SF is extremely concerned about this Action. Since AMIs have increased so much, market rate rents are roughly equivalent to 105% AMI. Therefore, REP-SF recommends the following: 1) If increasing BMR's to serve households with moderate incomes, the rents should be 20% or more below the current surrounding market rents; 2) The percentage of BMR units should be increased; 3) Since these units will be challenging to market (generally if "BMRs" are so close to market rate, people will opt for a unit on the market rather than being subjected to the rules and means testing of BMRs), increase the in-lieu fees and use the in-lieu fees to build real affordable housing; 4) Any ability for developers to include these "BMR's" for moderate income households should be increased requirements - or additive to the requirements for BMR's affordable to lower income households. 1.3.6 Prioritize achieving the maximum number of permanently affordable housing units at lower- and moderate-incomes that are financially feasible as an essential benefit of new mixed- use development agreements alongside other benefits such as community facilities and transit investments. Existing programs: Development Agreements Draft 4 Action Number: 24i Ongoing 1.3.7 Incentivize development projects to exceed the required inclusionary percentages to maximize the total number of Below Market Rate units via density bonus programs or regulatory paths through streamlined approval as defined in Policy 25. Existing programs: Inclusionary Housing; Local Density Bonus Programs; State Density Bonus; SB 35 Draft 4 Action Number: 24j Medium 1.3.8 Amend the Inclusionary Housing Program regulations to allow existing homeowners of Below Market Rate units to purchase another Below Market Rate unit and sell their current unit in cases where household size changes or another reasonable accommodation is required, in order to respond to changing household needs. Existing programs: Inclusionary Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 5l Short Responsible Agencies: Planning, Controller, MOHCD Funding Sources: Inclusionary Program; General Fund 1.4. Affordable Housing Preservation Related Policies: 2, 5, 15 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.4.1 Continue to rebuild and replace public housing units at HOPE SF sites without displacement of the current residents. Existing programs: Affordable Housing Preservation and Rehabilitation; HOPESF; Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) Draft 4 Action Number: 15g Medium 1.4.2 Continue to implement temporary relocation plans that ensure affordable housing tenants do not pay more than they are currently paying during rehabilitation or redevelopment of existing affordable housing, including identifying units in permanently affordable housing developments that can be used as relocation housing. Existing programs: Affordable Housing Preservation and Rehabilitation Draft 4 Action Number: 2e Medium This should be "Short" instead of "Medium" and it should be clearly stated that all temporary relocation of affordable housing tenants must be within San Francisco. 1.4.3 Conduct a comprehensive needs assessment of existing housing cooperatives to identify impediments to success and need for support, and expand technical assistance and support to cooperatives to meet identified needs. Existing programs: Affordable Housing Preservation and Rehabilitation; Coop Housing; Coop Living for Mental Health Draft 4 Action Number: 2a, 2c Short 1.4.4 Expand resources for preservation, rehabilitation, or rebuilding of cooperative buildings, and adopt requirements such as preservation of affordability, right-to-return, and relocation plans as informed by the needs assessment referenced under Action 1.4.3. Existing programs: Affordable Housing Preservation and Rehabilitation; Coop Housing; Coop Living for Mental Health; Tenant Rights Draft 4 Action Number: 2b Medium 1.4.5 Continue to monitor at-risk affordable housing units on a regular basis to track status and continue to negotiate preservation agreements for properties with expiring affordability restrictions to ensure permanent affordability and housing stability for tenants to the greatest extent possible. Existing programs: Monitoring of Affordable Housing Preservation and Rehabilitation Draft 4 Action Number: 2d Medium 1.4.6 Utilize value capture from up-zonings for large affordable housing developments to fund rebuilding quality and financial feasibility of existing affordable units for current residents while creating more affordable homes. Existing programs: (New) Draft 4 Action Number: 2h Short Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.4.7 Strengthen monitoring and enforcement of Below Market Rate units to avoid fraud and abuse of units and to unlock more units for those eligible and in need, through active enforcement of existing obligations and expedited leasing of new and turnover units, and completing the build out of DAHLIA partners database. Existing programs: Affordable Unit Occupancy Compliance Medium This Action must be "Short" instead of "Medium" since this has been a problem ever since the beginning of the Inclusionary/ BMR program. There must be fines and penalties for instances of fraud and abuse. Any fines collected must be used for nonprofit sponsored affordable housing development. Draft 4 Action Number: 5j Responsible Agencies: MOHCD, Mayor/BOS, Planning Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 1.5. Deep Affordability and Rent Assistance for Lowest Income Renters Related Policies: 1, 9, 15, 19 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.5.1 Increase production of housing affordable to extremely and very low-income households including identifying and deploying operating subsidies necessary to serve these income groups. Existing programs: 100% Affordable; Building-based Rental Subsidies; Very Low Income Below Market Rate Units. Draft 4 Action Number: 15a Medium This must be "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1. 1.5.2 Maximize the use of ongoing tenant-based rental assistance to expand eligibility for extremely and very low-income households who otherwise do not qualify for affordable units. Existing programs: Rental Subsidies; Very Low Income Below Market Rate Units Draft 4 Action Number: 15b Short 1.5.3 Increase housing that is affordable to extremely low and very low-income households in Well-resourced Neighborhoods through City funded permanently affordable housing projects. Existing programs: 100% Affordable Housing; Inclusionary Affordable Housing; Rental Subsidies; Tenant-based Rental Subsidies Long This must be "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1. This should include reference as well to "Priority Equity Geographies" since residents of these neighborhoods mostly are unable to afford the BMR units that are built in new developments. There also must be a significant investment in community Draft 4 Action Number: 19b outreach and education about affordable housing in Well-resourced Neighborhoods. 1.5.4 Reduce severe cost burdens and increase stability for extremely low and very low-income renters through on-going rental assistance, for qualifying vulnerable households including seniors, people with disabilities, Transgender people, and families with children, particularly those living in SROs. Existing programs: Rental Subsidies; Single-Room Occupancy Units (SROs) Draft 4 Action Number: 1e Medium This is an urgent need so should be moved to "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1 because additional resources are needed to implement this Action. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.5.5 Advocate for expanded tenant and building-based rental assistance programs at the federal and state and local levels to meet the needs of extremely and very low-income households and households with fixed incomes, such as seniors and people with disabilities, as also referenced in Actions 2.1.2 , 3.2.1, 1.5.4. Existing programs: Tenant-based Rental Subsidies; Rental Subsidies; Local Operating Subsidy; Senior Operating Subsidy; Housing Choice Vouchers Draft 4 Action Number: 9d Short There must be community input into defining "needs" and consideration of either a residual income or zero rent approach for those with extremely low fixed incomes. Responsible Agencies: Mayor/BOS, MOHCD, HSH, SFHA Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 1.6. Homeownership Support Related Policies: 23 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.6.1 Study and implement expansion of shared equity models that offer moderate- and middle- income homeownership (such as Shared Equity, land trusts, or cooperative ownership) through development of smaller sized lots. Use the studies cited in Actions 2.3.4 and 5.4.6 to inform expansion of these models and pursue partnership with private and philanthropic property owners referenced under Action 1.2.3. Existing programs: Community Land Trust; Coop Housing; Shared Equity Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 23a Short 1.6.2 Study and implement expansions of programs that create workforce housing for educators to serve other public-sector essential workers such as transit operators and hospital workers. Existing programs: Homeownership Assistance Programs; First Responders Down Payment Assistance Loan Program; SFUSD Educators Down Payment Assistance Loan Program; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 23b Short 1.6.3 Fund the First Responders Down Payment Assistance Loan Program and the SFUSD Educators Down Payment Assistance Loan Program. Existing programs: Homeownership Assistance Programs; First Responders Down Payment Assistance Loan Program; SFUSD Educators Down Payment Assistance Loan Program Draft 4 Action Number: 23c Ongoing Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.6.4 Promote location-efficient mortgage and energy-efficient mortgage programs as a tool for expanding the purchasing power of residents while incentivizing more sustainable trip choices and energy efficient building practices. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 23d Medium Responsible Agencies: Planning, MOHCD, Mayor/BOS Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 1.7. Eligibility and Access for Affordable Housing Related Policies: 5, 6, 15, 19 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.7.1 Identify racial, ethnic, and social groups who have been disproportionately underserved by MOHCD<U+2019>s available Affordable Rental and Homeownership units and the underlying reasons why those groups are underrepresented in obtaining such housing. Previously identified groups include American Indian, Black, Latinos, and other people of color, transgender and LGBTQ+ people, transitional-aged youth, people with disabilities, and senior households. This study can inform the housing portal and access points cited in Action 1.7.6. Existing programs: DAHLIA; Housing Placement Draft 4 Action Number: 5a Short This Action should also include families living in SROs. 1.7.2 Evaluate and update existing policies and programs to increase the percentage of Affordable Rental and Homeownership units awarded to underserved groups identified through the studies referenced in Actions 1.7.1 and 5.4.9, including but not limited to preferences, strengthening targeted outreach, education, housing readiness counseling, and other services specific to the needs of each group, ensuring accessible accommodations in these services, in coordination with production of affordable housing per Actions 1.5.1, 1.5.3, and 1.6.2. Existing programs: 100% Affordable Housing; Inclusionary Affordable Housing; Housing Placement; Community-Based Services; Tenant Counseling and Education; Financial Capability Services; Rental Housing Counseling; Homeownership Assistance Programs Draft 4 Action Number: 5c Medium 1.7.3 Identify strategies to secure housing for applicants to the Affordable Rental and Homeownership unit lottery program who have not won the lottery after more than five years of submitting applications. Existing programs: DAHLIA; Housing Placement Draft 4 Action Number: 5d Short Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.7.4 Identify and adopt local strategies and advocate for State legislation to remove barriers to access permanently affordable housing for immigrants or people who lack standard financial documentation such as credit histories, bank accounts, or current leases; and for transgender people whose documentation may need corrections not possible due to immigration status, and/or non-California state laws. Existing programs: 100% Affordable Housing; Inclusionary Affordable Housing; Housing Placement; City<U+2019>s Annual State and Federal Advocacy Draft 4 Action Number: 5g Short 1.7.5 Expand existing culturally responsive housing counseling to applicants of MOHCD Affordable Rental and Homeownership Opportunities through a network of community-based housing counseling agencies, in consultation with Cultural Districts, and as informed by the needs identified under Actions 1.7.1, 1.7.2, and 5.4.9. These programs include financial counseling, market-rate and below market rate rental readiness counseling, and other services that lead to finding and keeping safe and stable housing; expansion of such services should be in coordination with Actions 2.1.4 and 4.1.2. Existing programs: 100% Affordable Housing; Inclusionary Affordable Housing; Housing Placement; Community-Based Services; Tenant Counseling and Education; Financial Capability Services; Rental Housing Counseling; Homeownership Assistance Programs Draft 4 Action Number: 5i Short 1.7.6 Explore changes to the DAHLIA affordable housing application portal and other access points for housing programs and services, including affordable housing as well as resources administered by the SF Housing Authority such as rental assistance vouchers and public housing, to better serve groups identified in Action 1.7.1. Existing programs: DAHLIA Draft 4 Action Number: 5k Medium This Action should be "Short" because after changes have been "explored", it will take time to make and implement the changes. If this stays as "Medium" it will take far too long for these important changes to DAHLIA. 1.7.7 Identify new strategies to address the unique housing and service needs of specific vulnerable populations to improve housing access and security for each group, using the findings from the City<U+2019>s housing Consolidated Plans and through direct engagement of these populations. Studies should address the needs of veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, transitional-aged youth, transgender and LGBTQ+ populations. Existing programs: Senior Housing; Supportive Services; Housing for People with Disabilities; Housing for TAY; Housing for LGBTQ+; 100% Affordable Housing; Medium Identifying new strategies should be moved to "Short" otherwise, the actual changes will take far too long to implement. Permanent Supportive Housing; Consolidated Plan Draft 4 Action Number: 6f 1.7.8 Evaluate increasing neighborhood preference allocation for Below Market Rate units in Priority Equity Geographies to better serve American Indian, Black, and other communities of color, if possible, per the Federal Fair Housing regulations, as informed by Policy 5 and related actions. Existing programs: Neighborhood Resident Housing Preference Draft 4 Action Number: 15c Short Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 1.7.9 Create or expand programs to provide case management, financial literacy education, and housing readiness to low-income American Indian, Black and other people of color households who seek housing choices in Well-resourced Neighborhoods, and provide incentives and counseling to landlords in Well-resourced Neighborhoods to offer units to low-income households. Consider similar incentives referenced in Action 8.4.16. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 19e Medium 1.7.10 Expand housing for transitional-aged youth in permanently affordable housing including supportive programs that address their unique needs such as a past criminal record, substance abuse, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other specific needs, as informed by the strategies referenced in Action 8.7.3. Existing programs: 100% Affordable Housing; Permanent Supportive Housing; Supportive Services Draft 4 Action Number: 7d Medium 1.7.11 Study and identify programs, geographies, and building types that respond to the needs of recently arrived immigrants to inform permanently affordable housing investments in the neighborhoods in which they initially settle, such as Chinatown, the Tenderloin, the Mission, and other gateway neighborhoods. Existing programs: 100% Affordable Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 7e Short This Action should include all Cultural Districts. Responsible Agencies: Mayor/BOS, MOHCD, HSH, SF Planning, SFHA, Digital Services Funding Sources: General Fund 2. Stabilizing Tenants and Rental Housing Tenants often face greater housing precarity because they do not own their own homes and are more likely than homeowners to be lower income, face high housing cost burdens, and are often at greater risk of displacement. A majority of San Francisco residents are tenants, so tenant stability is often key to stabilizing communities. In addition, maintaining and preserving rental housing can be an important tool for preventing displacement of renters. The Stabilizing Tenants and Rental Housing program area covers a range of programs meant to help maintain housing security for renters including Eviction Prevention and Anti-displacement, Tenant Protections, Acquisitions and Rehabilitation for Affordability, and Preserving Rental Unit Availability. Key implementing agencies include the Rent Board, the Planning Department, Department of Building Inspections, and MOHCD among others. 2.1. Eviction Prevention and Anti-displacement Related Policies: 1, 9, 21 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 2.1.1 Fund the Tenant Right-to-Counsel program to match the need for eviction defense. Existing programs: Tenant Right to Counsel Draft 4 Action Number: 1b Medium This must be moved to "Short" since the organizations that defend against evictions are already overwhelmed with cases. 2.1.2 Provide a priority in the allocation of direct rental assistance to vulnerable populations and in areas vulnerable to displacement. Existing programs: Direct Rental Assistance Draft 4 Action Number: 1d Short The amount of funding for direct rental assistance needs to be expanded so vulnerable populations in every neighborhood can be stabilized. This must be coordinated with the new resources from Action 1.1.1. 2.1.3 As informed by Action 2.1.4 and in coordination with community liaisons referenced under Action 4.1.2, support and expand community-led navigation services and systems to provide tenants<U+2019> rights education and support and expand other related programs such as the existing culturally competent Code Enforcement Outreach Program that is offered within the Department of Building Inspection. Existing programs: Tenant Counseling and Education; Code Enforcement Outreach Program; Organizational Capacity Building; Community-Based Services Draft 4 Action Number: 1l Medium Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 2.1.4 Increase funding to expand the services of community-based organizations and providers for financial counseling services listed under Action 1.7.5, as well as tenant and eviction prevention services listed under Program 2, to better serve vulnerable populations and areas vulnerable to displacement; tenant and eviction protection services include legal services, code enforcement outreach, tenant counseling, mediation, and housing-related financial assistance; expansion of such services should be informed by community priorities referenced under Action 4.1.3. Complete by completion of Rezoning Program or no later than January 31, 2026. Existing programs: Tenant Counseling and Education; Code Enforcement Outreach Program; Organizational Capacity Building; Community-Based Services; Rental Subsidies; Tenant and Landlord Assistance; Financial Capability Services Draft 4 Action Number: 21d Short 2.1.5 Provide adequate legal services to support eviction prevention including support for rent increase hearings, habitability issues, or tenancy hearings with the Housing Authority. Existing programs: Tenant Right-to-Counsel Draft 4 Action Number: 9c Short 2.1.6 Expand on-site case management services that focus on removing barriers to housing stability to support non-profit housing providers in preventing evictions of their tenants. Existing programs: Permanent Supportive Housing; Tenant and Landlord Assistance; Tenant Counseling and Education Draft 4 Action Number: 9g Medium 2.1.7 Expand housing retention requirements to prevent evictions and support tenants of non-profit housing. Existing programs: 100% Affordable Housing; Inclusionary Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 9h Short REP-SF appreciates the attention given to tenant retention in supportive housing, but adding this new requirement without acknowledging the high staff vacancy rates among the nonprofits charged with providing property management, social work and case management supports will not lead to success. Revise this Action to include funding and staff supports so these critical positions can be filled and sustained in order to guarantee positive outcomes for tenants. Responsible Agencies: MOHCD, HSH, APD, Mayor/BOS Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 2.2. Tenant Protections Related Policies: 1, 2, 28 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 2.2.1 Implement the digital Rental Housing Inventory to collect data that informs the evaluation of anti- displacement programs, including rental rates, rent control status, vacancy, and services provided. Existing programs: Rental Housing Inventory Draft 4 Action Number: 1a Short 2.2.2 Increase relocation assistance for tenants experiencing either temporary or permanent evictions, including increasing the time period during which relocation compensation is required for temporary evictions from three to six months. Existing programs: Tenant Rights Draft 4 Action Number: 1f, 1g Short 2.2.3 Clarify and limit the definition of nuisance or other just cause evictions to limit abuse. Existing programs: Eviction Protections Draft 4 Action Number: 1h Short 2.2.4 Pursue proactive and affirmative enforcement of eviction protections programs, especially for Owner Move-in and Ellis Act evictions, including annual reporting by owners that is enforced by site inspections and confirmation of owner occupancy and funded through owner fees. Existing programs: Tenant Rights; Eviction Protections Draft 4 Action Number: 1i Medium This should be "Short". And, since this is a local budget issue, it must be coordinated with Action 1.1.1. 2.2.5 Proactively enforce eviction protection and avoid predatory practices or tenant harassment by pursuing affirmative litigation models. Existing programs: Tenant Rights; Eviction Protections Draft 4 Action Number: 1j Medium 2.2.6 Advocate for State legislation to reform the Ellis Act (Government Code Chapter 12.75) to stabilize rental housing by, for example, imposing a minimum holding period of five years before the Act can be used to evict tenants. Existing programs: City<U+2019>s Annual State and Federal Advocacy Draft 4 Action Number: 1m Medium 2.2.7 Advocate for State legislation to reform the Costa-Hawkins Housing Law to allow cities to better stabilize tenants by, for example, allowing cities to extend rent control to multifamily housing that is at least 25 years old. Existing programs: City<U+2019>s Annual State and Federal Advocacy Draft 4 Action Number: 1n Medium Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 2.2.8 Increase fines and enforcement for illegally preventing SRO residents from establishing tenancy by forcing short-term stays. Existing programs: Tenant Rights Draft 4 Action Number: 2g Short 2.2.9 Advocate with HCD and the State legislature to interpret, clarify, and consolidate expectations for tenant protections based on recent legislation. Existing programs: City<U+2019>s Annual State and Federal Advocacy Draft 4 Action Number: 28g Short Responsible Agencies: Mayor/BOS, Rent Board, Planning, City Attorney Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 2.3. Acquisitions and Rehabilitation for Affordability Related Policies: 2, 3 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 2.3.1 Prioritize the purchase of buildings, including SRO residential hotels, for acquisition and rehabilitation programs that serve extremely low to moderate-income households, including unhoused populations. Existing programs: Small Sites; Affordable Housing Preservation and Rehabilitation Draft 4 Action Number: 3a Medium REP-SF appreciates the inclusion of SRO residential hotels as one of the types of buildings that should be prioritized for acquisition and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, however, this prioritization of SRO residential hotels is not supported by either HSH or MOHCD's latest Small Sites Program guidelines. REP-SF recommends adding the word "Citywide" to this Action and coordinating this Action with both MOHCD and HSH. This should also be "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1 2.3.2 Identify SRO residential hotels in advanced states of disrepair, particularly those owned by nonprofits and/or master-leased by the City as supportive housing, for rehabilitation and repair with public and/or philanthropic assistance. Explore cost-effectiveness of acquisition and demolition of severely deteriorated SROs and rebuilding as Permanent Supportive Housing if cheaper than rehabilitation and allowed by planning code when done with requirements for tenant relocation during construction and right to return for tenants. Existing programs: Affordable Housing Preservation and Rehabilitation; Permanent Supportive Housing; Tenant Rights Draft 4 Action Number: 2f Medium Similar to the note in Action 2.3.1, REP supports this Action, but it needs to be coordinated with HSH which has not supported acquiring SROs and buildings with a majority of 1-bedrooms, especially in the Tenderloin, even when these buildings have been in good condition. This should also be "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1 2.3.3 Increase non-profit capacity-building investments to purchase and operate existing tenant- occupied buildings as permanent affordable housing in western neighborhoods, particularly for populations and areas vulnerable to displacement, to expand implementation of the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA). Existing programs: COPA; Community-Based Services; Organizational Capacity Building Medium This should be "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1. REP-SF also strongly urges that the capacity building be specifically targeted to nonprofits that are based in and led by American Indian, Black, and other Communities of Color. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions Draft 4 Action Number: 3b 2.3.4 Evaluate the feasibility of utilizing the Small Sites program to increase shared equity or cooperative ownership opportunities for tenants. This study would also inform expansion of shared equity homeownership models cited in Actions 5.4.6 and 1.6.1. Existing programs: Small Sites; Shared Equity Housing; Coop Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 3c Short 2.3.5 Incentivize private owners to sell residential buildings to non-profit affordable housing developers via transfer tax exemptions or other financial measures. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 3d Medium REP-SF is concerned about this Action. The COPA program already includes incentives in the form of partial city transfer tax exemption and facilitation of any federal tax benefits. What further "incentives", "transfer tax exemptions", and "other financial measures" is Planning contemplating? Responsible Agencies: Mayor/BOS, MOHCD, DBI, Planning Funding Sources: Expand and funding housing programs and investments for American Indian residents 2.4. Preserving Rental Unit Availability Related Policies: 2, 4, 36 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 2.4.1 Explore legislating a vacancy tax for residential units that stay empty for long periods of a year or used as secondary or vacation homes. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 36a Medium Since Prop M passed, and the tax takes effect January 1, 2024, this should be moved to "Short". 2.4.2 Explore regulatory paths, including a tax or other regulatory structures, to discourage short term speculative resale of residential units, particularly those which seek to extract value out of evicting tenants, or rapid reselling to more lucrative markets. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 36b Medium Exploring an anti-speculation tax should be moved to "Short" to allow time for this measure to be crafted, then put before the voters. 2.4.3 Continue to improve compliance, enforcement, and restrictions on short-term rentals. Existing programs: Office of Short-Term Rentals Draft 4 Action Number: 36c Ongoing The Intermediate Length Occupancy legislation passed in 2020, but Planning continues to ignore it and avoid implementation of the restrictions and caps. This Action should be revised to include staff and systems to enforce the Intermediate Length Occupancy restrictions. In addition, the staffing for administration and enforcement of the Short Term Rental program must be increased. This Action should also be moved to "Short" and any resource needs should be coordinated with Action 1.1.1. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 2.4.4 Increase fines and enforcement for illegally converting SROs to new uses. Existing programs: DBI Regulation Draft 4 Action Number: 2g Short 2.4.5 Facilitate and encourage more legalizations of unauthorized units through financial support such as low-interest or forgivable loans for property owners. Existing programs: Legalization of Unauthorized Dwelling Units (UDUs); (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 4a Medium 2.4.6 Update the Conditional Use findings requirements for removal of unauthorized units to (1) account for tenancy within the unauthorized unit and (2) to identify alternative findings that account for the cost and construction burdens of legalization. Existing programs: Legalization of Unauthorized Dwelling Units Draft 4 Action Number: 4b Short 2.4.7 Reduce cost of legalization of unauthorized units by removing Planning and Building Code requirements that are not critical for health or safety. Existing programs: Legalization of Unauthorized Dwelling Units; Land-use Controls; Building Code Draft 4 Action Number: 4c Medium REP-SF is concerned about this Action and requests further clarification as to what Planning and Building code requirements Planning is proposing to remove. 2.4.8 Adopt incentives for property owners to rebuild buildings struck by fire within two years to house prior tenants by when the transitional housing program timeline expires. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 1k Short This Action is extremely problematic. This should be framed as an enforcement solution rather than an incentive solution. Responsible Agencies: Planning, DBI, DPH, MOHCD, HSA, HSH, Mayor/BOS Funding Sources: (Awaiting Confirmation) 3. Preventing and Eliminating Homelessness Most of the City and County of San Francisco<U+2019>s programs serving unhoused people and those at risk of homelessness are consolidated under the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH). Over the next 8 years, HSH and the Department<U+2019>s partners plan to strengthen, streamline, and expand the Homelessness Response System, as outlined in the four key areas below: Coordinated Entry and Referrals, Problem Solving and Targeted Homelessness Prevention, Shelter, and Housing. The City will work to continue to reduce the number of people experiencing homelessness <U+2013> especially those unsheltered <U+2013> by strategically expanding and implementing programs across these four areas. 3.1. Coordinated Entry and Referrals Related Policies: 6, 8, 9 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 3.1.1 Identify and implement strategies to increase placement in Permanent Supportive Housing through the Coordinated Entry System for racial and social groups who are overrepresented in the unhoused population, such as extremely and very-low income American Indian, Black, and Latino(a,e) people, transgender people, or people with prior involvement in the criminal justice system. Existing programs: Coordinated Entry Draft 4 Action Number: 6a Short 3.1.2 Study and remove barriers to entry for temporary shelters, transitional housing, Rapid Rehousing, and Permanent Supportive Housing for unhoused individuals and families, particularly for individuals with mental health or substance use issues, and prior involvement with the criminal justice system. Existing programs: Coordinated Entry Draft 4 Action Number: 6d Medium 3.1.3 Redesign the Coordinated Entry System for housing placement and services for unhoused residents to reflect the evaluation recently completed by HSH, to house the most vulnerable and to ensure vacant units are filled in a timely manner. Existing programs: Coordinated Entry Draft 4 Action Number: 8g Medium 3.1.4 Provide housing navigation services, case management when applicable, and rent assistance as available to people exiting homelessness during the housing search stage and ongoing to ensure tenant retention. Short REP-SF agrees that this Action is important to ensure continuity of care especially through the first six to twelve months of placement into Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH). We need to emphasize that this should not be a hand-off to onsite PSH staff, but a continuity of Existing programs: Coordinated Entry; Tenant-based Vouchers; Permanent Supportive Housing; Rapid Rehousing Draft 4 Action Number: 8k case management, support, and coordination from the navigator. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 3.1.5 Improve programs intended to transfer people experiencing violent crime and domestic violence to safe housing. Existing programs: Violence Against Women Act; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 9k Short The transfer process must be improved throughout, not just for these people, but also for those who have been placed in a unit or a building that doesn't work for them. If used early enough in the process, and if we have alternative placements for people, transfers could be a useful housing retention and eviction prevention strategy. 3.1.6 Strengthen the housing navigation services by assigning a support counselor, with similar lived experience, to an individual regardless of where that person lives instead of being tied to a particular location, so that consistent support continues through residential transitions. Existing programs: Coordinated Entry Draft 4 Action Number: 9l Short Responsible Agencies: HSH, MOHCD, Mayor/BOS, DPH, APD, OTI, SFHA, Department on Status of Women Funding Sources: Federal sources, including Continuum of Care funding; Local sources, including General Fund and Prop C 3.2. Problem Solving and Targeted Homelessness Prevention Policies: 1, 9 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 3.2.1 Expand rental assistance programs, including those designed for emergency response and population-specific assistance, as a homelessness prevention tool and advocate for additional federal and state resources per action 1.5.5. Existing programs: Targeted Homelessness Prevention; Problem Solving Draft 4 Action Number: 1c Medium 3.2.2 Prioritize those at risk of becoming unhoused for homelessness prevention investments, such as flexible financial assistance or Step Up to Freedom 2 program and other programs that offer a continuum of care and wrap around services in addition to housing. Highest risk is known to include those with prior experience of homelessness, with involvement with the criminal justice system, extremely low and very low-income American Indian, Black, and Latino/es, domestic violence victims, transgender people, and those at imminent risk of losing housing (i.e., an eviction notice, or subject to landlord harassment). Existing programs: Targeted Homelessness Prevention; Step Up to Freedom Draft 4 Action Number: 9a Short 2 Step Up to Freedom is a reentry rapid rehousing and rental subsidy program for justice involved unstably housed/homeless adults who are between the ages of 18 <U+2013> 35 years on parole or post release supervision. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 3.2.3 Collaborate with jurisdictions across the Bay Area to create and expand a regional homelessness prevention response system to share data across systems, and administer the increased funds from local, State, and federal agencies. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 9m Short Responsible Agencies: HSH, MOHCD, ADP Funding Sources: Local sources, including Prop C; Federal sources, including Emergency Solutions Grants and American Rescue Plan funding; State Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention funding 3.3. Temporary Shelter Related Policies: 8, 9, 26 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 3.3.1 Expand the capacity of temporary shelter models that are low barrier and that incorporate housing-focused case management, such as non-congregate shelter options and Navigation Centers. Per HSH<U+2019>s forthcoming strategic plan, aim to increase temporary shelter investments, along with Permanent Supportive Housing and homelessness prevention investments to improve the rate of successful exits from homelessness to stable housing. Existing programs: Shelters; Navigation Centers; Transitional Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 8h Medium REP-SF is concerned about this Action because too much funding ends up being allocated to shelter capacity, but shelters are not housing. Resources must be prioritized to purchase hotels or housing vouchers for Permanent Supportive Housing. Otherwise, San Francisco continues to keep our unhoused neighbors cycling through an expanding shelter system without ever receiving Permanent Supportive Housing. The Shelter for All program includes a system for measuring flow through the system, then using these metrics to plan for the appropriate balance of shelter beds vs Permanent Supportive Housing. We need to study these metrics, then allocate sufficient resources (coordinated with Action 1.1.1) to provide sufficient PSH. 3.3.2 Evaluate the needs of unsheltered people and explore creating more types of shelters in the system with tailored amenities and services. Examples could include wellness hubs, clean and sober<U+2019> shelters, and safe consumption shelters for legal and illegal substances; this could also mean an expansion of existing models like, non-congregate shelters and shelters focused on transgender people. Existing programs: Shelters; Transitional housing Draft 4 Action Number: 8i Medium 3.3.3 Expand the timeline during which transitional housing programs 3 are offered for people coming out of jails, prisons, immigration detention centers, and substance use treatment. Existing programs: Transitional Housing; Homecoming Project Draft 4 Action Number: 9e Short REP-SF supports this Action. Currently, when people try to sign up six months before their release, they are automatically rejected because they are considered to be "housed". As a result, people aren't able to apply prior to their release and often end up on the street. 3 A list of transitional housing programs run by the San Francisco Adult Probation Office is catalogued here. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 3.3.4 Remove approval barriers for shelter sites that are City-funded but not City-owned or -leased under local Ordinance 60-19. The over-the-counter review process for shelter construction authorized under a declared shelter crisis should be allowed regardless of the declaration of a shelter crisis. Existing programs: Land Use Controls Draft 4 Action Number: 26b Short 3.3.5 Improve access to medication for addiction treatment, such as methadone and buprenorphine, for opioid use disorders in temporary shelters to support people in their journey out of homelessness. Existing programs: Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Medium 3.3.6 Offer safe places to park for unhoused people living in their vehicles and access to financial assistance to help address their barrier to housing. Existing programs: Crisis Interventions, SFMTA Fine and Fee Waiver Program Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Ongoing Responsible Agencies: HSH, APD, DPH, MOHCD Funding Sources: Federal sources, including Emergency Solutions Grant and Continuum of Care funding; local sources, including Prop C and General Fund; state sources, including Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention 3.4. Supportive Housing Related Policies: 8, 9 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 3.4.1 Identify a numerical target in the 2023 HSH Strategic Plan for building or acquiring permanent supportive housing, in proportion to the expansion of shelter and homelessness prevention services, to continue the trend in reduction in homelessness seen in the Point-in-Time Count from 2019 to 2022 over the Housing Element cycle. Existing programs: Permanently Supportive Housing, Rapid Rehousing Draft 4 Action Number: 8a Short 3.4.2 Increase funding needed to meet the targets set in Action 3.4.1, in balance with funding needed for the other actions to reduce homelessness, including short and long-term rental subsidies, temporary shelter and targeted homelessness prevention. Existing programs: Permanent Supportive Housing; Supportive Services Medium Draft 4 Action Number: 8b Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 3.4.3 Prioritize tenant-based rental assistance with social services for people who are: (1) unhoused, (2) at risk of homelessness, or (3) ready to exit Permanent Supportive Housing for more independent living. Existing programs: Permanent Supportive Housing; Rapid Rehousing; Tenant-Based Rental Subsidies; Housing Ladder Draft 4 Action Number: 8c Short 3.4.4 Increase operating subsidy funding for services and rent in City-funded affordable housing projects so that the share of housing units for formerly unhoused people can increase to 30% or greater of all project units. Existing programs: Local Operating Subsidies; Permanent Supportive Housing; Tenant-Based Rental Subsidies Draft 4 Action Number: 8d Medium 3.4.5 Expand and improve on-site supportive services within Permanent Supportive Housing projects, including sustained care for mental health or substance abuse issues, case management, and childcare. Existing programs: Permanent Supportive Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 8e, 9f Medium 3.4.6 Advocate for and secure additional funding for building and operation of Permanent Supportive Housing from state and federal sources. Existing programs: City<U+2019>s Annual State and Federal Advocacy Draft 4 Action Number: 8j Medium 3.4.7 Strengthen the Housing Ladder 4 strategy to support residents of Permanent Supportive Housing to move to less-supportive settings, freeing up supportive housing units for unhoused people. Actions include potentially revising San Francisco Housing Authority preference system to grant higher preference to these households in using direct rental assistance or other available subsidies or creating a new City-supported shallow subsidy for these households. Existing programs: Housing Ladder; Tenant-Based Rental Subsidies; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 8m Medium 3.4.8 Increase flexibility within Rapid Rehousing programs 5 so that the length of the subsidy can be extended based on the household needs and to prevent future experiences of homelessness. Existing programs: Rapid Rehousing Draft 4 Action Number: 9b Medium 4 A rehousing approach that offers opportunities for residents of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) to move from intensive supportive housing to more independent living, thus freeing up their PSH unit for others. 5 Rapid Rehousing is a time-limited subsidy that gradually decreases as the tenant stabilizes and finds housing outside of the Homelessness Response System. Tenants live in private-market units and access supportive services, including case management and housing retention assistance. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 3.4.9 Continue to provide mobile services for residents in scattered-site supportive housing, for example the Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool program. Existing programs: Permanent Supportive Housing, Rapid Rehousing; Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool Draft 4 Action Number: 9i Ongoing 3.4.10 Assess reasons for individuals exiting permanent supportive housing to address high turnover in permanent supportive housing. Existing programs: Permanent Supportive Housing Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Medium This must be "Short" given the racial and social equity implications. There are racial disparities when it comes to "unsuccessful exits" from Permanent Supportive Housing. It often takes more than one attempt before people are completely stable in PSH. 3.4.11 Continue to invest in step-down housing to improve outcomes for substance use treatment of people experiencing homelessness. Existing programs: Step-Down Housing Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Ongoing 3.4.12 Increase board and care and other high-acuity housing programs to provide a safe and service- rich environment for people who need a higher level of care than PSH can provide. Existing programs: Permanent Supportive Housing, Supportive Services Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Medium Responsible Agencies: HSH, MOHCD, Mayor/BOS, DPH, HSA, DPH, APD Funding Sources: Federal sources, including Continuum of Care; state sources, including Project Homekey; local sources, including Prop C and General Fund. 4. Centering Equity Communities and Cultural Heritage The Centering Equity Communities and Cultural Heritage implementing program supports the Housing Element goals of elevating the visions and prioritizing the needs of American Indian, Black, and other people of color and of fostering racially and socially inclusive neighborhoods. Actions are organized along the principles of accountability, community visibility, planning, engagement, and wealth building. The actions build primarily upon the work of the following local bodies and will require their continued coordination: Human Rights Commission, Office of Racial Equity, Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Housing and Community Development, the African American Reparations Advisory Committee, the Cultural Districts, the Community Equity Advisory Council, and the Planning Department. 4.1. Accountability Related Policies: 14, 17, 21, 40 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 4.1.1 Develop and align citywide metrics that measure progress towards positive outcomes for American Indian, Black, and other people of color, and other disadvantaged communities resulting from housing policies using methods consistent with the San Francisco Equity Index prepared by the Office of Racial Equity. Existing programs: San Francisco Equity Index; Office of Racial Equity; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 14a Medium Developing metrics should move to "Short" so implementation can happen in a reasonable time frame. 4.1.2 Identify and fund liaisons within key City agencies such as MOHCD and Planning to support the housing needs and priorities of American Indian, Black, and other people of color, and other disadvantaged communities; such liaisons should provide regular check-ins with the community at centralized community spaces and reporting on housing programs and Housing Element implementation progress. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 14b Short This Action should be coordinated with the resource development in Action 1.1.1 4.1.3 Identify priority actions in the Housing Element Implementation Program that respond to the needs of American Indian, Black, and other people of color, and other disadvantaged communities, through collaboration with Cultural Districts or other racial and social equity-focused community bodies such as the Community Equity Advisory Council or the African American Reparations Committee. Report back to communities on the progress of those priority actions and update prioritization every two years. Medium Identifying priority actions should move to "Short" so those actions can be implemented in a reasonable time frame. It is unclear why the Equity Advisory Council is named here since it is not certain whether the EAC will be continuing, and if it does continue, what its purpose and focus will be. Existing programs: Cultural Districts; Community Equity Advisory Council; African American Reparations Committee Draft 4 Action Number: 14c Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 4.1.4 Establish an interagency Housing Element implementation committee, who meet with members of racial and social equity focused bodies as cited in Action 4.1.3, to inform the City<U+2019>s budget and work program on housing equity. The committee would be responsible for reporting progress measured in Actions 4.1.1 and 4.1.3 to the Planning Commission and Mayor<U+2019>s Office and for identifying financial or legal challenges to progress. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 14d Short This implementation committee needs to be formed as quickly as possible in December 2022 or at the latest, January 2023 in coordination with Action 1.1.1 4.1.5 Monitor and shape housing investments, including permanently affordable housing production, preservation, and housing services, using the affordable housing funding and investment tracking cited in Action 4.1.1 so that resource allocation is accountable to the community priority actions identified in Action 4.1.3. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 14e Short This must be coordinated with Action 1.1.1 4.1.6 Continue to improve demographic data collection and reporting on applicants and recipients of various housing services, including affordable housing lotteries, rental assistance and vouchers, and public housing. Existing programs: DAHLIA; Data, Evaluation and Compliance Draft 4 Action Number: 14f Medium 4.1.7 Continue racial and social equity and displacement analysis to target levels of investments that prevent community displacement through increased permanently affordable housing production, equitable access to housing, and other community stabilization strategies for vulnerable populations. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 21a Medium 4.1.8 Identify and implement affordable housing production and preservation investments and other community stabilization strategies targeted at levels that will prevent displacement and other adverse racial and social equity impacts of future zoning changes, development projects and infrastructure projects, as informed by ongoing racial and social equity analysis related to housing. 6 Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 17c, 21b, 21c Medium This is one of the Actions that shows clearly how conflicted this Housing Element is with respect to racial and social equity. First, this Action is "Medium" - but the rezonings are already described in the Housing Element, and will be started in the first quarter of 2023. Second, this Action clearly acknowledges that its rezonings, market rate development and infrastructure projects will cause displacement. So- why are the "affordable housing production and preservation investments and other community stabilization strategies" put on a "Medium" time frame if the concept behind this action is to stabilize existing vulnerable residents and communities before the destabilizing, gentrifying effects of this Housing Element devastate our communities? This one Action clearly shows why this Housing Element is so frightening to REP-SF, and why it clearly works against racial and social equity. 4.1.9 Develop and require community accountability measures, including notification and engagement of residents, when building housing on environmentally contaminated sites. Existing programs: Environmental Justice Framework; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 40e Short 6 The Racial and Social Equity Impact analysis of the Housing Element will be completed prior to the adoption of the Housing Element 2022, and this action will be updated based on the findings accordingly Actions Timeline Responsible Agencies: Planning, HRC, ORE, MOHCD, Digital Services, SFHA, HSH, SFMTA, Port, Public Works, SFRPD Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 4.2. Community Planning Related Policies: 13, 15, 18, 28, 33 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 4.2.1 Develop and implement community engagement strategies that center racial and social equity and cultural competency to be used by Planning Department staff as well as developers or community groups. Existing programs: Planning Outreach and Engagement Strategy, (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 13a Short Engagement with no real protections, concrete goals or outcomes has no merit, and does not truly honor the voices and experiences of American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color. 4.2.2 Increase resources and funding to partner with community-based organizations primarily serving and representing American Indian, Black, and other people of color, and other disadvantaged communities for inclusive outreach and engagement and meaningful participation in planning processes related to housing through focus groups, surveys, and other outreach events. Existing programs: Community Plans; Community Strategies; General Plan Updates Draft 4 Action Number: 13c Medium Unfortunately, this Action is meaningless given the Actions described in Section 8 below. Further undermining the intent of this Action is the fact that rezonings will commence immediately after certification of the Housing Element based on a framework already established by Planning in this Housing Element. The fact that this is "Medium" underscores how symbolic and meaningless this Action is. One edit that could be made to this action that might help would be to add to the end "that will directly impact and be incorporated into Planning's decisions", but it's hard to see how this might actually be accomplished given the "Medium" timeframe and the Actions in Section 8 below. 4.2.3 Develop and implement guidelines, and update the municipal codes where needed, to ensure elevated representation of American Indian, Black, and other people of color, and other disadvantaged communities in decision-making or advisory bodies such as Community Advisory Councils (CACs). Existing programs: Community Advisory Councils Draft 4 Action Number: 13d Medium This Action is rendered meaningless as well because of the Actions described in Section 8 below, and the fact that this is "Medium". 4.2.4 Implement the housing strategies recommended by the African American Reparations Advisory Committee and the Transgender Advisory Committee. Existing programs: African American Reparations Advisory Committee; Transgender Advisory Committee; Cultural Districts; Community Equity Advisory Council Draft 4 Action Number: 13f Medium Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 4.2.5 Support the development and implementation of community-led plans in the Tenderloin, the Fillmore, and Japantown. Existing programs: Tenderloin Plan; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 15d Short It is unclear to REP-SF why the SOMA Youth and Family SUD (which is currently in the process of being updated) is always ignored by Planning? REP-SF is also unclear why Sunset Forward is not included in this Action? There are also CHHESS reports that are either completed and approved or still in process that should be included by this Action. 4.2.6 Support implementation of Mission Action Plan 2020 (MAP2020) and Sustainable Chinatown and to meet their affordable housing production and preservation targets. Existing programs: Mission Action Plan 2020; Sustainable Chinatown Draft 4 Action Number: 15e Short 4.2.7 Identify and adopt zoning changes that implement priorities of American Indian, Black, and other communities of color identified in Cultural District or other community-led processes within Priority Equity Geographies. Existing programs: Cultural Districts; Land Use Control; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 18a Medium REP-SF includes SOMA organizations that demand that "Filipino" be added to the list of communities that need to be prioritized by this Action. 4.2.8 Consult with related Cultural Districts or other racial equity-focused community bodies such as the Community Equity Advisory Council to evaluate the racial and social equity impacts of proposed zoning changes within Priority Equity Geographies, using the framework identified under Actions 4.1.7 and 4.1.8. Existing programs: Cultural Districts; Community Equity Advisory Council Draft 4 Action Number: 18b Medium In addition to Priority Equity Geographies, this Action must add reference to "Urban Displacement Project Displacement Risk Model areas" otherwise, the center of the Latino Cultural District and other key areas at high risk of displacement are excluded from this Action. 4.2.9 Allocate resources and create an implementation plan for any applicable anti-displacement measures parallel with the adoption of zoning changes within Priority Equity Geographies Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 18c Medium In addition to Priority Equity Geographies, this Action must add reference to Estimated Displacement Risk areas otherwise, the center of the Latino Cultural District and other key areas at high risk of displacement are excluded from this Action. 4.2.10 Prioritize Planning Staff and resources for housing improvement projects for low-income residents, and community-led housing projects in Priority Equity Geographies. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 28l Medium In addition to Priority Equity Geographies, this Action must add reference to "Urban Displacement Project Displacement Risk Model areas" otherwise, the center of the Latino Cultural District and other key areas at high risk of displacement are excluded from this Action. 4.2.11 Identify neighborhoods with a higher concentration of low-income, immigrant, and rent- burdened12 families with children, such as Tenderloin, Mission, Chinatown, and/or SoMA, and allocate resources to increase permanently affordable housing that addresses their income and needs in those neighborhoods. Existing programs: 100% Affordable Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 33a Medium The fact that this Action is not given the highest level of priority, but is instead "Medium" is further indication of how this Housing Element fails to center on racial and social equity. This is also contradictory to the Actions described above that recommend placing inclusionary funds and off-site BMR housing outside these neighborhoods. Actions Timeline Responsible Agencies: Planning, MOHCD, SFMTA, RPD, DPW, DPH, PUC, ORCP, PORT, Mayor/BOS Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 4.3. Access to Economic Opportunity Related Policies: 16, 37 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 4.3.1 Expand and target job training and financial readiness education programs to residents of Priority Equity Geographies prioritizing youth from American Indian, Black and other communities of color. Existing programs: Workforce Development; Financial Capability Services Draft 4 Action Number: 16a Medium 4.3.2 Support developers of new permanently affordable housing developments in Priority Equity Geographies to include affordable community 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 floor use programming. Existing programs: Community Facilities Draft 4 Action Number: 16b Medium 4.3.3 Adopt commercial space guidelines that encourage the development of businesses owned by American Indian, Black and other people of color in permanently affordable housing buildings. Existing programs: Neighborhood Retail Regulations; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 16c Short 4.3.4 Provide resources for tenant improvements for businesses owned by American Indian, Black, and other people of color in permanently affordable housing buildings. Existing programs: Loans and Grants for Businesses; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 16d Medium 4.3.5 Expand capacity-building, job training, start-up, and business development resources for Black business owners in development and contracting construction trades in support of building housing. Existing programs: Loans and Grants for Businesses; Technical Assistance for Businesses; Workforce Development; Developers of Color Fellowship (Dream Keeper Initiative/MOHCD) Draft 4 Action Number: 16e Medium Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 4.3.6 Grow a range of business and career-building opportunities in Priority Equity Geographies through resources to support affordable Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR) space, protections and incentives for PDR in the Planning Code, enforcement of PDR zoning, and industrial (or commercial) design guidelines. Existing programs: Loans and Grants for Businesses; Technical Assistance for Businesses; Workforce Development; Land-Use Controls; Commercial Design Guidelines; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 16f Medium 4.3.7 Change regulations and definitions in current Planning code to improve flexibility on allowing home-based businesses and work from home in residential districts, for example, create an accessory entrepreneurial use that allows up to two employees. Existing programs: Land-Use Controls, (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 37j Short 4.3.8 Advocate for local or state legislation to make it mandatory for financial education to be integrated into all middle schools in San Francisco, similar to New Jersey<U+2019>s Law A1414, as a way to open access to economic opportunity as the public school system primarily serves students of color in Priority Equity Geographies in San Francisco. Existing programs: City<U+2019>s Annual State and Federal Advocacy; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Medium Responsible Agencies: MOHCD, OEWD, ORE, Planning Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 4.4. Cultural Districts Related Policies: 12, 13, 37, 42 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 4.4.1 Strengthen interagency coordination to ensure that Cultural District strategies related to the creation or improvement of cultural anchors and spaces are integrated into planning, funding, and construction and/or rehabilitation of public projects (e.g., parks and open spaces, street improvements, libraries, and transit facilities). Existing programs: Cultural Districts Draft 4 Action Number: 12c Short Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 4.4.2 Update the Planning Code and Planning Department protocols where necessary to reflect strategies developed in Action 4.2.1, this includes updating Planning Department requirements to require project sponsors to engage with interested Cultural Districts to allow these communities to provide input upon initiation of a project application and to allow the project sponsor adequate time to address the input through dialogue or project revisions. Existing programs: Cultural Districts; Processing and Permitting Procedures Draft 4 Action Number: 13b Short Actions in Section 8 below and future streamlining bills mean that there will be NO meaningful community engagement. These undermine what Cultural Districts were created for- to uplift the voices of historically marginalized communities. Cultural Districts must have protections that will not be overridden like Architectural design guidelines. 4.4.3 In Cultural Districts, reduce conditional use authorizations or other entitlement barriers for mixed-use buildings that can commit via deed restriction or other legal agreement to the inclusion of businesses, institutions, or services that support Cultural District needs and identity for a minimum of ten years. Existing programs: Cultural Districts; Conditional Use Authorizations; Land-Use Controls Draft 4 Action Number: 37b Short Instead of ten years, these commitments must be permanent. This is the only way to provide long term sustainability for American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color to recover and build community-based wealth. There must also be commitments to add culturally appropriate murals, additional units of affordability through programs like Bright Corners or voucher programs, and culturally appropriate designs. Cultural Districts can only survive if we plan long term. 4.4.4 Utilize the Cultural Districts program to support building permanently affordable housing, along with other housing development and neighborhood investments that include cultural activities, uses, traditions, and spaces, in coordination with Program 5.2. Existing programs: Cultural Districts; 100% Affordable Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 42a Medium CHHESS reports are different for each Cultural District. The Cultural Districts' priorities are to build affordable housing, NOT market rate housing. This is the reason why we created Cultural Districts- to preserve our communities and cultural assets. Otherwise, if Planning prioritizes market rate housing, Planning will make museums out of our Cultural Districts. Supporting cultural activities, uses, traditions and spaces do not work if the people who created them can no longer afford to live in their communities. Planning's "other housing development and neighborhood investments" will make our Cultural Districts into tourist destinations like Olvera St in Los Angeles rather than living, breathing Cultural Districts that sustain the communities that created them. This Action should also support artwork, public realm and design. 4.4.5 Increase staff allocation within MOHCD, OEWD, DPW, ARTS, and Planning to create a more robust, sustained, and effective Cultural Districts program, provide more direct support for the development and implementation of their respective Cultural History Housing and Economic Sustainability Strategies (CHHESS). Existing programs: Cultural Districts; Cultural History Housing and Economic Sustainability Strategies Draft 4 Action Number: 42b Medium Responsible Agencies: Planning, MOHCD, OEWD, ARTS, DPW Funding Sources: Expand and funding housing programs and investments for American Indian residents 4.5. Cultural Heritage and Expression Related Policies: 13, 37, 41, 42 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 4.5.1 Improve consultation with local Native Ohlone representatives, including the Association of Ramaytush Ohlone representatives, and American Indian residents in policy development and project review regarding tribal and cultural resource identification, treatment, and management while compensating them for their knowledge and efforts. Improvements should include commissioning the development of community-led, culturally relevant guidelines for identifying and protecting tribal and cultural resources and identifying funding sources for cultural resource identification, treatment and management. Existing programs: Association of Ramaytush Ohlone; Tribal Leaders Draft 4 Action Number: 13e Short 4.5.2 Encourage uses in the ground floor of buildings that support housing, neighborhood activity and identity, especially in Cultural Districts, over inclusion of utility infrastructure, such as transformer vaults. Existing programs: Cultural Districts Draft 4 Action Number: 37l Short 4.5.3 Create Special Area Design Guidelines if requested by communities in Cultural Districts and Priority Equity Geographies where the design of public space and architecture could help reinforce cultural identities, and in coordination with State requirements. Existing programs: Cultural Districts; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 41d Medium Cultural Districts reject this Action's direction to coordinate with State requirements. Design Guidelines should only be written by the community that understands the issues of preserving the character of the neighborhood and Cultural District. 4.5.4 Study creation of a cultural resource mitigation fund that could be paid into by projects that impact cultural resources to support cultural resource protection and preservation throughout the city, prioritizing funding the development of cultural spaces as described in Action 5.2.5. Existing programs: (NEW) Medium Draft 4 Action Number: 42c 4.5.5 Designate historically and culturally significant buildings, landscapes, and districts for preservation using the Citywide Cultural Resource Survey, Planning Code Articles 10 and 11, and state and national historic resource registries to ensure appropriate treatment of historic properties that are important to the community and to unlock historic preservation incentives for more potential housing development sites. Existing programs: Historic Preservation Review; Retained Elements Special Topic Design Guidelines; Citywide Cultural Resource Survey; Planning Code Articles 10 and 11 Draft 4 Action Number: 42d Short Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 4.5.6 Promote the use of the Retained Elements Special Topic Design Guidelines to development applicants to address sites where conserving parts of buildings sustains cultural identity and proposed housing serves the community. Existing programs: Historic Preservation Review; Retained Elements Special Topic Design Guidelines Draft 4 Action Number: 42e Short 4.5.7 Develop objective design standards for the treatment of historic buildings and districts to provide consistent and efficient regulatory review that facilitates housing development approvals and protects the City<U+2019>s cultural and architectural heritages. Existing programs: Historic Preservation Review; Design Review; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 42g Short 4.5.8 Promote historic preservation and cultural heritage incentives, such as tax credit programs and the State Historical Building Code, for use in residential rehabilitation projects through general outreach, interagency collaboration with MOHCD and OEWD, building trades collaboration, educational materials, community capacity building efforts, and through the regulatory review process. Existing programs: Historic Preservation Grants; State Historical Building Code; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 42h Medium 4.5.9 Revise Urban Design Guidelines to provide guidance on including signage, lighting, public art, historical interpretation and educational opportunities in housing development projects in a manner that reflects neighborhood history and culture, prioritizing the acknowledgement and representation of American Indian history and culture, in coordination with State requirements. Existing programs: Historic Preservation Review; Urban Design Guidelines Draft 4 Action Number: 42i Short 4.5.10 Complete the Citywide Cultural Resources Survey, including the citywide historic context statement, with ongoing community engagement to identify important individual historic or cultural resources and districts, prioritizing engagement with American Indian, Black, Japanese, and Filipino communities, and other communities directly harmed by past discriminatory actions. Existing programs: Historic Preservation Review; Citywide Cultural Resources Survey Draft 4 Action Number: 42j Medium 4.5.11 Complete the Heritage Conservation Element of the General Plan to bring clarity and accountability to the City<U+2019>s role in sustaining both the tangible and intangible aspects of San Francisco<U+2019>s cultural heritage, prioritizing engagement with American Indian, Black, Japanese, and Filipino communities, and other communities directly harmed by past discriminatory actions during completion of the element. Existing programs: Historic Preservation Review; Heritage Conservation Element Draft 4 Action Number: 42k Ongoing Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 4.5.12 Consider the effects on housing in balance with the Planning Department<U+2019>s racial and social equity goals for any recommendation of approval, disapproval, or modification of landmark designations or historic district designations, or approval of substantive new review processes or requirements for historic resources. Existing programs: Planning Landmark Designations; Historic District Designations; Historic Resource Review Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Short Responsible Agencies: Planning, DPW, ARTS, MOHCD, OEWD Funding Sources: General Fund 5. Redressing and Preventing Discrimination The Redressing and Preventing Discrimination implementing program supports the Housing Element goal of repairing the harms of historic racial, ethnic, and social discrimination against American Indian, Black, and other people of color. Actions are organized along the principles of acknowledging and documenting harm, ending continuing harm, and tailoring redress to relate to the nature of the harm and respond to the expressed needs and desires of the victims of discrimination. The actions build primarily upon the work of the following local bodies and will require their continued coordination: Human Rights Commission, Office of Racial Equity, Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Housing and Community Development, the African American Reparations Advisory Committee, the Cultural Districts, the Community Equity Advisory Council, and the Planning Department. 5.1. Truth-telling and Acknowledging Past Harm Related Policies: 10 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 5.1.1 Commission an American Indian community-led study to document the discriminatory practices and government actions against San Francisco<U+2019>s American Indian communities including the Indian Relocation Act of 1956 and the cumulative impacts of genocide, exploitation, and dispossession of resources in terms of wealth loss, disparate housing and health outcomes, and scale of displacement. Existing programs: Association of Ramaytush Ohlone; Tribal Leaders; American Indian Cultural District; Office of Racial Equity Draft 4 Action Number: 10a Short Documenting past harms can only work if we don't repeat those past harms in the same or new and different forms today. This Housing Element unfortunately demonstrates in its Actions the same strategies that have hurt American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color in the past. Policy statements and funding programs do not change the outcomes. By not prioritizing affordable housing, this Housing Element will lead to widespread displacement of vulnerable and low-income communities, American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color. 5.1.2 Commission a community-led study by affected San Francisco communities, including American Indian, Black, and other communities of color, to document the history of redlining, racial covenants, and exclusionary zoning practices in San Francisco and their cumulative impacts, particularly on Black households, in terms wealth-loss, disparate housing and health outcomes, and scale of displacement. Existing programs: African American Reparations Advisory Committee; Cultural Districts; Office of Racial Equity Draft 4 Action Number: 10b Short 5.1.3 Commission a community-led study by affected San Francisco communities, including American Indian, Black, and other communities of color, to document the history of urban renewal in San Francisco and its cumulative impacts, particularly on Black households, in terms wealth loss, disparate housing outcomes, and scale of displacement. Existing programs: African American Reparations Advisory Committee; Cultural Districts; Office of Racial Equity Draft 4 Action Number: 10c Short Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 5.1.4 Commission a community-led study by affected San Francisco communities to document the history of racialized public housing and its replacement in San Francisco and its impacts, particularly on Black households, in terms of wealth loss, disparate housing and health outcomes, and scale of displacement. Existing programs: African American Reparations Advisory Committee; Cultural Districts; Office of Racial Equity Draft 4 Action Number: 10d Short 5.1.5 Commission a community-led study by affected San Francisco communities to document the history of predatory lending practices and other discriminatory real estate practices in San Francisco and its impacts in terms of wealth loss, disparate housing and health outcomes, and scale of displacement. Existing programs: African American Reparations Advisory Committee; Cultural Districts; Office of Racial Equity Draft 4 Action Number: 10e Short 5.1.6 Report on the cumulative impacts to San Francisco<U+2019>s American Indian, Black, and other communities of color resulting from discriminatory practices and government actions as understood from the studies called for in Program 5.1 and Actions 5.1.1 through 5.1.5 to present a holistic view of the harms Long incurred and redress the harms comprehensively. Existing programs: (NEW) Racial and Social Equity Impact Analysis Draft 4 Action Number: 10f 5.1.7. Incorporate findings from the studies called for in in Program 5.1 and Actions 5.1.1 through 5.1.5, including the resulting disparities and inequities, when applying the Planning Department<U+2019>s racial and social equity assessment tool 7 to applicable projects. Existing programs: (NEW) Racial and Social Equity Impact Analysis Draft 4 Action Number: 10g Short 5.1.8 Incorporate relevant findings of the studies called for in in Program 5.1 and Actions 5.1.1 through 5.1.5 in city decision documents for actions intended to redress past racial and social harm. Existing programs: (NEW) Racial and Social Equity Impact Analysis Draft 4 Action Number: 10h Short Responsible Agencies: Planning, HRC, ORE Funding Sources: Needs funding 7 An analysis approach to assessing the potential racial and social equity impacts of a proposed action. This tool is part of San Francisco Planning<U+2019>s Racial and Social Equity Action Plan, which aims to pro-actively advance equity in the Department<U+2019>s internal and external work such as community planning, community engagement, policy/laws development, hiring, and process improvements. At the time of publication (March 2022), this tool is still being developed. 5.2. Cultural Investment and Restitution Related Policies: 12 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 5.2.1 In recognition of the dispossession of American Indians of their ancestral lands, identify opportunities to give land back for traditional cultural and ceremonial uses and to invest in spaces for the American Indian community to participate in traditional cultural practices and convene community gatherings. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 12a Short 5.2.2 In recognition of the disproportionate loss of Black residents from San Francisco in recent decades resulting in part from a culmination of discriminatory government actions, identify opportunities to donate or dedicate land for use by Black-led, community-serving organizations. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 12b Short 5.2.3 Fund the development and implementation of community-led strategies in Cultural Districts to retain and grow culturally associated businesses and services that attract residents back to the area. Existing programs: Cultural Districts Draft 4 Action Number: 12d Short 5.2.4 Recognize spaces of cultural importance identified by American Indian, Black, Japanese, Filipino, and other communities directly harmed by discriminatory government actions in community planning and regulatory review for development projects, consult them in decisions affecting those spaces, and direct resources towards their preservation and management. Existing programs: Historic Preservation Review Draft 4 Action Number: 12e Short 5.2.5 Fund the development of cultural spaces that serve communities harmed as described under Program 5.2, using potential new funding sources such as the mitigation fund referenced under Action 4.5.4 or community facilities fees. Medium Existing programs: (NEW) Cultural Resource Mitigation Fund; Cultural Districts Draft 4 Action Number: 12f 5.2.6 Prioritize businesses and non-profit organizations associated with American Indian, Black, Japanese, Filipino, and other communities directly harmed by discriminatory government actions for grant funding and technical assistance through the Legacy Business Program. Existing programs: Legacy Business Program Draft 4 Action Number: 12g Short Responsible Agencies: Planning, MOHCD, OEWD, OSB, RED, Mayor/BOS Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 5.3. Fair Housing Compliance and Enforcement Related Policies: 6, 8 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 5.3.1 Evaluate and identify common cases of discrimination and violation of fair housing law and groups who continuously face such discrimination, including transgender and LGBTQ+, or people with disabilities, and implement solutions to strengthen enforcement of fair housing law in those cases. Existing programs: Fair Housing Enforcement; Fair Housing Testing Draft 4 Action Number: 6b Medium 5.3.2 Amend the City<U+2019>s Fair Chance Ordinance to incorporate best practices to expand housing access for people with criminal records to privately-owned units, Housing Choice Voucher units, and other federally funded units. 8 Existing programs: Fair Chance Ordinance Short Draft 4 Action Number: 6c 5.3.3 Create and expand incentives for private landlords to use rental assistance programs (e.g., Housing Choice Vouchers) to rent their units to extremely and very low-income households. Incentives could include covering lease up fees, rent payment during the inspection period, providing tenant support for housing retention, and covering unit damage upon separation, as well as establishing a fund to support these incentives. Existing programs: Section 8 Housing Choice (Tenant) Vouchers; Tenant Counseling and Education; Supportive services; Rental Subsidies; Tenant-based Rental Subsidies; (NEW) Incentive Programs for Landlords/Section 8 Draft 4 Action Number: 8l Short 5.3.4 Address racial bias in home appraisals by strengthening local fair housing legislation for all stages of residential valuation and enhancing fair housing enforcement. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Medium Responsible Agencies: HRC, SFHA, MOHCD, APD, HSH Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 8 Examples of similar programs can be found in affect in Oakland, CA and Seattle, WA in 2021. 5.4. Housing Programs to Redress Harm Related Policies: 5, 11 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 5.4.1 Prioritize American Indian residents for housing opportunities to redress the historic dispossession of resources affecting these communities, such as by the Indian Relocation Act, and other government actions that broke the cohesion of this community. Existing programs: Lottery Preference Programs Draft 4 Action Number: 11a Short 5.4.2 Establish pilot and permanent programs that offer homeownership opportunities targeted to Black households harmed through redlining or urban renewal or other forms of systemic racism related to housing, including Black individuals and their descendants who hold Certificates of Preference from the urban renewal period, as referenced in Actions 5.4.8 and 5.4.9. Building on the Dream Keeper initiative, such programs should include silent second loans or grants for down payment assistance, as well as other financial assistance to reduce income eligibility as a barrier to access homeownership opportunities. Existing programs: Homeownership Down Payment Assistance; Certificate of Preference; Dream Keeper Initiative; (NEW) Homeownership Program for Black People Impacted by Racist Housing Policies Draft 4 Action Number: 11b Medium 5.4.3 Upon completion of the pilot programs for Black communities cited in Action 5.4.2, evaluate and extend the programs to other communities directly harmed by discriminatory government actions. 9 Existing programs: (NEW) Homeownership Program for Other Communities of Color Impacted by Racist Housing Policies Long Draft 4 Action Number: 11c 5.4.4 Target increased investment in the Down Payment Assistance Loan Program to American Indian, Black, Japanese, Filipino, and other communities directly harmed by redlining or urban renewal or by other discriminatory government actions. Existing programs: Homeownership Down Payment Assistance Draft 4 Action Number: 11d Short 5.4.5. Implement right to return legislation for residents of public housing including opportunities to those previously displaced. Existing programs: Right-to-Return Draft 4 Action Number: 11e Medium 9 Discriminatory programs include, but are not limited to, redlining, urban renewal, segregated public housing, and exclusionary zoning regulations, such as single-family zoning. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 5.4.6 Pursue expanding and modifying the shared equity homeownership and land trust models to address their effectiveness and scalability, including capacity and expertise of community-based organization to manage and support such projects, to serve communities harmed by past discrimination. Use the findings of the study referenced in Action 2.3.4 to inform expansion of these models. Existing programs: Share equity housing; Land Trusts Draft 4 Action Number: 11f Medium 5.4.7. Create and pilot programs to increase access to Affordable Rental and Homeownership units and other housing services as redress for American Indian, Black, Japanese, Filipino, and other communities directly harmed by past discriminatory government actions including redlining, urban renewal, the Indian Relocation Act, or WWII Japanese incarceration. Programs should be informed by the truth-telling processes described in Program 5.1. Existing programs: Preference Programs; 100% Affordable Housing; Inclusionary Affordable Housing; Certificate of Preference; (NEW) Redressing Harm Program Draft 4 Action Number: 11g Short 5.4.8 Expand the Certificates of Preference program as required per recent State Law, Assembly Bill 1584 (Health and Safety Code, SEC 13 <U+2013> 16), to qualify eligible descendants of those displaced by redevelopment projects for priority in renting or buying affordable housing. Conduct comprehensive outreach and engagement to identify the descendants of households who have been displaced. Expanding this program should rely on strategies that ensure such units meet the preferences and needs of eligible households as informed by Action 5.4.9. Existing programs: Certificate of Preference Draft 4 Action Number: 5e Short 5.4.9 Conduct a study to engage with Certificates of Preference holders and their descendants to identify their housing needs, preferences, and income levels and create a tracking system to better monitor who has obtained or declined affordable rental and homeownership opportunities and why. Existing programs: Certificate of Preference; (NEW) COP Tracking System Draft 4 Action Number: 5f Short 5.4.10 Expand and fund community capacity to implement housing programs and investments for American Indian residents as one strategy to redress the historic dispossession of resources affecting these communities, such as the Indian Relocation Act, and other government actions that broke the cohesion of this community. Existing programs: Community-Based Services; Organizational Capacity Building Draft 4 Action Number: 11h Short Responsible Agencies: MOHCD, OCII, HRC, Planning, Mayor/BOS Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 6. Serving Special Needs Groups Various groups in San Francisco have special housing needs that need to be taken into account in housing policies and planning and have provided feedback during community outreach for the Housing Element update. These groups include families with children (especially lower income families), seniors, people with disabilities, people with chronic illness, including HIV/AIDS, transgender, and LGBTQ+ people. The programs and actions listed below address some of the specific needs of these groups including housing and building design, access to affordable housing, access to appropriately sized housing, and access to appropriate housing services. 6.1. Families With Children Related Policies: 32, 33 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 6.1.1 Pursue multi-generational living for extended families and communal households that have space and amenities for children, working-age adults, seniors and persons with disabilities, when building permanently affordable housing or cooperative housing referenced in Action 1.6.1. Long Existing programs: 100% Affordable Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 32b 6.1.2 Establish programs to assist extremely low and very low-income families with children to relocate from SROs and overcrowded living conditions to appropriate permanently affordable housing. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 33b Medium This must be "Short". Please refer to comments above under Action 1.7.1 6.1.3 Encourage family-friendly housing, which could include higher numbers of two- or three- bedroom units, units that are affordable to a wide range of low- to middle-income households, and child-friendly amenities such as playgrounds, on-site childcare, or designated childcare units. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 33c, 33d Medium This Action is vague. What does Planning mean by "encourage"? Are there certain incentives or requirements that Planning is recommending? 6.1.4 Continue to require multi-bedroom unit mixes. Existing programs: Unit Mix Requirements Draft 4 Action Number: 33f Ongoing Responsible Agencies: Planning, MOHCD Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 6.2. Transgender and LGBTQ+ People Related Policies: 7, 8, 9 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 6.2.1 Study and identify programs that respond to the needs of transgender and LGBTQ+ groups, particularly those who are refugees, lack family connections, or previously incarcerated, to incorporate into permanently affordable housing investments that are concentrated in the neighborhoods where they have historically found community, such as the Castro for LGBTQ+ communities or the Tenderloin for transgender people of color, building upon research spearheaded by the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District. Existing programs: LGBTQ Cultural District, Compton<U+2019>s Transgender District Draft 4 Action Number: 7a Short 6.2.2 Support and fund the implementation of San Francisco<U+2019>s <U+201C>Ending Trans Homelessness Plan<U+201D>, as well as the ongoing housing placement for the transgender community, in recognition of the severe disparities in housing access and safety experienced by this group. Existing programs: Ending Trans Homelessness Plan Draft 4 Action Number: 7b, 8n Medium 6.2.3 Adopt Trauma-Informed Systems 10 with robust training resources and increase cultural competency training specific to transgender and LGBTQ+ populations for all service providers and property managers in the City<U+2019>s affordable housing projects and Homeless Response System. Existing programs: (NEW) Trauma-Informed Systems Training Draft 4 Action Number: 9j Medium 6.2.4 Expand short term medical recovery housing programs for unhoused transgender people, such as is offered by Maitri, so that transgender people can access medical care by meeting the public health system requirement for stable housing prior to undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Existing programs: Medical Recovery Housing Draft 4 Action Number: 9n Short 6.2.5 Allocate resources to population-specific programs outside of the Homelessness Response System in acknowledgement that transgender and LGBTQ+ communities do not currently access the system because of safety and discrimination concerns. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 9o Short Responsible Agencies: Planning, MOHCD, HSH, OTI, APD Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 10 The TIS Initiative at the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH) is an organizational change model to support organizations to respond to and reduce the impact of trauma. 6.3. Seniors and People with Disabilities and Chronic Illness Related Policies: 6, 7, 32 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 6.3.1 Expand the Senior Operating Subsidy (SOS) program to allow extremely and very low-income seniors to be eligible for the senior Below Market Rate rental units. Existing programs: Senior Operating Subsidy (SOS) program Draft 4 Action Number: 5h Short 6.3.2 Increase permanently affordable senior housing along transit corridors to improve mobility of aging adults and seniors, particularly for extremely- and very-low-income households including through expansion of Senior Operating Subsidies as referenced in Action 6.3.1. Existing programs: 100% Affordable Housing; Senior Operating Subsidies Draft 4 Action Number: 32a Long 6.3.3 Create or support financing programs that support aging in place, including improvements to accessibility through home modifications or building ADUs, and supported by technical assistance programs referenced in Action 8.2.2. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 32c Short 6.3.4 Implement new strategies to support and prevent the loss of residential care facilities, using the recommendations of the Assisted Living Working Group of the Long-term Care Coordinating Council 11, including business support services, as well as City-funded subsidies for affordable placement of low- income residents. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 32d Medium 6.3.5 Support and explore expanding the Home Match Program to match seniors with people looking for housing that can provide home chore support in exchange for affordable rent. Existing programs: Home Match Draft 4 Action Number: 32e Medium 6.3.6 Strengthen interagency coordination to identify and implement strategies to address the housing needs of seniors and people with disabilities, informed by the Housing Needs Assessments referenced in Action 6.3.7. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 32g Short 11 Supporting Affordable Assisted Living in San Francisco, January 2019, Assisted Living Facility (ALF) Workgroup | San Francisco Human Services Agency (sfhsa.org) Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 6.3.7 Conduct a Housing Needs Assessment 12 for seniors and people with disability every three years to inform strategies that meet their housing needs, as referenced in Policy 32. Existing programs: Access Plan Review Draft 4 Action Number: 6e Ongoing Every three years is too long- Conduct an initial Housing Needs Assessment for seniors and disabled to inform strategies that meet their housing needs now, and follow-up every 2 years. 6.3.8 Continue to provide housing affordable to HIV positive applicants on the Plus Housing List. Existing programs: Plus Housing Program Draft 4 Action Number: 7c Ongoing 6.3.9 Explore a Disabled Operating Subsidy (DOS) program to allow extremely and very low-income people with disabilities better access to permanently affordable housing units. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Medium This Action should be "Short" because if a Disability Operating Subsidy is "explored" on a "Medium" timeframe, it will not be implemented in a meaningful way during this RHNA cycle. This must be "Short" and coordinated with Action 1.1.1 Responsible Agencies: Planning, MOHCD, DAS, HSA, MOD Funding Sources: (Awaiting Confirmation) 12 These studies were required by Ordinance 266-20, passed by San Francisco Board of Supervisors in December 2020. 7. Expanding Housing Choices San Francisco<U+2019>s diverse residents and households need a variety of housing to meet their needs, however, for decades zoning and other rules have limited the types of homes that can be built in most of the city. The result of these restrictions is that 10% or less of new housing in the last two decades has been built in the Well-resourced Neighborhoods of the City that cover more than half of residential land. Housing Element requirements to affirmatively further fair housing mean that the city must allow more housing in Well-resourced Neighborhoods. In addition, the need to accommodate the RHNA housing targets across income levels also requires rezoning for over 34,000 homes in addition to current capacity. The Expanding Housing Choices program area includes various programs that will increase housing choices for residents around the city in a variety of housing types including a rezoning to accommodate the RHNA and allow more homes in small and mid-rise multifamily buildings, support for ADUs in existing residential buildings, and actions to support additional housing near major transit nodes and jobs centers, including new housing and conversions of office in Downtown. 7.1. Rezoning Program The detailed Rezoning Program can be found the Sites Inventory and Analysis Appendix. Related Policies: 20 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 7.1.1 Create a rezoning program with by-right pathway to meet the requirements of San Francisco<U+2019>s Regional Housing Needs Allocation across income levels and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing laws, relying on a combination of strategies in Actions 7.3.2 and 7.2.1 above to accommodate approximately 34,000 new units primarily in Well-resourced Neighborhoods, in proximity to transit and commercial corridors. Complete this effort by January 31, 2026. Existing programs: Housing Element 2022 Update Sites Inventory and Analysis, (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 20c Short REP-SF urges the addition of "that are not also Displacement Risk areas", so this Action would read: "... to accommodate approximately 34,000 new units primarily in Well-resourced Neighborhoods that are not also Displacement Risk areas, in proximity to transit" 7.1.2 Engage with communities living in Well-resourced Neighborhoods to inform existing residents how locating new housing and permanently affordable housing in every neighborhood can address historic inequity and injustice and expand housing opportunities for local residents and their families while strengthening neighborhood vitality. Existing programs: Sunset Forward; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 20d Short Responsible Agencies: Planning, Mayor/BOS Funding Sources: Expand and funding housing programs and investments for American Indian residents 7.2. Mid-rise and Small Multifamily Buildings Related Policies: 20, 26, 29, 31, 34 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 7.2.1 Increase the opportunity to create more small multi-family buildings by replacing lot-based unit maximum zoning controls with form-based residential or mixed-use zoning in Well-resourced Neighborhoods near transit. Existing programs: ConnectSF Transit Strategy; Land-use Controls Draft 4 Action Number: 20b Short 7.2.2 In Priority Equity Geographies and Cultural Districts where community-led strategies have defined and codified community benefits required for project approvals, support ministerial approval processes for mid-rise and small multi-family buildings. Examples include designating commercial space as a Community Benefit Use, as defined in Action 9.4.5, or offering reduced rent for community- serving purposes via a development agreement or deed-restrictions. Short REP-SF rejects the notion of blanket ministerial approvals. Each project conditions are unique. There is no way that any community plan will be able to apply to every unique project. We also request clarification as to Planning's definitions of "mid-rise" and "small multi-family" buildings. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 29b 7.2.3 In areas outside of Priority Equity Geographies, unless areas opt-in through community-led processes, allow a minimum of four units on all residential lots and a minimum of six on corner lots, expanding on the State duplex/lot split program (SB 9) and pair with rental and/or down payment assistance that supports opportunities for low- and moderate-income tenants and owners. Existing programs: SB 9, (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 31a Short 7.2.4 Revise and codify SB 9 program implementation with Department of Building Inspection to ensure that both flag-shaped lots and utility easements for lot splits are accepted. Existing programs: SB 9, (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 31b Short 7.2.5 Permit uses and eliminate regulatory limitations, such as conditional use authorizations, that discourage innovative, smaller housing types where licensing is not required, such as co-housing 13 with amenities that support seniors and those with disabilities Existing programs: Land-Use Controls; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 32f Medium 13 Co-housing, group housing, or co-living rooms are a type of housing that may have limited cooking facilities and do not contain a full kitchen in each room. Co-housing may include (but is not limited to) communes, fraternities and sororities, or Residential Hotels. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 7.2.6 Eliminate the definition of <U+201C>group housing<U+201D> and modify <U+201C>dwelling unit<U+201D> to include <U+201C>more than one<U+201D> family in the Planning Code and to include minimum quality of life standards, such as cooking facilities and common space. Existing programs: Land Use Controls, (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 34a Short 7.2.7 Support process and code changes in Priority Equity Geographies that seek to define specific needs or limits around co-housing types, as informed by Policy 18. Existing programs: Land Use Controls; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 34b Short 7.2.8 Create a co-housing informational program that provides ideas and recommendations on types, financing structures, precedents, and technical guidance to support their creation in Cultural Districts and Priority Equity Geographies to meet community needs. Existing programs: Cultural Districts; (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 34c Short 7.2.9 Revise HOME-SF program and entitlement process to apply to more sites and be easier to use by eliminating Commission hearings for program-compliant project applications, expand applicability to RH1, RH2, and RH3 zoned areas, and broaden the modifications to be more aligned with the State program. Proposed projects should not demolish existing rent-controlled units and must meet tenant protection, relocation, and replacement standards as recognized in Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Existing programs: Home-SF Draft 4 Action Number: 26l Short Responsible Agencies: Planning, MOHCD, Mayor/BOS, HSA Funding Sources: Expand and funding housing programs and investments for American Indian residents 7.3. Housing Near Job Centers and Transit Related Policies: 20, 24 26, 35 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 7.3.1 Explore height increases and density limit removal at major transit nodes along Rapid bus and rail corridors, in addition to areas referenced in Policy 20, along with planning for needed infrastructure improvements and achieving maximum permanently affordable housing units. Existing programs: ConnectSF Transit Strategy Draft 4 Action Number: 24d Medium Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 7.3.2 Increase the opportunity for mid-rise multi-family buildings in Well-resourced Neighborhoods through changes to height limits, removal of density controls, and other zoning changes along SFMTA<U+2019>s Muni Forward Rapid Network 14 and other transit routes such as California Street, Union Street, Lombard Street, Geary Blvd, Judah Street, Noriega Street, Ocean Ave, Taraval Street, Sloat Blvd, 19th Ave, Park Presidio Blvd, West Portal Ave, Junipero Serra Blvd, Church Street, Divisadero Street, 17th and Market/Castro, and Van Ness Ave. In areas that overlap with Priority Equity Geographies, such as the Japantown Cultural District, any potential zoning changes should come through community-led processes per Policies 18 and 29. Existing programs: ConnectSF Transit Strategy; SFMTA<U+2019>s Muni Forward Rapid Network Draft 4 Action Number: 20a Medium 7.3.3 Study removing the planning code requirement on large development sites south of Harrison Street in the Central SoMa Special Use District that limits residential uses in proportion to office ones on sites larger than 40,000 square feet that entail new construction or an addition of 100,000 square feet or more. Existing programs: Land Use Controls Draft 4 Action Number: 26o Short 7.3.4 Study feasibility challenges in and support proposals for adaptive re-use of vacant and under- utilized commercial office buildings for potential housing, especially if building types work well for groups that would benefit from their proximity to transit, services, or institutions, such as seniors, teachers, or students. Existing programs: Land Use Controls Draft 4 Action Number: 26s Short 7.3.5 Pursue partnerships that commit large institutional employers that are not subject to job housing linkage fees (such as hospitals and educational institutions) to conduct an analysis of the housing demand of their employees and to meet that demand within institutional master plans or equivalent documents. Existing programs: Institutional Master Plans, (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 35f Medium 7.3.6 Pursue partnerships with educational institutions to identify the housing needs of students, monitor implementation of planned student housing in institutional master plans, and promote strategies to address the unmet housing needs of students. Existing programs: Institutional Master Plans, (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 35g Medium Responsible Agencies: Planning, Mayor/BOS 14 These transit routes account for the majority of Muni<U+2019>s ridership. Before the pandemic, Rapid Network routes were scheduled to operate every 10 minutes or better all day on weekdays. Actions Timeline Funding Sources: Expand and funding housing programs and investments for American Indian residents 7.4. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Related Policies: 31 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 7.4.1 Prioritize City permitting staff resources for the review of ADUs that do not displace tenants. Existing programs: Accessory Dwelling Units Draft 4 Action Number: 31c Short 7.4.2 Continue to strengthen the interagency coordination (e.g. Roundtable Review) for permit processing of ADUs and implement an integrated online permitting system and permitting governance structure to support permit streamlining and government transparency. Existing programs: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); Processing and Permitting Procedures Draft 4 Action Number: 31d Ongoing 7.4.3 Create an affordable ADU program that provides financial support for professional services and construction of units that serve low-income households. Existing programs: (NEW) Affordable ADU Program Draft 4 Action Number: 31e Short 7.4.4 Encourage Junior ADUs (JADUs) as an effective and low-cost way of adding habitable space within existing single-family homes, as JADUs also expand opportunities for multi-generational living. Existing programs: Accessory Dwelling Units Draft 4 Action Number: 31f Short 7.4.5 Revise ADU rent control provisions under local program to start ten years after issuance of Certificate of Occupancy to support homeowners adding units in existing single- and two-family housing. Existing programs: Accessory Dwelling Units Draft 4 Action Number: 31g Short Responsible Agencies: Planning, DBI, MOHCD Funding Sources: Expand and funding housing programs and investments for American Indian residents 8. Reducing Constraints on Housing Development, Maintenance, and Improvement The Constraint reduction program addresses the challenges in achieving housing approvals and production for shelters, supportive, and housing affordable to low-, moderate-, and above moderate- income households identified in the Analysis of Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints. This program recognizes that regulatory code and permitting processes direct housing to respond to City priorities, but that the overall system can be simplified and more accessible, that community-led strategies support systematic approaches rather than project-by-project decision-making, and that the cumulative effect of complex entitlement and post-entitlement permitting is making the process uncertain and even more expensive. Key agencies that can advance legislative and programmatic efforts include: the Planning Department, the Department of Building Inspection, Public Works, the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Housing and Community Development, and the Office of Workforce and Economic Development. 8.1. Cost and Fees Related Policies: 26, 27, 30, Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.1.1 Reduce building code or jurisdictional conflicts to enable cost-efficient construction types and materials such as cross laminated timber 15, cassette 16, or modular 17 construction, especially where local jobs are supported. Existing programs: Building Code Draft 4 Action Number: 30a Medium 8.1.2 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. Existing programs: CityBuild Training; Local Hire; Workforce Development Draft 4 Action Number: 30e Medium 15 Laminated timber: An engineered wood building material that can be used in walls, roofs, or ceilings, typically uses sustainable materials, and could lower construction cost through decreased lead times. 16 Cassette: A type of prefabricated housing where components or types of building parts but not full building units are manufactured in a factory setting, then assembled on site 17 A type of prefabricated housing where full units or substantial parts of a building are manufactured, shipped to a construction site, and then assembled into a full building. This evolving housing production method can reduce construction costs and increase durability. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.1.3 Modify requirement to collect impact fees upon issuance of a Certificate of Final Completion and Occupancy instead of issuance of building permit. Existing programs: Impact Fees Draft 4 Action Number: 26r Short 8.1.4 Modify Article 12C of the San Francisco Health Code Non-Potable Water Ordinance to be required only for housing projects at or over 250,000 gross square feet, with projects over 100,000 gross Short square feet providing water budget calculations. Existing programs: San Francisco Health Code Non-Potable Water Ordinance Draft 4 Action Number: 27e, 26e Responsible Agencies: DBI, OEWD, Planning Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 8.2. Small Multifamily Financing and Support Related Policies: 30 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.2.1 Create low-interest construction loan programs for eligible lower-income homeowners to expand their existing homes with additional units or demolish and replace their homes with more units up the allowable maximum density. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 30b Medium 8.2.2 Create and sustainably fund financing, technical assistance, outreach, and educational programs, such as the Housing Development Incentive Program for Homeowners, for eligible homeowners interested in updating their property from single- to multi-family housing, particularly assisting low-income property owners, households of color, seniors, and people with disabilities. Such programs should ensure accessible accommodations for aging adults and people with disabilities. Existing programs: Housing Development Incentive Program for Homeowners; (NEW) Medium Draft 4 Action Number: 30c Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.2.3 Explore new fees on housing applications that propose large new or large expansions to single-family homes where no new units are added to create a funding stream for down-payment assistance or construction loans for low-income homeowners as described in Action 8.2.2 Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 30d Medium Responsible Agencies: MOHCD, Planning, Mayor/BOS Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 8.3. Objective Design Standards & Findings Related Policies: 26, 27, 28, 41 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.3.1 Develop Objective Design Standards that replace subjective design review of housing projects while ensuring that new development in existing neighborhoods support livability, building durability, access to light and outdoor space, and creative expression. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 41a Short 8.3.2 Codify commonly applied but unadopted policies, on such topics as roof decks or flats, as design standards to increase certainty in decision-making at Planning Commission. Existing programs: Land Use Controls Draft 4 Action Number: 26n Short 8.3.3 Remove the inner court five-foot setback at each level requirement under Planning Code Section 140 and amend Section 135(g)(2) to allow inner courts to serve as usable open space even if the height of adjoining walls is somewhat larger than the width of the inner court to allow more efficient construction techniques and reduce the cost of housing construction. Existing programs: Land Use Controls Draft 4 Action Number: 26p Medium 8.3.4 Establish objective design standards as part of Better Streets requirements for on- and offsite improvements that replace existing subjective ones. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 27b Medium Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.3.5 Revise public right-of-way (ROW) policy, rules, and procedures across city agencies to facilitate the use of the below grade public ROW for utility infrastructure that would currently be required to be installed on private property to maximize the construction of housing units and expedite post- entitlement approvals. Existing programs: Land Use Controls Draft 4 Action Number: 27c Short 8.3.6 Eliminate or remove application of design guidelines that subjectively restrict the massing of housing to ensure compliance with the State<U+2019>s Housing Accountability Act. Existing programs: Design Review Draft 4 Action Number: 28a Short 8.3.7 Create and adopt a new objective design standard to require the use of natural and durable materials for front faade and windows, for example stucco, stone, concrete, wood, and metal to replace existing discretionary design guidelines, except in Special Area Design Guidelines or adopted or listed Historic Districts, that require detailed front faade compatibility with surrounding neighborhood architectural patterns, for example window proportions, roof shape, or type of entry. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 41b Short 8.3.8 Create, complete, adopt, and apply the Ground Floor Residential Objective Design Standards to housing projects to require porches, stoops, and accessible open space under specific conditions to invite social engagement and belonging. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 41c Medium 8.3.9 Eliminate the use of <U+201C>neighborhood character<U+201D> and/or <U+201C>neighborhood compatibility<U+201D> terminology in case report findings towards approvals. Existing programs: Design Review Draft 4 Action Number: 41f Short Please note that Cultural Districts and Priority Equity Geographies use the phrase "Culturally Supportive". This terminology must continue to be used and respected. 8.3.10 Given health and safety requirements in the Building Code and rear yard requirements in the Planning Code, eliminate the use of <U+201C>light<U+201D> and <U+201C>air<U+201D> terminology in case report findings to support discretionary requests. Existing programs: Design Review Draft 4 Action Number: 41g Short Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.3.11 Replace terminology of <U+201C>neighborhood character<U+201D> and <U+201C>neighborhood compatibility<U+201D> in the Urban Design Element with terms that more directly support avoiding severe changes to building scale and/or architectural expression that dehumanize the experience of the built environment. Explore implications with Proposition M 18. Existing programs: Urban Design Element Draft 4 Action Number: 41e Short Responsible Agencies: Planning, Mayor/BOS Funding Sources: Expand and funding housing programs and investments for American Indian residents 8.4. Process and Permit Procedures Related Policies: 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.4.1 Incentivize housing project applications that maximize density and height under existing zoning and regulatory programs as that will result in the production of more permanently affordable housing units, as informed by the racial and social equity impact analysis referenced in Actions 4.1.7 and 4.1.8. Existing programs: SB 35; State Density Bonus; Local Density Bonuses Draft 4 Action Number: 24e Short This Action appears to create an incentive on top of programs that already exist to create incentives for market rate housing. Vulnerable areas such as Priority Equity Geographies and those described by the Urban Displacement Project must be exempted from this Action. Actions 4.1.7 and 4.1.8 discuss community stabilization strategies and investments in affordable housing production and preservation. This Action works directly against Actions 4.1.7 and 4.1.8. 8.4.2 Establish local ministerial approval 19 for housing applications in Well-resourced Neighborhoods outside of areas vulnerable to displacement that net two or more housing units, do not demolish existing rent-controlled units, and meet tenant protection, relocation, and replacement standards as recognized in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, by Board of Supervisors or voter approval of a City Charter amendment or by Board decision to include more project types if or when a non-charter change pathway is available. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 25a Medium 18 Proposition M was adopted by the voters on November 4, 1986. It requires that the City shall find that proposed alterations and demolitions are consistent with eight priority policies set forth in Section 101.1 of the Planning Code. This includes a policy stating that existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods. 19 A governmental decision involving little or no personal judgment by the public official; it involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out.mini Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.4.3 Adopt one or more Housing Sustainability Districts in Well-resourced Neighborhoods outside of areas vulnerable to displacement that include tenant protections, relocation, and replacement standards as recognized in Housing Crisis Act of 2019, by January 31, 2024. Existing programs: Housing Sustainability Districts Draft 4 Action Number: 25b Short 8.4.4 Establish a ministerial pathway for project applications that provide 20% affordable housing on site through mechanisms described in Actions 8.4.2 and 8.4.3, for RHNA Cycle 6 lower-income sites identified in the Housing Element Update 2022 Sites Inventory that have been reused from Cycles 4 and 5 by January 31, 2024, as required by per California Government Code 65580(g). Existing programs: (NEW) Short Draft 4 Action Number: 25c 8.4.5 Eliminate Commission hearings on any code-complying project in the Well Resourced Neighborhoods subject to the Housing Accountability Act by July 31, 2023 until January 31, 2027. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: Short 8.4.6 In Priority Equity Geographies where community-led strategies have defined and codified community benefits, affordable housing goals, environmental justice measures, design standards and/or any other community-determined outcomes required for project approvals, streamline approval processes including reducing notification requirements, consolidating appeal hearings, or providing ministerial pathways, to facilitate certainty in the development process and comprehensively address all community concerns. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 29a Short REP-SF rejects this approach. Conditions vary from project to project, especially ground floor potential uses. In addition, conditions, needs and circumstances change over time. This Action works directly against racial and social equity and the self-determination of American Indian, Black and other Communities of Color. 8.4.7 Revise current hearing procedures for Planning Code Sections 147 and 295 Height Restrictions on Structures Shadowing Property Under the Jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission to ensure project approvals meet hearing requirements. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 28d Short 8.4.8. Remove Conditional Use Authorizations or other regulatory barriers for lot mergers and lots or proposed densities that exceed conditional use thresholds on housing applications that net two or more housing units, do not demolish existing rent-controlled units, and meet tenant protection, relocation, and replacement standards as recognized in Short REP-SF rejects this Action. Various community planning processes, for instance in the Mission and SOMA, have put limits in place for cultural stabilization reasons. Housing Crisis Act of 2019 to facilitate larger and more efficient housing projects by January 31, 2025. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 26i Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.4.9 Remove Conditional Use Authorization requirement for demolition of single-family or multi-unit buildings that are not tenant occupied and without history of tenant evictions, that net two or more housing units, do not demolish existing rent-controlled units, and meet tenant protection, relocation, and replacement standards as recognized in Housing Crisis Act of 2019 by January 31, 2025. Continue to apply Conditional Use requirements to demolition of tenant occupied buildings. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 26j Short 8.4.10 Remove Conditional Use Authorizations where required to achieve greater height for a housing project or replace height and bulk districts that require Conditional Use Authorizations to exceed the base height with one that allows the current maximum height by January 31, 2025. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Short 8.4.11 Reduce the minimum lot size to 1,200 square feet and minimum lot width to 20 feet for proposed projects that net at least one housing unit. Existing programs: Land Use Controls Draft 4 Action Number: 26h Short 8.4.12 Study changes to legislation on wind speeds under Planning Code Section 148 to address hazardous storm wind speed levels rather than comfort criteria to reduce technical analysis and expedite housing application approvals and commit to addressing wind impacts collectively through other planning or public-capital efforts. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 26q Short 8.4.13 Analyze interaction between different planning department teams to identify areas where internal application review processes could be reformed and simplified, for example, standardizing and codifying technical studies and best practices to shorten the time to get to a stable project description. Existing programs: N/A Draft 4 Action Number: 28r Medium 8.4.14 Study the designation of a lead permitting agency or assigned project manager for priority projects or projects delivering over 20% affordable housing to facilitate interagency alignment from application start to certificate of occupancy and final certification Existing programs: N/A Draft 4 Action Number: 27a Short 8.4.15 Lower the requirement for a major encroachment permit to a minor encroachment permit for housing projects to lay utility lines through public land to meet streetlight requirements for PUC. Existing programs: Land Use Controls Draft 4 Action Number: 27h Medium Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.4.16 Continue to implement the Mayor Executive Directives to accelerate creating new housing and expand City department<U+2019>s compliance with the directives (Mayor Breed<U+2019>s Executive Directive 18-01 and Mayor Lee<U+2019>s Executive Directive 17-02). Existing programs: Mayor Executive Directives Draft 4 Action Number: 28m Medium 8.4.17 Remove neighborhood notification requirements for projects outside of Priority Equity Geographies that are code complying, net at least one housing unit, and only expand the rear or side of an existing building and for all ministerial projects. Existing programs: N/A Draft 4 Action Number: 26m Short Selectively eliminating neighborhood notification for certain projects is exclusive and undemocratic. All neighborhood notifications must be retained at the very least for Priority Equity Geographies, Cultural Districts, and areas mapped by the Urban Displacement Project as vulnerable to Displacement Risk. Planning's elimination of neighborhood notifications for "all ministerial projects" is particularly troubling since many of the Actions in this Section propose to move most projects to being reviewed and approved ministerially. Please refer to the recommendations at the top of this document for REP-SF's recommendations for retaining public input, and for protecting tenants against displacement from demolitions. 8.4.18 Prioritize Department staffing and resources to review Discretionary Review applications that are filed within Priority Equity Geographies in a timely manner and reallocate the Planning Department<U+2019>s staff resources from other Discretionary Review applications to support low-income homeowners with technical assistance as identified under Action 8.2.2, using the Department<U+2019>s Racial and Social Equity Assessment tool. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 29d Medium 8.4.19 Whenever Planning Code amendments or revisions are proposed, advocate for simpler or an overall reduction of rules that affect housing approvals to reduce the specific or institutional knowledge needed by City staff, applicants, and members of the public to increase accessibility. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 28c Short Responsible Agencies: Planning, OEWD, MOHCD, DBI, SFPUC, PG&E, SF Port, SFFD, SFMTA, OCII, SFFD, MOD, Board of Supervisors Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 8.5. Compliance with State Programs and Law Related Policies: 28 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.5.1 Ensure that local adopted rules and procedures that implement future state housing law support the State<U+2019>s legislative intent. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 28b Short 8.5.2 Remove Commission hearings for program-compliant State Density Bonus projects that do not require additional entitlements. Request clarification from California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on how State Density Bonus Program applies to form-based zoning districts to assure compliance. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 28e Short 8.5.3 Request that HCD and the State legislature clarify and consolidate permit milestone and timeframe definitions that stem from past legislation to ensure data accuracy and compliance in the required Annual Progress Report. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 28f Short 8.5.4 Advocate for HCD to provide more immediate and standardized implementation support for State housing legislation so that it is directly operational for general planning staff, reducing the need for highly specialized experts, to reduce constraints on staffing. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 28h Short 8.5.5 Establish and document two critical markers of site and building permit applications progress, <U+201C>complete application<U+201D> and <U+201C>approved application<U+201D> in permit application processes, to ensure accurate data collection and continued compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 28j Short 8.5.6 Study, and then reform, reduce, and/or eliminate CEQA topic processes (e.g., thresholds, screening criteria, technical studies) or notification processes, including those that are not required by CEQA statute or guidelines (e.g., wind and shadow in San Francisco) as applicable. This includes updating bulletins, guidelines, standard operating procedures, and/or local codes that address topics such as air quality, geotechnical, hazardous materials, historic preservation, noise, vibration, transportation, shadow, and wind. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 28n Medium Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.5.7 Streamline design review where applicable, plan check procedures, and establish more immediate and final CEQA determination to facilitate that a project application is <U+201C>complete<U+201D> earlier in the application process to expedite permit processing. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 28k Short 8.5.8 Examine what would be necessary to change to allow the definition of a <U+201C>project<U+201D> under CEQA without a discretionary process, for example, project applications that only require building permits. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 28p Medium 8.5.9 Develop a streamlined project-specific addenda process in lieu of the existing community plan exemption (CPE) process or further refine the CPE process to reduce permit application timelines. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 28q Medium 8.5.10 Revise data collection process and establish data dashboards on application process, approvals, and unit delivery to provide more accurate, up to date, and transparent information to the State, advocates, and communities and reduce staff time on reporting. Review current requirements and eliminate any out-of-date or redundant housing reporting requirements. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Medium 8.5.11 Study ways to address post-entitlement permit processes for projects subject to California State Highway System permits. Existing programs: (NEW) Medium Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Responsible Agencies: Mayor/BOS; Planning; PUC; DBI Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 8.6. Support for Affordable Housing and Shelters Related Policies: 8, 26, 27, 30 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.6.1 Expand the Impact Fee exemption to a broader range of permanently affordable housing projects including those with units affordable up to 120 percent of Area Median Income or projects that rely on philanthropic capital. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 26g Short 8.6.2 Utilize the state-wide streamlining opportunities to expedite and increase the production of Permanent Supportive Housing. Existing programs: Plan Review Draft 4 Action Number: 8f Short 8.6.3 Make shelters, transitional housing, or crisis interventions (such as Safe Sleeping Sites) principally permitted in all zoning districts, regardless of the declaration of a shelter crisis. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 26a Short 8.6.4 Remove requirement for General Plan referrals for shelters, 100% affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, and development agreement projects. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 26c Medium 8.6.5. Remove Planning Code Section 429 Public Art requirements for 100% affordable housing projects. Existing programs: Planning Code Draft 4 Action Number: 26d Medium 8.6.6 Create an administrative process for 100% affordable rehabilitation projects to add accessory dwelling units. Existing programs: Plan Review Draft 4 Action Number: 26f Medium 8.6.7 Strengthen the interagency coordination to streamline the requirements for the associated approvals for publicly funded affordable housing; examples of associated approvals include the PG&E requirements to accommodate Public Utilities Commission (PUC) low-cost electric service, or the multi-agency review of disability access to reduce per-unit construction costs. Existing programs: Plan Review Draft 4 Action Number: 27f Short Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.6.8 Resolve common disputes between the PUC and PG&E, especially on affordable housing project applications, which result in unnecessary equipment, delays, and costly upgrades. Medium Existing programs: Plan Review Draft 4 Action Number: 27g 8.6.9 Issue administrative bulletins on code and standards interpretations to support, create certainty of expectations, and reduce review time from the Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Disability for 100% affordable housing projects. Existing programs: Plan Review Draft 4 Action Number: 27i Medium 8.6.10 Streamline plan checks, response to revisions, and field inspection process to support and reduce review time from Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Disability for 100% affordable housing projects. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 27j Medium 8.6.11 Advocate for AB 101, State legislation that requires Low-Barrier Navigation Centers by right, to cover other crisis interventions that house people that are not considered emergency shelter, for example safe sleeping sites. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 28i Medium 8.6.12 Determine and codify procedures that recognize that housing applications for shelter, temporary housing, or crisis interventions (such as Safe Sleeping Sites) do not meet the standard of a <U+201C>project<U+201D> under CEQA, to ensure compliance with AB 101. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 28o Short 8.6.13 Work with design professionals to produce replicable building details (such as bathroom layouts) that are code compliant and meet accessibility standards on publicly subsidized 100% affordable housing projects. This will reduce plan review time, field corrections, and cost, while maintaining high-quality standards. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 30f Medium 8.6.14 Expand use of third-party consulting peer review of construction documents on publicly subsidized 100% affordable housing projects. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 30g Medium Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.6.15 Implement innovations in project financing, including options for payment and performance bonds, retention, and other contract terms, expedited payments to contractors on publicly subsidized 100% affordable housing projects. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 30h Medium 8.6.16 Support expansion of nonprofit project management capacity, especially focused on areas of the city that have not seen much affordable housing development, and where there are few or no community-based affordable housing developers. (MOHCD; Medium) Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 30i Medium 8.6.17 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. (MOHCD; Medium Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 30j Medium Responsible Agencies: Planning, MOHCD, DBI, SFPUC, PG&E, Mayor, and Board of Supervisors Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 8.7. Facilitating Large Projects Related Policies: 24, 27 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.7.1 Enable public-private partnership solutions to front-end the necessary funding for on- and off-site infrastructure investments to expedite housing for large master plans and development agreements with major up front infrastructure needs, such as Treasure Island, Candlestick Point, Mission Bay, Hunters Point Shipyard, Parkmerced, and Schlage Lock/Bayland North. Solutions could include Infrastructure Finance Districts, Tax Increment Financing, or other methods to provide direct City investment, allocation of public financing, or issuance of other public debt. Existing programs: Infrastructure Finance Districts Draft 4 Action Number: 24k Medium 8.7.2 Advocate for regional, State, and federal funds through the existing infrastructure bank or other paths to help finance the infrastructure needs of large urban infill and redevelopment projects Existing programs: Infrastructure Bank Draft 4 Action Number: 24m Medium Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.7.3 Continue to strengthen coordination of interagency permitting review and approval processes for implementation of approved large master-planned or development agreement projects to accelerate construction timelines of infrastructure improvements. Existing programs: Plan Review Draft 4 Action Number: 27d Short Responsible Agencies: DBI, OEWD, Planning Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 8.8. Policy and Practice Review Related Policies: 28 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 8.8.1 Participate and perform data and process analysis as directed by mandatory Policy and Practice Review HCD scope and timeline. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Short 8.8.2 Revisions to local process and procedures as directed by outcomes of mandatory Policy and Practice Review HCD effort. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Short 8.8.3 Amend Housing Element to include final actions required by outcomes of mandatory Policy and Practice Review HCD effort. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: (NEW) Short Responsible Agencies: Planning Funding Sources: Planning Budget 9. Healthy, Connected, and Resilient Housing and Neighborhoods The Healthy, Connected, and Resilient Housing and Neighborhoods implementing program supports the Housing Element goal of promoting neighborhoods that are well-connected, healthy, and rich with community culture. Actions are organized along the principles of fostering safe, sustainable and accessible neighborhoods that reflect San Francisco<U+2019>s diversity. San Francisco is actively involved in planning for and implementing transportation infrastructure. ConnectSF is a multi-agency collaboration process to build an effective, equitable, and sustainable transportation system. The city is advancing ConnectSF through the San Francisco Transportation Plan update and the Transportation Element of the General Plan update. The Transportation Plan is the countywide, long-range transportation policy and investment blueprint for the next 30 years and is consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050, the long-range transportation plan for the nine-county Bay Area. The Plan includes investment scenarios based on expected revenues and potential new revenues. The Transportation Element defines the goals and policies for how people and goods circulate through San Francisco. The Transportation Element must identify potential funding sources for capital, operations, and maintenance of planned additions to the network for projects that San Francisco leads, additions that would be triggered by policies in the element, and the existing network. City agencies are guided by ConnectSF as they develop their operating and capital budgets. The actions build primarily upon the work of the following local bodies and will require their continued coordination: SFMTA, OEWD, MOHCD, DPW, and the Planning Department. 9.1. Housing Rehabilitation for Health and Safety Related Policies: 39, 42 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 9.1.1 Create and expand programs to improve indoor air quality for existing housing, prioritizing resources in Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities, such as applying the standards in Article 38 of SF Health Code to such housing. Existing programs: (NEW) Indoor Air Quality Program for EJ Communities; Environmental Justice Framework; Climate Action Plan; Article 38 of SF Health Code Draft 4 Action Number: 39a Short 9.1.2 Create electric conversion policies and programs for existing housing that decrease the use of gas appliances in homes to support respiratory health, prioritizing Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities. Existing programs: (NEW) Electric Conversion Policies and Programs for EJ Communities; Environmental Justice Framework; Climate Action Plan; Safety & Resilience Element Draft 4 Action Number: 39b Short Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 9.1.3 Support and streamline permits for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), energy and weatherization retrofits and upgrades, prioritizing Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities. Existing programs: Energy Efficiency Upgrade Programs; Energy Upgrade California; Renewable Energy Requirements; Solar, Electric, and Water Heating Incentives; Processing and Permitting Procedures Draft 4 Action Number: 39c Short 9.1.4 Expand funding for repair and rehabilitation programs to remove mold, lead, and other health hazards through programs such as Fix Lead SF and CalHome recognizing the need to protect tenants throughout the remediation process and not pass along costs afterwards, prioritizing Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities. Existing programs: CalHOME Rehab Program; Healthy Homes Lead Hazard Remediation; Environmental Justice Framework; Fix Lead SF Draft 4 Action Number: 39d Medium 9.1.5 Continue to connect residents and housing developments with technical support and financing programs for earthquake safety retrofits such as the Mandatory Soft Story Retrofit Program. Existing programs: Mandatory Soft Story Retrofit Program; Safety & Resilience Element; Hazards and Climate Resilience Plan Draft 4 Action Number: 39e Ongoing 9.1.6 Create programs to provide rehabilitation assistance to qualified homeowners to maintain exterior cladding, roofs, and essential building utilities in housing in Environmental Justice Communities. Existing programs: (NEW) EJ Communities Homeowner Program; CalHOME Rehab Program (MOHCD); Environmental Justice Framework Draft 4 Action Number: 39f Medium 9.1.7 Establish priority building permit and entitlement Planning Department review processes for multi- family residential development projects that rehabilitate or adaptively reuse existing buildings to support sustainable building practices, per Policy 34, while preserving cultural resources. Existing programs: Ministerial Approval; Processing and Permitting Procedures; Short Historic Preservation Review; Safety & Resilience Element Draft 4 Action Number: 42f Responsible Agencies: Planning, DOE, DBI, OCRP, DPH, Mayor/BOS Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 9.2. Resilient and Healthy Neighborhoods and New Housing Related Policies: 37, 40 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 9.2.1 Ensure and reinforce that all community planning efforts meet the City<U+2019>s Climate Action Plan to prepare existing neighborhoods and future housing projects for sea level rise and flooding impacts, especially in Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities. Existing programs: Community Plans; Community Strategies; Climate Action Plan; Environmental Justice Framework; Safety & Resilience Element; Waterfront Resilience Program; Islais Creek Southeast Mobility and Adaptation Strategy Draft 4 Action Number: 40b Short 9.2.2 Provide neighborhood and infrastructure planning to mitigate flood risks during extreme weather events or due to climate crisis impacts, prioritizing resources for Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities. Existing programs: Development Agreements; Community Plans; Community Strategies; Climate Action Medium Plan; Environmental Justice Framework; Safety & Resilience Element; Waterfront Resilience Program; Islais Creek Southeast Mobility and Adaptation Strategy Draft 4 Action Number: 40c 9.2.3 Enhance high-pressure fire protection for the Westside of San Francisco by implementing and constructing Phase 1 of the Westside Potable Emergency Firefighting Water System (PEFWS) and continue to work with the community and obtain funding to implement and construct Phase 2 of the PEFWS. Existing programs: Phase 1 of the Westside Potable Emergency Firefighting Water System; Safety & Resilience Element Draft 4 Action Number: 40d Medium 9.2.4 Identify strategies to reduce the impact of polluting sources, such as freeways, in planning efforts in Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities so that impacted residents may provide input on solutions that support health of sensitive populations, such as seniors, children, and those with disabilities. Examples of strategies include vegetative buffers and location of childcare and other sensitive uses away from busy roadways, among others. Existing programs: Article 38 of SF Health Code; Environmental Justice Framework; Safety & Resilience Element Draft 4 Action Number: 40f Short 9.2.5 Strengthen building standards to ensure that new housing developments limit sound intrusion from exterior and interior sources. Existing programs: Building Codes Draft 4 Action Number: 40g Short Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 9.2.6 Explore whether certification or building codes effectively incentivize the use of low volatile organic compounds (VOC) materials in new construction to reduce exposure. Existing programs: Building Codes; Processing and Permitting Procedures; Environmental Justice Framework Draft 4 Action Number: 40h Short 9.2.7 Maximize the installation of site-appropriate, native trees and vegetation at grade and on roofs in new residential development, especially in neighborhoods with less tree canopy coverage as per the SF Better Streets Plan, the SF Green Landscaping Ordinance, and the SF Better Roofs Ordinance. Existing programs: Better Streets Plan; Green Landscaping Ordinance; Better Roofs Ordinance; Environmental Justice Framework; Safety & Resilience Element Draft 4 Action Number: 40i Short 9.2.8 Update Planning Code requirements, such as the SF Green Landscaping Ordinance, to reduce paved surfaces and underground enclosed space in rear and side yards to specifically retain deep soil for trees and more sustainable vegetation. Existing programs: SF Green Landscaping Ordinance; Land Use Controls Draft 4 Action Number:40j Short 9.2.9 Study and document the impact of open space and housing on people<U+2019>s health, especially for children, for the Planning Commission<U+2019>s use in evaluating open space and rear yard variances in housing applications. Existing programs: Development Agreements; Open Space Short Requirements; Environmental Justice Framework Draft 4 Action Number: 40k 9.2.10 Enforce compliance with existing requirements in the SF Stormwater Management Ordinance to incorporate on-site stormwater management and flood resilience Existing programs: SF Stormwater Management Ordinance; Safety & Resilience Element Draft 4 Action Number: 40l Ongoing 9.2.11 With passage of more opportunities for ministerial approvals in Policy 25, redirect Planning Department staff time as available towards long-range environmental efforts, like those that reduce the city<U+2019>s regional and global contributions to the climate crisis instead of the environmental review of such housing projects with minimal environmental impacts. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 40m Medium Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 9.2.12 Study ways for the city to plan, fund, and mitigate environmental conditions (e.g., wind) that impact many sites, may not be pragmatically solvable on a site-by-site basis, and could deter or delay projects that include affordable housing units, especially in Priority Equity Geographies. Existing programs: Hazards and Climate Resilience Plan Draft 4 Action Number: 40n Medium 9.2.13 Identify the public health needs of neighborhoods, especially in Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities, in community planning processes or when planning for large-scale development projects by engaging community-based Medium organizations; public health needs include addressing air, soil, groundwater contamination, and noise pollution. Existing programs: Environmental Justice Framework Draft 4 Action Number: 40a 9.2.14 Organize housing and neighborhood business and service areas to prioritize proximity in neighborhood planning or development agreement projects that propose land use changes. Existing programs: Development Agreements; Community Plans; Community Strategies Draft 4 Action Number: 37f Medium Responsible Agencies: Planning, DBI, SFPUC, DPW, DPH, RPD, Mayor/BOS Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) 9.3. Transportation Related Policies: 17, 37, 38 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 9.3.1 Apply equity metrics identified under Action 4.1.1 in identifying necessary infrastructure improvements for Priority Equity Geographies and to guide all City investment decisions, including but not limited to: Capital Planning, General Plan Elements, Interagency Plan Implementation Committee, or Citizen Advisory Council review, in coordination with Actions 9.3.5 to 9.3.7. Existing programs: Capital and Operational Planning (city-level and agency-level); General Plan Elements; Interagency Plan Implementation Committee; Community or Citizen Advisory Councils Draft 4 Action Number: 17a Ongoing Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 9.3.2 Prioritize investments in Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities related to improving transit service, parks, streetscape, and neighborhood amenities, in coordination with the investments referenced under Action 9.3.7. Existing programs: Capital and Operational Planning (city-level and agency-level); General Plan Elements; Interagency Plan Implementation Committee; Community or Citizen Advisory Councils Draft 4 Action Number: 17b Ongoing 9.3.3 Strengthen interagency coordination, review, and compliance processes to ensure that transit, walking, and biking infrastructure and safety improvements are integrated into planning, funding, and construction and/or rehabilitation of public projects (e.g., parks and open spaces, libraries, and transit facilities) in addition to private development projects. Existing programs: Interagency Transportation Advisory Staff Committee, Interagency Street Design Advisory Team, ConnectSF, Planning Transportation Review under CEQA Draft 4 Action Number: 37e Ongoing 9.3.4 Continue to adhere to guidelines in the Better Streets Plan when new housing creates improvements to sidewalks, streets, and other public spaces. Existing programs: Better Streets Plan review through Interagency Transportation Advisory Staff Committee and Interagency Street Design Advisory Team Draft 4 Action Number: 37k Ongoing 9.3.5 Strengthen interagency coordination for transportation, evaluating and prioritizing the existing and future needs of Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities, and Well-resourced Neighborhoods targeted for increased housing capacity, and plan for staffing and funding needed for these investments (e.g., general obligation bonds, federal grants). This includes delivering a capital program that provides extensive transit priority on a network transit routes that would make it possible for service to reliably operate every five minutes or better 20, and consistent with the city<U+2019>s ConnectSF vision and its Transit Strategy Existing programs: ConnectSF and its Transit Strategy and Streets and Freeways Strategy; SFCTA San Francisco Transportation Plan (SFTP); Transportation Element; MTC Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft 4 Action Number: 38a Ongoing 20 A conceptual network of transit corridors, where a substantial investment in on-street improvements would markedly increase the routes<U+2019> speed and reliability. These improvements include transit lanes, traffic signal adjustments, queue jumps, turn restrictions, boarding bulbs/islands, turn restrictions/requirements, and other treatments, and can be installed relatively quickly. Corridors on the five-minute network potentially include routes in the Rapid Network, other routes where demand warrants frequent service, and routes where growth in transit demand is anticipated. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 9.3.6 Repair, maintain, and optimize the existing transit system, particularly through SFMTA<U+2019>s 5-year Capital Improvement Program<U+2019>s (CIP) Transit Optimization and Expansion Projects (e.g., transit only lanes, transit signal priority, boarding islands, etc. on transit streets) in Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities and Well-resourced Neighborhoods targeted for increased housing capacity. Existing programs: SFMTA 5-year Capital Improvement Program; SFMTA Muni Forward; ConnectSF Transit Strategy Draft 4 Action Number: 38b Ongoing (Medium for 5- year CIP) 9.3.7 Expand and improve local and regional transit service as identified in ConnectSF Transit Strategy, prioritizing essential workers, low-income households, and transit-dependent people, and in Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice communities. Existing programs: ConnectSF Transit Strategy; SFCTA; SFTP Draft 4 Action Number: 38c Ongoing 9.3.8. Adopt requirements that encourage trips using priority modes 21 in new housing and reduce transportation impacts from new housing. Such requirements for some new housing may include additional transportation demand management measures and driveway and loading operations plans; protecting pedestrian, cycling, and transit-oriented street frontages from driveways; and reducing vehicular parking. Existing programs: Planning Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and related Planning Code TDM provisions; Planning Code Transportation Sustainability Fee; Planning Transportation Review under CEQA; Development Agreements Draft 4 Action Number: 38d Short Responsible Agencies: SFMTA or Planning, SFCTA, PW, OEWD, Mayor/BOS, Police, Fire, Regional Transit and Transportation Agencies, RPD, SFPUC, SFPL, Port Funding Sources: Departmental Capital and Operating Budgets, and other local, regional, state, and federal sources 21 Priority modes include walking, bicycling, transit, and vanpooling. 9.4. Community Services Related Policies: 26, 33, 37 Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 9.4.1 Collaborate with the San Francisco Unified School District to evaluate the feasibility of providing a priority in the school assignment process for lower income families to be assigned at higher quality schools. Existing programs: School Assignment Priority Draft 4 Action Number: 33e Medium 9.4.2 Remove Conditional Use Authorizations outside of Priority Equity Geographies where required to remove an existing use and construct housing, and instead apply neighborhood notification procedures for proposed demolition of identified community-service uses, such as theaters, grocery stores, and laundromats, by January 31, 2027 and support their economic survival through a replacement provision or participation in a Community Benefit Use program 22 as described in Action 9.4.5. Existing programs: (NEW) Community Benefit Use; Conditional Use Authorizations; Land Use Controls; Neighborhood Retail Regulations; Processing and Permitting Procedures; Environmental Justice Framework Draft 4 Action Number: 26k Medium 9.4.2 Remove Conditional Use Authorizations outside of Priority Equity Geographies and Displacement Risk Areas. 9.4.3 Develop or adopt certification programs for community-serving businesses, such as grocery stores, childcare centers, healthcare clinics, and laundromats, starting in Priority Equity Geographies so that there is a way to resource or plan for them via other actions. Existing programs: (NEW) Community Benefit Use; Land-Use Controls; Processing and Permitting Procedures Draft 4 Action Number: 37a Medium 9.4.4 Incentivize new housing to commit via deed restrictions or other legal agreement to below market rate commercial leases for community-based organizations serving the neighborhood community for a minimum of ten years by providing fee waivers, especially in Cultural Districts. Medium Existing programs: (NEW) Below Market Rate Commercial Space; Fee Exemptions Draft 4 Action Number: 37c 22 Geographically specific programs established through community-led process to identify a menu of uses that meet community needs to be incorporated into certain future project approvals, thereby reducing the time and community resources required to shape projects that meet their needs on individual project approval basis. Programs may be supported through the Office of Small Business or other community services resources. Actions Timeline REP-SF<U+2019>s Recommended Revisions 9.4.5 Study the creation of a Community Benefit Use program, referenced in Actions 7.2.2 and 9.4.8, that allows new housing developments to have a highly flexible ground floor use entitlement and tenants to be eligible for rent subsidy in exchange for community participation in tenant selection or for businesses that obtain certifications as described in Action 9.4.3. Existing programs: (NEW) Draft 4 Action Number: 37d Short 9.4.6 Create and implement a long-range community facilities plan, and update every 5-10 years, for public facilities including parks, recreation centers, schools, libraries, to accommodate a thirty-year projected population growth, informed by equity metrics in a manner that secures equitable access in Priority Equity Geographies, Environmental Justice Communities, and Well-resourced Neighborhoods that are targeted for increased housing capacity, building on processes such as the Community Facilities Framework, and in collaboration with Interagency Plan Implementation Committee. Existing programs: (NEW) Community Facilities Plan; Community Facilities Framework; Interagency Plan Implementation Committee Draft 4 Action Number: 37g Medium 9.4.7 Develop a comprehensive and regularly updated map of daily needs, amenities, and community facilities, to inform the work of the interagency coordination under Action 9.3.3 as well as community- based organizations in planning for services, resources, open space, and businesses to be near each other and supportive to communities. Existing programs: (NEW) Community Facilities Plan; Community Facilities Framework Draft 4 Action Number: 37h Medium 9.4.8 Expand and allow community serving uses, such as retail, restaurants, and personal services within areas that are primarily residential especially on corner parcels, especially uses under the Community Benefit Use program defined under Action 9.4.5. Existing programs: Land-Use Controls; Community Benefit Districts; Neighborhood Retail Regulations; (NEW) Community Benefit Use; (NEW) Community Facilities Plan Draft 4 Action Number: 37i Short Responsible Agencies: Planning, SFUSD, MOHCD, OEWD, SFMTA, SFRPD, LIB, DPW, DYCF, HSA Funding Sources: (Awaiting confirmation) Quantified Objectives Extrem ely Low and Very Low Income L ow Inco me Mod er at e In co me Above Moderate Income Total RHNA Target 20,867 12,014 13,717 35,471 82,06 9 New Construction Development Agreements 1,762 4,650 1,610 16,578 24,60 0 Private Mixed Income Pipeline 1,644 541 13,185 15,37 0 ADUs 1,800 200 2,000 100% Affordable Pipeline 1,234 1,234 120 18 2,606 100% Affordable Anticipated 1,080 1,080 2,160 Acquisitions for Affordability Supportive Housing Acquisitions 400 400 Small Sites Program Acquisitions 395 [phone removed] Preservation and Rehabilitation Preservation of Affordable Pipeline 421 422 2 845 Preservation of At-risk Affordable Anticipated 493 494 987 Total Housing Units 5,785 10,312 4,219 30,131 50,44 7 Household Served by MOHCD Tenant and Homebuyer Assistance (8 year estimated total) Rental assistance 14,528 3,584 904 0 19,0 16 Tenants<U+2019> Right to Counsel 10,128 1,504 632 488 12,7 52 Other Tenant Counseling/Mediation 7,584 2,512 800 496 11,3 92 Homeownership Counseling 7,200 3,016 6,608 4,448 21,2 64 Homeownership Loans 0 0 24 376 400 Households Placed in Affordable Units Via DAHLIA 1,728 760 1,088 432 4,00 0 Extremely Low and Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total Housing Choice Vouchers 13,132 Shelter and Transitional Housing Beds/Units Supportive Housing for Formerly Homeless 2,872 13,451 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Actions Implementin g Program Area AFFH Contributing Factors AFFH Program Action AFFH Category 1. Affordable Housing Resources and Equitable Access Impediments to mobility due to high housing costs 1.2.1 Build between 25% and 50% of the City<U+2019>s new permanently affordable housing within Well-resourced Neighborhoods over the next two RHNA cycles, implementing the zoning strategies of Policy 20. New Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity Housing Mobility Strategies Exclusionary Land use and zoning laws 1.2.2 Strategically acquire sites, including lots for consolidation, that can accommodate permanently affordable housing of at least 50 to 100 units or more through publicly funded purchases, in balance with investment in affordable housing preservation and production and in strategic coordination with sites owned by religious, nonprofit, and public property owners. New Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity Place-based Strategies to Encourage Community Conservation and Revitalization Housing Mobility Strategies Impediments to mobility due to high housing costs 1.5.3 Increase housing that is affordable to extremely low and very low-income households in Well- resourced Neighborhoods through City funded permanently affordable housing projects. Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement Lack of affordable and accessible housing in a range of unit sizes 1.5.4 Reduce severe cost burdens and increase stability for extremely low and very low income renters through on-going rental assistance, for qualifying vulnerable households including seniors, people with disabilities, Transgender people, and families with children, particularly those living in SROs. Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing 1.7.2 Evaluate and update existing policies and programs to increase the percentage of Affordable Rental and Homeownership units awarded to underserved groups identified through the studies referenced in Actions 1.7.1 and 5.4.9, including but not limited to preferences, strengthening targeted outreach, education, housing readiness counseling, and other services specific to the needs of each group, ensuring accessible accommodations in these services, in coordination with production of affordable housing per Actions 1.5.1, 1.5.3, and 1.6.2. Housing Mobility Strategies Implementin g Program Area AFFH Contributing Factors AFFH Program Action AFFH Category Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing 1.7.8 Evaluate increasing neighborhood preference allocation for Below Market Rate units in Priority Equity Geographies to better serve American Indian, Black, and other communities of color, if possible, per the Federal Fair Housing regulations, as informed by Policy 5 and related actions. Housing Mobility Strategies Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing 1.7.9 Create or expand programs to provide case management, financial literacy education, and housing readiness to low-income American Indian, Black and other people of color households who seek housing choices in Well-resourced Neighborhoods, and provide incentives and counseling to landlords in Well- resourced Neighborhoods to offer units to low-income households. Consider similar incentives referenced in Action 8.4.16. Housing Mobility Strategies 2. Stabilizing Tenants and Rental Housing Displacemen t of Residents due to Economic pressures 2.1.1 Fund the Tenant Right-to-Counsel program to match the need for eviction defense. Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement Displacemen t of Residents due to Economic pressures 2.1.4 Increase funding to expand the services of community-based organizations and providers for financial counseling services listed under action 1.7.5, as well as tenant and eviction protection services listed under program area 2, to better serve vulnerable populations and areas vulnerable to displacement; tenant and eviction protection services include legal services, code enforcement outreach, tenant counseling, mediation, and housing-related financial assistance; expansion of such services should be informed by community priorities referenced under action 4.1.3. Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement Displacemen t of Residents due to Economic pressures 2.3.1 Prioritize the purchase of buildings, including SRO residential hotels, for acquisition and rehabilitation programs that serve extremely low to moderate-income households, including unhoused populations. Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement Displacemen t of Residents due to Economic pressures 2.3.3 Increase BIPOC-led non-profit capacity-building investments to purchase and operate existing tenant-occupied buildings as permanent affordable housing in western neighborhoods, particularly for populations and areas vulnerable to displacement, to expand implementation of the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA). New Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement Implementin g Program Area AFFH Contributing Factors AFFH Program Action AFFH Category 3. Preventing Admissions and 3.1.1 Identify and implement strategies to increase Protecting Existing and occupancy placement in Permanent Supportive Housing through Residents from Eliminating policies and the Coordinated Entry System for racial and social Displacement Homelessne ss procedur es, including groups who are overrepresented in the unhoused population, such as extremely and very-low income preferences in American Indian, Black, and Latino(a,e) people, publicly supported transgender people, or people with prior involvement housing in the criminal justice system. Displacement of Residents due to Economic pressures 3.4.3 Prioritize tenant-based rental assistance with social services for people who are: (1) unhoused, (2) at risk of homelessness, or (3) ready to exit Permanent Supportive Housing for more independent living. Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement 4. Centering Equity Communiti es and Cultural Heritage Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods , including services and amenities 4.2.1 Develop and implement community engagement strategies that center racial and social equity and cultural competency to be used by Planning Department staff as well as developers or community groups. Place-based Strategies to Encourage Community Conservation and Revitalization Displacement of Residents due to Economic pressures 4.2.4 Implement the housing strategies recommended by the African American Reparations Advisory Committee and the Transgender Advisory Committee. Place-based Strategies to Encourage Community Conservation and Revitalization Fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws Impediments to mobility due to high housing costs 4.3.1 Expand and target job training and financial readiness education programs to residents of Priority Equity Geographies prioritizing youth from American Indian, Black and other communities of color. Place-based Strategies to Encourage Community Conservation and Revitalization Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods , including services and amenities 4.3.2 Support developers of new permanently affordable housing developments in Priority Equity Geographies to include affordable community 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 floor use programming. Place-based Strategies to Encourage Community Conservation and Revitalization Implementin g Program Area AFFH Contributing Factors AFFH Program Action AFFH Category 5. Redressing and Preventing Discriminati on Lack of public investment in specific neighborhood s, including services and amenities 5.1.1 to 5.1.8 actions which call for the commission of a community-led study to document the history of discriminatory practices in government and real estate practices that disproportionately affected American Indian, Black, Filipino, Japanese and Chinese residents; report their cumulative impacts on these groups; and incorporate findings into the Planning Department<U+2019>s racial and social equity assessment tool to applicable projects and other city decision document to redress harm. Place-based Strategies to Encourage Community Conservation and Revitalization Fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing 5.3.1 Evaluate and identify common cases of discrimination and violation of fair housing law and groups who continuously face such discrimination, including transgender and LGBTQ+, or people with disabilities, and implement solutions to strengthen enforcement of fair housing law in those cases Fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing 5.4.1 Prioritize American Indian residents for housing opportunities to redress the historic dispossession of resources affecting these communities, such as by the Indian Relocation Act, and other government actions that broke the cohesion of this community. Fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing 5.4.2 Establish pilot and permanent programs that offer homeownership opportunities targeted to Black households harmed through redlining or urban renewal or other forms of systemic racism related to housing, including Black individuals and their descendants who hold Certificates of Preference from the urban renewal period, as referenced in Actions 5.4.8 and 5.4.9. Building on the Dream Keeper initiative, such programs should include silent second loans or grants for down payment assistance, as well as other financial assistance to reduce income eligibility as a barrier to access homeownership opportunities. Place-based Strategies to Encourage Community Conservation and Revitalization Fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement Implementin g Program Area AFFH Contributing Factors AFFH Program Action AFFH Category Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing 5.4.8 Expand the Certificates of Preference program as required per recent State Law, Assembly Bill 1584 (Health and Safety Code, SEC 13 <U+2013> 16), to qualify eligible descendants of those displaced by redevelopment projects for priority in renting or buying affordable housing. Conduct comprehensive outreach and engagement to identify the descendants of households who have been displaced. Expanding this program should rely on strategies that ensure such units meet the preferences and needs of eligible households as informed by Action 5.4.9. Fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement 6. Serving Special Needs Groups Lack of affordable and accessible housing in a range of unit sizes 6.1.4 Continue to require multi-bedroom unit mixes. Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing 6.2.2 Support and fund the implementation of San Francisco<U+2019>s <U+201C>Ending Trans Homelessness Plan<U+201D>, as well as the ongoing housing placement for the transgender community, in recognition of the severe disparities in housing access and safety experienced by this group. Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement Lack of affordable and accessible housing in a range of unit sizes 6.3.1 Expand the Senior Operating Subsidy (SOS) program to allow extremely and very low-income seniors to be eligible for the senior Below Market Rate rental units. Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement Lack of affordable and accessible housing in a range of unit sizes 6.3.2 Increase permanently affordable senior housing along transit corridors to improve mobility of aging adults and seniors, particularly for extremely- and very- low-income households including through expansion of Senior Operating Subsidies as referenced in action 6.3.1. New Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity 7. Expanding Housing Choices Exclusionary Land use and zoning laws 7.1.1 Create a rezoning program with by-right pathway to meet the requirements of San Francisco<U+2019>s Regional Housing Needs Allocation across income levels and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing laws, relying on a combination of strategies in Actions 7.3.2 and 7.2.1 above to accommodate approximately 34,000 new units primarily in Well-resourced Neighborhoods, in proximity to transit and commercial corridors. Complete this effort by January 31, 2026. New Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity Implementin g Program Area AFFH Contributing Factors AFFH Program Action AFFH Category Commu nity oppositi on 7.1.2 Engage with communities living in Well- resourced Neighborhoods to inform existing residents how locating new housing and permanently affordable housing in every neighborhood can address historic inequity and injustice and expand housing opportunities for local residents and their families while strengthening neighborhood vitality. New Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity 8. Reducing Constraints on Housing Developmen t, Maintenanc e, and Improvemen t Exclusionary Land use and zoning laws 8.4.2 Establish local ministerial approval for housing applications in Well-resourced Neighborhoods outside of areas vulnerable to displacement that net two or more housing units, do not demolish existing rent- controlled units, and meet tenant protection, relocation, and replacement standards as recognized in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, by Board of Supervisors or voter approval of a City Charter amendment or by Board decision to include more project types if or when a non-charter change pathway is available. New Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity Commu nity oppositi on 8.4.3 Adopt one or more Housing Sustainability Districts in Well-resourced Neighborhoods outside of areas vulnerable to displacement that include tenant protections, relocation, and replacement standards as recognized in Housing Crisis Act of 2019, by January 31, 2024. New Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity Exclusionary Land use and zoning laws 8.4.4 Establish a ministerial pathway for project applications that provide 20% affordable housing on site through mechanisms described in actions 8.4.2 and 8.4.3, for RHNA Cycle 6 lower-income sites identified in the Housing Element Update 2022 Sites Inventory that have been reused from Cycles 4 and 5 by January 31, 2024, as required by per California Government Code 65580(g). New Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity Exclusionary Land use and zoning laws 8.6.3 Make shelters, transitional housing, or crisis interventions (such as Safe Sleeping Sites) principally permitted in all zoning districts, regardless of the declaration of a shelter crisis. New Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity 9. Healthy, Connected, and Resilient Housing and Neighborho od s Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods , including services and amenities 9.3.2 Prioritize investments in Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities related to improving transit service, parks, streetscape, and neighborhood amenities, in coordination with the investments referenced under Action 9.3.7. Place-based Strategies to Encourage Community Conservation and Revitalization Implementin g Program Area AFFH Contributing Factors AFFH Program Action AFFH Category Lack of public investment in specific neighborhood s, including services and amenities 9.3.6 Repair, maintain, and optimize the existing transit system, particularly through SFMTA<U+2019>s 5-year Capital Improvement Program<U+2019>s (CIP) Transit Optimization and Expansion Projects (e.g., transit only lanes, transit signal priority, boarding islands, etc. on transit streets) in Priority Equity Geographies that overlap with Environmental Justice Communities and Well- resourced Neighborhoods targeted for increased housing capacity. New Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity Place-based Strategies to Encourage Community Conservation and Revitalization Lack of public investment in specific neighborhood s, including services and amenities 9.4.6 Create and implement a long-range community facilities plan, and update every 5-10 years, for public facilities including parks, recreation centers, schools, libraries, to accommodate a thirty-year projected population growth, informed by equity metrics in a manner that secures equitable access in Priority Equity Geographies, Environmental Justice Communities, and Well-resourced Neighborhoods that are targeted for increased housing capacity, building on processes such as the Community Facilities Framework, and in collaboration with Interagency Plan Implementation Committee. Place-based Strategies to Encourage Community Conservation and Revitalizationshow more

Sylvia Corrales · email · 2022-12-01 · support · source packet

for amendment
Nov 18, 2022 Friday To the Planning Commissioners, As a member of Senior and Disability Action's Housing Collaborative, I write to urge you to amend the Housing Element to include the REP Coalition's Citywide People's Plan! In particular, please include the following: Expand Senior Operating Subsidies (SOS) Create Disability Operating Subsidies (DOS) Redefine "affordable" to be … show more

2022-12-08 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Shanti Singh · email · 2022-12-08 · support · source packet

Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board - Housing Element Resolution
Dear Director Hillis and Commissioners, In my capacity as chair of the Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board, I am attaching a resolution we passed last week at our November 30th regular monthly meeting, concerning upcoming consideration and finalization of San Francisco<U+2019>s Housing Element. The passage of Proposition I in 2020 created a new source of revenue, approved by the Board of Supervisors, to ac… Dear Director Hillis and Commissioners, In my capacity as chair of the Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board, I am attaching a resolution we passed last week at our November 30th regular monthly meeting, concerning upcoming consideration and finalization of San Francisco<U+2019>s Housing Element. The passage of Proposition I in 2020 created a new source of revenue, approved by the Board of Supervisors, to acquire land and support construction of affordable social housing. Our resolution encourages the Planning Commission to explicitly identify the revenue raised by the Proposition I transfer tax as an annual source of funding in the final draft of the Housing Element. This funding will empower the City to better achieve the Housing Element's ambitious production and preservation goals for low- and moderate-income housing. You can contact myself or HSFOB Vice Chair Fernando Mart (CCed) with any questions. In solidarity, Shanti Singh Chair, SF Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board RESOLUTION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING STABILITY FUND OVERSIGHT BOARD WHEREAS: 1. The City and County of San Francisco is required by state law to approve an updated Housing Element that sets forth a plan to address the projected need for housing affordable for households of all income levels over the next eight years. Amongst other requirements, the Housing Element must identify the resources such as land and sources of funding that are necessary to achieving its housing plan. 2. A Final Draft of the Housing Element for San Francisco is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission on December 15, 2022. The Final Draft commits to preventing displacement of existing residents from both public and private development and to increasing the supply of housing affordable to low and moderate income households by 46,000 units over the next eight years. 3. Planning Department staff has estimated expanding the supply of low and moderate income housing per the Final Draft will exceed $30 billion in publicly assisted financing. The Final Draft presently does not identify sufficient sources of funding to address that need. 4. The most recent Controller<U+2019>s Office projections estimates that revenue generated by 2020<U+2019>s Proposition I will average $170 million each year over the next five years. Based upon those projections, Proposition I likely will generate more than $1 billion in revenue over the term of the updated Housing Element. 5. Resolution 365-20 adopted unanimously by the Board of Supervisors in 2020 expressed the Board<U+2019>s intention to dedicate the revenue generated by Proposition I to create and support the Housing Stability Fund to acquire land and finance the development of affordable social housing for San Francisco residents. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board urges the Planning Commission to amend the Final Draft of the Housing Element statement of proposed actions to specifically identify the revenue of Proposition I, presently estimated to generate $170 million in FY2023-24, as an annual revenue source available to the City to partially achieve the affordable housing goals of the updated Housing Element. Proposition I funding can and should be committed to acquire land for affordable housing development, preservation of existing at risk housing, and development of affordable social and public housing for working families, seniors, and other at risk communities, which would advance accomplishing San Francisco<U+2019>s new RHNA goals for low and moderate-income housing. Duly approved by a majority vote of the members of the Board on November 30, 2022. _________________________________ SHANTI SINGH Chairshow more

2022-12-15 · 7 comments · 0 / 7

Luke Maffei · email · 2022-12-15 · oppose · source packet

San Francisco"s housing element draft sucks!
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The housing housing element draft is horrible. We don't have places to live, and you're still playing games with state laws. HCD instructed you to make specific changes. Where are they? Worse, your backup rezoning plan is intentionally designed to never kick in. We're not dumb, y'all. We know bullshit when we see it. This is outrageous. Make these chan… show more

Carol Ann Rogers · email · 2022-12-15 · oppose · source packet

Russian Hill Neighbors' Comments of the Housing Element
Dear Planning Commissioners, Attached please find a letter from Russian Hill Neighbors regarding the Housing Element to be discussed at your upcoming meeting on December 15. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Carol Ann Rogers Carol Ann Rogers, President Russian Hill Neighbors [phone removed] 1 December 5, 2022 Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Ave., 14th Floor San F… Dear Planning Commissioners, Attached please find a letter from Russian Hill Neighbors regarding the Housing Element to be discussed at your upcoming meeting on December 15. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Carol Ann Rogers Carol Ann Rogers, President Russian Hill Neighbors [phone removed] 1 December 5, 2022 Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Ave., 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103-2414 Subject: Comments on 17 November 2022 Draft of Housing Element Dear President Tanner, Vice President Moore, and Commissioners Braun, Diamond, Koppel, Imperial and Ruiz: On behalf of the Board of Directors of Russian Hill Neighbors (RHN), I am submitting the following comments for your consideration at your upcoming meeting on December 15, 2022. RHN is an all-volunteer neighborhood organization founded in 1981 to be a voice for residents and merchants to preserve and advance neighborhood character and quality of life through collaboration, volunteerism, and celebration of community. We support the Element<U+2019>s emphasis on increasing density along main commercial corridors, while minimizing height increases in adjacent smaller-scaled residential neighborhoods. With respect to Russian Hill, the Element shows increased density and height along Van Ness Ave. and Polk St., consistent with the Element<U+2019>s focus. However, we are concerned that all Rezoning Scenarios show a height increase to 65 feet in a pocket of several, more finely-grained residential blocks extending east of Polk (north of Broadway between Polk and Leavenworth). PRESIDENT Carol Ann Rogers VICE PRESIDENT Gregg Carr VICE PRESIDENT Pamela Meyers SECRETARY Suzee Barrabee TREASURER Joyce Kucharvy PAST PRESIDENT Tina Moylan DIRECTORS Alice Alioto Robert Bluhm Lauren Bohlin Richard Cardello Gregg Carr Stephanie Falkenstein COMMITTEE CHAIRS Communications Susan Ford Design, Zoning, and Land Use Robert Bluhm Families Stephanie Falkenstein History Al Greening Local Business Moe Jamil Membership Kris Anderson Neighborhood Enhancement Barbara Bella Susan Gage Neighborhood Organizations Liaison Matthew Mansfield Parks Susan Karasoff Safety Jennifer Parkes Social Pamela Meyers Transportation Steve Taber ADVISORS Lucretia Rauh, Chair Tim Covington Judy Junghans Mike Moylan Greg Polchow Jovanne Reilly 1819 Polk Street #221 San Francisco CA 94109 [phone removed] www.rhnsf.org 2 In addition, Rezoning Scenario C indicates a 65-foot zone north of Bay Street along Aquatic Park and Ghirardelli Square and extending to Fisherman<U+2019>s Wharf. This seems highly problematic given the proximity to the waterfront and to historic properties. Beyond addressing the specific zoning concerns noted above, we recommend that design guidelines be developed, or existing guidelines fine-tuned, that govern setbacks and other features to ensure that higher development blends appropriately with neighboring smaller buildings. Lastly, we urge that a mechanism be developed so that the height provisions of existing local and state bonus programs would not be applied on top of the increases called for in the Housing Element. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thank you for your time. Carol Ann Rogers, President [email removed] [phone removed] cc: [email removed] Rich Hillis, Director [email removed] James Pappas, Senior Planner [email removed] Supervisor Aaron Peskin [email removed] Supervisor Catherine Stefani [email removed]show more

Sean Donovan · email · 2022-12-15 · oppose · source packet

The housing element will cause more problems
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Though I doubt this will change your minds: It is clear the current housing element is not in compliance with state law. I think it will mean the end of local control of planning. Maybe we need that. sean donovan [email removed] 1011 SILLIMAN ST SAN FRANCISCO, California 94134

Joseph Smooke · email · 2022-12-15 · oppose · source packet

Housing Element - Public Comment
Dear Jonas Members of the public and Planning Commissioners have let us know that the City's deficient audio system resulted yesterday, December 8, in an inability for Commissioners to hear public comment made by people calling in through the City's public comment telephone line. This is particularly in reference to Item #10 about the Housing Element. We have received requests to compile our comments … Dear Jonas Members of the public and Planning Commissioners have let us know that the City's deficient audio system resulted yesterday, December 8, in an inability for Commissioners to hear public comment made by people calling in through the City's public comment telephone line. This is particularly in reference to Item #10 about the Housing Element. We have received requests to compile our comments and submit them in writing so Planning staff and Commissioners are able to review them. Therefore, you will find our comments attached as a pdf to this e-mail. Please note that the City's audio feed is deficient and limits the ability for the public to participate. For the benefit of the residents of San Francisco, for Planning staff and for Planning Commissioners, we request that this technical issue be corrected immediately so this does not present a barrier at your next Commission hearing on December 15. Thanks so much, --joseph co-founder of People Power Media Creators of PRICED OUT See the animation that will change the way you think about housing! Comments to Item #10, 2019-0162230GPA, Housing Element. Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition Jeantelle Laberinto Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jeantelle Laberinto w/ the REP Coalition. Thanks for this conversation today. The REP Coalition has been following this Housing Element process for over two years. We<U+2019>ve painstakingly reviewed every draft, spent time providing recommendations, and over these past two years, we<U+2019>ve offered to collaborate constructively with Planning staff to make this Housing Element truly and meaningfully centered on racial and social equity. We<U+2019>re encouraged by and appreciate Planning coordinating closely with REP over the past two months to incorporate many of our recommendations into the Housing Element<U+2019>s Final Draft. The latest draft just released this week represents some significant and positive progress, however, we have some deep concerns over some of the newly added actions that actively undermine racial and social equity. Many of these positive revisions are compromised by many of the new actions in Action 8 (Reducing Constraints) others have referenced which are in direct conflict with the stated equity goals of this Housing Element and put our City at risk of not meeting the obligations of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. We understand the need to remove constraints to achieve our RHNA goals, especially our affordable housing targets, but not at the expense of low-income communities, communities of color, and cultural districts. If we are to meaningfully center racial and social equity in our City<U+2019>s housing blueprint, we should be especially critical of any measures that could further displace and destabilize already struggling communities and instead find ways to strengthen their voice and self-determination<U+2013> through significant increases in investments for affordable housing, retaining existing affordable housing funding mechanisms, retaining community input in decisions that impact their neighborhoods, protecting tenants from displacement as a result of demolitions, and ensuring that any <U+201C>circuit breaker<U+201D> focuses on affordable housing production and prioritizing equity outcomes. We urge that the Planning Commission make further revisions to make sure that the City meets its legal obligations to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and its goal to center this Housing Element on racial and social equity. Comments to Item #10, 2019-0162230GPA, Housing Element. Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition Joseph Smooke. Westside Community Coalition Good afternoon, President Tanner and Planning Commissioners. Joseph Smooke with the Westside Community Coalition a member of the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition. I want to start by expressing enormous respect and gratitude to planning staff for their hard work on the housing element. REP's Citywide People's Plan honors our community-based expertise. We are architects and planners, and experts in policy with the same degrees from the same universities as the planners who work for the city. We dedicate our lives and our careers to train and engage our communities in policy and planning. Families, seniors, youth, and immigrants. Housed and unhoused. When I read through the latest version of the Housing Element's Implementation Actions, I saw so many revisions that reflect this grassroots expertise. This was a pretty emotional experience. However, as I kept reading, this sense of value for our communities quickly dissipated. Actions added to Section 8 about Reducing Constraints intentionally silence low income and communities of color and deny any value capture or resources that developers pay to offset the damage and displacement they inflict on our communities. Some are erroneously calling this a "circuit breaker". In reality, this is a community breaker. How many "constraints" are you intending to remove? To us, this sounds like Urban Renewal language. You want to upzone for housing we can't afford without our input. You want to limit tenant protections from demolitions. You don't want developers to pay any of the impact fees that have been carefully studied for feasibility. Impact fees are established through nexus studies that evaluate how fees can mitigate harms from new developments. If all impact fees are removed, what are Planning's strategies for mitigating the impacts on our communities? And, what other "constraints" exist that you will seek to eradicate? Will you resort to demolishing our communities again- and this time on an even larger scale- so developers don't have to pay for those costs? If Commissioners haven't had time to read the latest documents from Planning, you can focus your attention on Actions 8.1.5 through 8.1.8 which undermine all references to racial and social equity, which undermine all the intentions around affordable housing throughout the Housing Element, and which are clearly in violation of the legal framework for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. I urge you to make significant revisions to the Implementation Actions to make sure that the city is in compliance with its legal obligations to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and its stated objectives to center this Housing Element on racial and social equity. Comments to Item #10, 2019-0162230GPA, Housing Element. Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition Priya Prabhakar. People Power Media Good afternoon Commissioners, my name is Priya Prabhakar and I am with People Power Media, a member of the Race and Equity in all Planning Coalition. Firstly, REP appreciates the hard work of Planning staff to incorporate many of REP<U+2019>s recommendations into the Housing Element<U+2019>s final draft of the Implementing Programs. REP supports the recent resolution adopted by the Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board that requests that an Action be added to the Housing Element that identifies the revenue of Proposition I, presently estimated to generate $170 million dollars in Fiscal Year 2023 - 2024 as an ongoing, annual revenue source available to the City to assist in achieving the Housing Element's affordable housing goals. However, many of the strategies and policies within the Housing Element are still deeply concerning. I<U+2019>ve worked as a tenant and housing organizer for the past two and a half years, mainly in the Mission District, and I<U+2019>ve seen first hand how undocumented, immigrant families are deeply vulnerable. The current Housing Element cycle (ending this year) has caused extraordinary displacement to low-income communities of color, and this new Housing Element will only exacerbate that. In fact, given what<U+2019>s in the Housing Element, the impacts and harms of the strategies proposed by Planning will cause even more devastating and widespread harm than Redevelopment. REP and the Anti Displacement Coalition recommend a public hearing process for every development that proposes to demolish existing residential units. A lot of the time, buildings might not look rent-controlled, but they are, and this Housing Element seeks to tear down that essential housing. Even if a property appears to be vacant, we have found that developers and landlords intending to redevelop their properties hide the fact that there are tenants living there or they have intimidated their tenants to leave. If you hand over to developers a loophole of opting out of public process and continuing to terrorize tenants to leave, this will cause extremely violent displacement, it literally violates sanctuary city policies which San Francisco seems to be so vocal and proud about. The only way tenant advocates have been able to bring these issues to light has been to force a hearing at the Planning Commission. We need a predictable process, we don<U+2019>t want to force discretionary review. We must bring the Housing Element back in line with the requirements to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Comments to Item #10, 2019-0162230GPA, Housing Element. Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition Laura Valdez. Dolores Street Community Services Good afternoon, President Tanner and Commissioners. Laura Valdez with Dolores Street Community Services (DSCS) and a member of the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition. I am calling to speak on two areas of concern in the Housing Element. With reference to Section 3 - Preventing and Eliminating Homelessness, DSCS, as an emergency and Permanent Supportive Housing provider, understands that we must ensure emergency shelter beds for everyone who is experiencing homelessness. However, we need to focus on resources and efforts on true housing solutions. SF's Housing Element must focus on funding and land use solutions for providing stable, dignified, affordable housing With reference to Section 3, "Preventing and Eliminating Homelessness", REP-SF finds that there are too many Actions focused on providing temporary shelter accommodations. It is critical that Planning recognizes the fact that expanding shelter accommodations is not a housing solution. San Francisco's Housing Element must focus on funding and land use solutions for providing stable, dignified, affordable housing for all those experiencing homelessness. Emergency shelters in our city have become permanent housing for our most marginalized and vulnerable adults and families. In our Mission shelter for single adults we have seen day laborers in our community remain at our shelter for decades. Second in reference to the Coordinated Entry System, Dolores Street Community Services as the provider of the new Mission Access Point believes the system can greatly benefit our unhoused community by creating a "no wrong door to entry" system that is inclusive of self-referrals by unhoused people to case managers in our communities. We must re-open 311 referrals as well as streamline the process for case managers to refer unhoused people to community based shelter beds and vacant units in PSH sites. At our single adult shelter we currently are utilizing a drop-in process where any unused beds are given to unhoused community members in need of shelter. Thank you, Laura Comments to Item #10, 2019-0162230GPA, Housing Element. Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition Erick Arguello. Calle 24 Latino Cultural District My Name is Erick Arguello with Calle 24 Latino Cultural District and we are a member of the Race and Equity Coalition in all Planning. I want to talk about two sections of the housing element. One under: Affordable housing Productions, Section 1.2.11 "Work with the State, including Caltrans, to identify and study freeway-related opportunities for potential neighborhood fabric repair and new housing, prioritizing affordable housing and land dedication (as referenced in Actions 1.2.3 and 1.6.1). Focus on freeway segments that need replacement most urgently; contribute to the highest air pollutants impacts, particularly to persons in Priority Equity Geographies; and offer the greatest multi-benefit potential for transforming neighborhoods and producing new housing." This section has no equitable community engagement plan for vulnerable communities. Some language could be: "If the freeways are in priority equity geographies or/ cultural districts, engagement is required, and conversations should be led by those communities." We need to remember, Cultural district are required to provide a CHHESS report that provides cultural economic and affordable housing strategies for each district. That would be our recommendation in order to protect our cultural districts and cultural assets. Two under: Cultural Districts, Section 4.4.3 "In Cultural Districts, reduce conditional use authorizations or other entitlement barriers for mixed-use buildings that can commit via deed restriction or other legal agreement to the inclusion of businesses, institutions, or services that support Cultural District needs and identity for a minimum of ten years." What happens after 10 years? They could not renew the lease and get a high-end business that does not align with the cultural district<U+2019>s goals. The cultural districts were made to be permanent so the criteria should remain through the life of the cultural district. Should add: these criteria should be followed for the life of the Cultural District These changes are important and will help reach the race and equity lens priorities which are the goals for planning. Thank you Comments to Item #10, 2019-0162230GPA, Housing Element. Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition Peter Papadopoulos. Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA) Good afternoon, President Tanner and Commissioners. Peter Papadopoulos with the Mission Economic Development Agency and a member of the Race and Equity in all Planning Coalition. We want to thank the Planning team for their long hours of work on this document and for their continued diligence as we work through these final phases together. MEDA wants to focus our brief speaking time today on two key areas towards ensuring we are producing an equitable Housing Element and meeting both our affordable housing RHNA goals and our Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements. 1) The ongoing loss of BIPOC residents throughout San Francisco -- African Americans from the Bayview, Latinos from the Mission, Filipinos from SOMA, and Chinese community members facing recent increased evictions in the Richmond and surging rents in Chinatown -- makes clear that this City is already facing a significant Fair Housing issue. We must take great care not to make this situation worse by conflating the idea of removing general housing development constraints such as the cost of land and materials with maintaining our commitments to Fair Housing law through retaining housing processes and culturally-based zoning in our ethnic enclaves. We can and must maintain both timely housing processes and also keep intact opportunities for BIPOC community voices and culturally protective processes. 2) It is critical that the city launch in January, the Affordable Housing Implementation and Funding Group with community stakeholders that would ensure that we draft and execute plans to fund and build the 46,000 units of affordable housing called for in this plan. And this Housing Element can take the first big step towards these 46,000 units through a strong commitment to maintain all existing affordable housing fees--including our existing inclusionary and state density bonus fees--to ensure that we are on target to meeting our RHNA affordable housing goals and meeting our AFFH requirements. Thank you. Comments to Item #10, 2019-0162230GPA, Housing Element. Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition David Woo. SOMA Pilipinas Filipino Cultural Heritage District and South of Market Community Action Network (SOMCAN) Projects like 469 Stevenson will not get us out of our affordable housing crisis. The majority of units will be out of reach to our communities in the South of Market and most low-income and working class children, youth, families, and seniors who are housing insecure in the City. The South of Market and San Francisco do not need more luxury units that increase speculation, evictions, displacement, and gentrification. The Planning Department has until now failed to incorporate racial and social equity into the planning process. If the City is serious about addressing the lack of equity in planning, there must be a concerted effort to collect, study, and analyze data related to race, class, and displacement. The conclusions of the updated Environmental Impact Report for 469 Stevenson, that the project will not have significant gentrification, displacement, or cultural displacement impacts, are simplistic, contradictory, and shallow. The report itself admits that 10-41 households could be displaced as a result of the project. The report and the Planning Department still operate under the false narrative that building new market-rate housing will trickle down and lower prices for everyone. The reality is that market-rate units increase rents for working people that already live there, something low-income and communities of color have known for a very long time, with new data coming out that concretely shows this.1 Real estate and housing speculation is never studied by these report consultants or by the Planning Department. The truth is that housing is used in the private market as a way to make money - through evicting people, raising rents, flipping buildings, buying land and buildings to speculate - something that never fits into the equation for the City in how to solve the affordability and displacement crisis. The 469 Stevenson Project shows us what not to do. This project should never have gotten this far if Planning is truly centering racial and social equity. These are expensive luxury units, nearly 70% are studios and 1-bedrooms. This project will increase eviction and displacement pressures in the South of Market. San Francisco has overbuilt luxury housing, and underbuilt affordable housing. That<U+2019>s why there are 60,000 vacant market-rate units, 52,000 market-rate units that have been approved but not yet built, and long waiting lists for affordable housing. The City and Planning Department need an affordable housing plan. As the Housing Element tries to achieve the state mandated 82,000 units of new housing, we cannot forget that 46,000 of those units (more than half) must be affordable. It<U+2019>s time to stop prioritizing market-rate housing and start building affordable housing, acquiring at-risk units, land-banking sites for 100% affordable housing, and expanding local funding sources. 1 Damiano, Anthony and Chris Frenier (2020), "Build Baby Build? Housing Submarkets and the Effects of New Construction on Existing Rents" Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Working Paper, U of Minnesota Comments to Item #10, 2019-0162230GPA, Housing Element. Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition Charlie Sciammas Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO) Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Charlie Sciammas with the Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO) and we stand united with the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition. We appreciate the hard work of Ms Chion and her team at SF Planning to steward the Final Draft of the Implementation Actions of the Housing Element. However, we urge the Planning Commission to incorporate a number of key final revisions. 1. Timing of Affordable Housing Implementation & Funding Strategy Group In this revised set of Actions 1.1.1, Planning has recommended convening an Affordable Housing Implementation & Funding Strategy group in March, 2023 which is a step in the right direction, but not nearly early enough to have a meaningful impact on this year<U+2019>s budget process. We urge the Commission to revise this language to indicate that <U+201C>by January 31st, the City shall convene the body. And add that the body will provide an update to the Board of Supervisors in March, 2023, and shortly thereafter present recommendations to be included in the Mayor<U+2019>s budget submission for FY 23/24. Additionally, the body will develop a comprehensive set of local, regional, state, and federal funding strategies beyond FY 23/24 to be completed by January 31st of 2024. 2. Protect Fair Housing Goals By Retaining Community Stabilization & Affordable Housing Measures The loss of African Americans from the Bayview, Latinos from the Mission, and Filipinos from SOMA, Chinese from Chinatown and the Richmond, is a fair housing issue that will only intensify if cultural stabilization "constraints" are removed from these and other equity geographies. The impacts will be especially dire if there isn<U+2019>t a significant increase in investments for permanent, affordable housing. In order to bring the Housing Element back in line with the requirements to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, we urge the Planning Commission to: Retain all existing affordable housing funding mechanisms including inclusionary fees and state density bonus fees to ensure we are meeting the needs of these communities as well as ensuring that San Francisco is on the path to meeting our RHNA affordability goals Comments to Item #10, 2019-0162230GPA, Housing Element. Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition Prioritize extremely low and low income housing in priority equity communities and those most at risk of displacement and ensure there are mechanisms to fully fund these needs. This is the housing principally occupied by these protected classes in their neighborhoods across San Francisco and will ensure meaningful anti-displacement and community stabilization measures. NOT include any "circuit breaker" rezonings, market-rate housing streamlining, or "constraint" removals such as those described in Action 8.1.5, especially in Priority Equity Geographies, Cultural Districts, and other ethnic enclaves, as these mechanisms would bring additional harms to these communities in clear opposition to AFFH guidelines. If there's any "circuit breaker" that kicks in to ensure that the city is meeting its production goals, it should be focused on affordable housing, NOT market rate housing because this is the only side of the housing production ledger that will lead to AFFH and equity outcomes. Protect tenants from displacement, especially from demolition of existing residential units We urge the Planning Commission to make these further revisions to the Housing Element's Implementation Actions to make sure that the city is in compliance with its legal obligations to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and center this Housing Element on racial and social equity.show more

Lisa Ruff · email · 2022-12-15 · oppose · source packet

Urgent Action Needed: San Francisco Housing Element Draft Unacceptable.
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The December housing element draft for San Francisco is complete garbage. The San Francisco Department of Housing and Community Development is not even trying with their housing element for the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Despite making a few minor changes based on feedback from HCD, the plan is still utter nonsense. San Francisco continues… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, The December housing element draft for San Francisco is complete garbage. The San Francisco Department of Housing and Community Development is not even trying with their housing element for the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Despite making a few minor changes based on feedback from HCD, the plan is still utter nonsense. San Francisco continues to ignore how their own city rules are making the housing crisis worse. The updated draft includes backup plans to rezone for more housing, but these plans are laughably weak and will accomplish nothing. The formula proposed by the city would allow them to miss their 2027 production goals by almost 90% without having to rezone for a single additional home. This is a joke. Furthermore, the housing element includes a promise to study barriers to housing production, but no commitment to actually remove these barriers. It could be 2027 before the study is completed, and by that time city officials may decide not to lift a finger. Unlike other cities in California, San Francisco is not even bothering to submit their study of constraints on housing production to HCD for review. This lack of accountability is outrageous. I demand that the city make the following changes to the housing element: Incorporate all feedback from California HCD Submit the city's study of constraints to housing development to HCD for approval Create a fallback rezoning plan that actually considers housing feasibility Promise to reduce constraints on housing development based on the results of the study of constraints by January 31, 2027 This is San Francisco's last chance to fix this mess before the deadline to submit a housing element by January 31, 2023. I urge San Francisco Planning to grow a spine and act now, or face the consequences for failing to comply with state law. I am sending this letter to the Planning Commission and California HCD to let them know what a disgrace this situation is. Lisa Ruff [email removed] 2145 Turk Blvd. San Francisco, California 94115show more

Charlie Sciammas · email · 2022-12-15 · oppose · source packet

Written Testimony of Public Comments by CCHO
Dear Secretary Ionin, I understand that the audio was spotty during yesterday's hearing and I am written copy of my testimony below: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Charlie Sciammas with the Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO) and we stand united with the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition. We appreciate the hard work of Ms Chion and her team at SF Planning to steward the Fin… Dear Secretary Ionin, I understand that the audio was spotty during yesterday's hearing and I am written copy of my testimony below: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Charlie Sciammas with the Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO) and we stand united with the Race & Equity in all Planning Coalition. We appreciate the hard work of Ms Chion and her team at SF Planning to steward the Final Draft of the Implementation Actions of the Housing Element. However, we urge the Planning Commission to incorporate a number of key final revisions. 1. Timing of Affordable Housing Implementation & Funding Strategy Group In this revised set of Actions 1.1.1, Planning has recommended convening an Affordable Housing Implementation & Funding Strategy group in March, 2023 which is a step in the right direction, but not nearly early enough to have a meaningful impact on this year<U+2019>s budget process. We urge the Commission to revise this language to indicate that <U+201C>by January 31st, the City shall convene the body. And add that the body will provide an update to the Board of Supervisors in March, 2023, and shortly thereafter present recommendations to be included in the Mayor<U+2019>s budget submission for FY 23/24. Additionally, the body will develop a comprehensive set of local, regional, state, and federal funding strategies beyond FY 23/24 to be completed by January 31st of 2024. 2. Protect Fair Housing Goals By Retaining Community Stabilization & Affordable Housing Measures The loss of African Americans from the Bayview, Latinos from the Mission, and Filipinos from SOMA, Chinese from Chinatown and the Richmond, is a fair housing issue that will only intensify if cultural stabilization "constraints" are removed from these and other equity geographies. The impacts will be especially dire if there isn<U+2019>t a significant increase in investments for permanent, affordable housing. In order to bring the Housing Element back in line with the requirements to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, we urge the Planning Commission to: Retain all existing affordable housing funding mechanisms including inclusionary fees and state density bonus fees to ensure we are meeting the needs of these communities as well as ensuring that San Francisco is on the path to meeting our RHNA affordability goals Prioritize extremely low and low income housing in priority equity communities and those most at risk of displacement and ensure there are mechanisms to fully fund these needs. This is the housing principally occupied by these protected classes in their neighborhoods across San Francisco and will ensure meaningful anti-displacement and community stabilization measures. NOT include any "circuit breaker" rezonings, market-rate housing streamlining, or "constraint" removals such as those described in Action 8.1.5, especially in Priority Equity Geographies, Cultural Districts, and other ethnic enclaves, as these mechanisms would bring additional harms to these communities in clear opposition to AFFH guidelines. IF there is a "circuit breaker" that kicks in to ensure that the city is meeting its production goals, it should be focused on affordable housing, NOT market rate housing because this is the side of the housing production ledger that will lead to AFFH and equity outcomes. Protect tenants from displacement, especially from demolition of existing residential units We urge the Planning Commission to make these further revisions to the Housing Element's Implementation Actions to make sure that the city is in compliance with its legal obligations to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and center this Housing Element on racial and social equity. -- Charlie Sciammas, Policy Director Council of Community Housing Organizations / CCHO Action Cell: [phone removed] Office: [phone removed] 325 Clementina Street, San Francisco 94103 www.sfccho.org. www.sfcchoaction.org Follow us on Twitter and Facebook!show more

Mark Macy · email · 2022-12-15 · oppose · source packet

Re: 2022 SF Housing Element - "Group Housing Definition Revision" Ordinance 50-22 is a violation of SB-330
Shelley, Can you please let me know where my comment on the 2022 Housing Element (regarding the "Group Housing Definition Revision" Ordinance 50-22) is located in the "FINAL DRAFT for Adoption"? Thx, Mark On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 10:47 AM Caltagirone, Shelley (CPC) [email removed]> wrote: Thank you! Confirming receipt. ____________________________________ Shelley Caltagirone (prono… show more

2023-01-05 · 2 comments · 1 / 1

Priya Prabhakar · email · 2023-01-05 · support · source packet

***PRESS RELEASE***COMMUNITY EXPERTISE AND CITYWIDE PEOPLE'S PLAN SHAPE SAN
FRANCISCO'S HOUSING ELEMENT*** For Immediate Release: December 15, 2022 Media Contact: Jeantelle Laberinto, [email removed] [phone removed] Dyan Ruiz, [email removed] [phone removed] Community Expertise & Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan Shape San Francisco<U+2019>s Housing Element SAN FRANCISCO - A coalition of nearly 40 grassroots organizations, the Race and Equity in all Planning coalition… FRANCISCO'S HOUSING ELEMENT*** For Immediate Release: December 15, 2022 Media Contact: Jeantelle Laberinto, [email removed] [phone removed] Dyan Ruiz, [email removed] [phone removed] Community Expertise & Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan Shape San Francisco<U+2019>s Housing Element SAN FRANCISCO - A coalition of nearly 40 grassroots organizations, the Race and Equity in all Planning coalition (REP-SF), rallied for a major breakthrough towards people-centered city planning in San Francisco in their two year advocacy campaign to center community expertise and affordable housing in the City<U+2019>s Housing Element. The Housing Element, which guides the City<U+2019>s housing policies for the next eight years, received approval by the Planning Commission today after a dramatic set of amendments shaped by REP-SF<U+2019>s advocacy and passionate testimony. It goes to the Board of Supervisors in January for final approval. <U+201C>REP-SF has been showing up to each Planning hearing for the past two years. We have had hundreds of hours of meetings to build a strong coalition and truly cultivate policies that center low-income and communities of color. We have advocated that the Planning Department incorporate these policies in a myriad of ways,<U+201D> said Priya Prabhakar of REP-SF in her public testimony. <U+201C>Community expertise must be the focal point of the Housing Element for it to truly achieve the goal of centering racial and social equity,<U+201D> Prabhakar later said. <U+201C>We pushed the Housing Element away from what was an entirely market-based strategy to advocate and invest in real, deeply affordable housing to a level that the City has never seen before,<U+201D> said Jeantelle Laberinto of REP-SF. Some of the major breakthroughs towards valuing the community expertise brought forward by REP-SF member organizations in San Francisco<U+2019>s Housing Element include commitments: For a major affordable housing resource development plan; To implement a landbanking strategy, which is buying development sites for future affordable housing acquisition and development; To strengthen the City<U+2019>s inclusionary housing, which is below-market housing built or funded by market-rate developers; To create a system for tracking the City<U+2019>s affordable housing investments; To the expansion of City<U+2019>s Small Sites acquisition Program, where nonprofits purchase existing buildings especially where tenants are at risk of displacement; To affordable housing developments and capacity in the west side of the city; A commitment that communities should lead the discussions to determine what happens with the Central Freeway; To advocate for expanding State resources for affordable housing; To advocate for amendments to the State<U+2019>s Costa Hawkins legislation, which regulates and limits rent control; Towards a set of actions for community engagement and meaningful input into project approvals and rezonings, including affordability levels, number of family units and generally what gets built; and To retain community input into development approvals, which were at risk of being removed. While these represent major steps forward, there remains troubling language and a lack of protections against displacement in cases of demolition that will be brought on by the upzoning and developer incentives the Housing Element relies on to build the unprecedented amount of market rate housing mandated by the state. At today<U+2019>s hearing, advocates from REP-SF were especially vocal about what they called the <U+201C>Developer Dirty Bomb<U+201D>, (Implementation Actions 8.1.5 through to 8.1.8) added on December 6, 2022 that were worded to effectively nullify every attempt at equity in the Housing Element. Following public comment and Commissioners themselves raising concerns about these actions, the language was amended so they better reflected the commitment to community engagement and affordable housing found in other parts of the Housing Element. After seeing that drafts of the Housing Element continued to rely on market-based housing, despite the State<U+2019>s mandate that 57 percent of housing built in the next eight years in San Francisco be affordable (46,598 units), there was no real plan to get there. On November 14, 2022, REP-SF published the Citywide People<U+2019>s Plan. The plan drew on the work of member organizations and cultural districts through the years, to create a blueprint for creating new systems for housing and land use that will ensure an equitable San Francisco for our communities now and for generations to come. The plan included a robust set of actions that can be taken at the community, city, state and federal levels to achieve this. <U+201C>I love my city. I was born and raised here. I have my family here.<U+201D> said Reina Tello of PODER in her public testimony. <U+201C>I just want a chance to live here and see my family grow here.<U+201D> <U+201C>Getting commitments in the Housing Element is only the first step.<U+201D> Tello said afterwards. <U+201C>REP-SF will continue to fight to ensure our communities lead the planning of our vision for better neighborhoods, same neighbors. That is the only way to truly achieve racial and social equity, and a San Francisco for all San Francisco residents." # # -- Priya Prabhakar Housing and Land Use Organizer [people. power. media.] Race & Equity in all Planning Coalitionshow more

Sarah Bancroft · email · 2023-01-05 · oppose · source packet

Housing Element Public Comment
Good Afternoon Planning Commissioners, My name is Sarah Bancroft and I<U+2019>m a member of the West Side Tenants Association (WSTA). WSTA along with the REP Coalition appreciates the hard work of Planning staff to incorporate many of REP's recommendations into the Housing Element's Final Draft of the Implementing Programs. The Housing Element must prioritize Affordability First: San Francisco has a… Good Afternoon Planning Commissioners, My name is Sarah Bancroft and I<U+2019>m a member of the West Side Tenants Association (WSTA). WSTA along with the REP Coalition appreciates the hard work of Planning staff to incorporate many of REP's recommendations into the Housing Element's Final Draft of the Implementing Programs. The Housing Element must prioritize Affordability First: San Francisco has a severe affordability crisis that deeply impacts marginalized communities. We support the December 5th letter from Supervisor Gordon Mar requesting that Planning commit to an "adequate and concrete plan for identifying and allocating sufficient revenues, acquiring sites, and building capacity". As Supervisor Mar's letter says, "The ability to meaningfully achieve the affordable housing production goals will require significant initial programmatic investment and an accelerated time" to ensure success. this effort must also commit Planning and MOHCD to work in close collaboration with each other, with our affordable housing developers and advocates so we can achieve these goals by working closely together, being bold and innovative. Upzoning: We are very concerned about upzoning and the impact it will have on existing communities and neighborhoods, Community advocates are calling the <U+201C>Developer Dirty Bomb<U+201D> (Implementation Actions 8.1.5 through to 8.1.8) will nullify every attempt at equity in the Housing Element. Without any community input, large swaths of the city will be up-zoned and primed to be destroyed and rebuilt with luxury housing, while current residents and businesses in communities of color and cultural districts will be pushed out by developers eager to profit from development incentives provided by the City. We demand Implementation Actions 8.1.5 through to 8.1.8 be removed from the Housing Element. Tearing down and what will be developed: In addition, developers and investors have stripped away measures for affordable housing and social and racial equity and replaced them with policies that prime our city for urban renewal-style demolition and displacement. That<U+2019>s what additional constraints reductions<U+2019> and additional rezoning outside of Priority Equity Geographies<U+2019> mean. The language is so broad and permissive, there will be no checks on what gets torn down and developed. Civic participation is fundamental to our democracy and communities<U+2019> self determination. WSTA and REP-SF are demanding that all last-minute provisions designed to silence community voices be removed. Low-income communities of color, most impacted by the policies must continue to have a voice in the decisions that directly target their homes and families. The tragic loss of African Americans from the Bayview, Latinos from the Mission, and Filipinos from SOMA, among other neighborhoods, is a long standing fair housing issue in San Francisco that will be made so much worse- brought to critical levels- if cultural stabilization "constraints" are removed from these and other low income areas and Communities of Color. Silencing community voices most impacted is totally opposite of the beliefs and ethical standards the city and county of San Francisco claims to promote. Displacement: WSTA works closely and organizes with tenants on the westside and beyond to against displacement of people from their homes. Despite revisions that Planning has proposed, this Housing Element has the potential to cause massive displacement. Our low income and communities of color have already suffered extraordinary displacement during the current Housing Element cycle, and this new Housing Element promises to make displacement even worse. The impacts and harms of the strategies as proposed by Planning appear to be potentially even more devastating and widespread to low income and communities of color than Redevelopment was. REP and the Anti Displacement Coalition recommend a public hearing process for every development that proposes to demolish existing residential units. In conclusion the Housing Element must adhere to its state objectives to center on racial and social equity. WSTA and REP request that the Planning Commission make these extremely important revisions to the Housing Element's Implementation Actions to make sure that the city is in compliance with its legal obligations to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. Thank you, Sarah Bancroft Member of the West Side Tenants Association 1229 3rd Ave, San Francisco, CA 94122show more

2023-02-16 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2023-02-16 · oppose · source packet

Residential Flat Policy Follow Up
Dear President Tanner, Vice President Moore and Fellow Commissioners Braun, Diamond, Imperial, Koppel and Ruiz: Attached is a pdf sent to you last October 12th which was the fifth anniversary of the Residential Flat Policy. I wanted to send it again since I referenced it today with regard to the project on 2230-2232 Washington Street which is a spec project that was DR<U+2019>ed by a neighbor, agreement was rea… Dear President Tanner, Vice President Moore and Fellow Commissioners Braun, Diamond, Imperial, Koppel and Ruiz: Attached is a pdf sent to you last October 12th which was the fifth anniversary of the Residential Flat Policy. I wanted to send it again since I referenced it today with regard to the project on 2230-2232 Washington Street which is a spec project that was DR<U+2019>ed by a neighbor, agreement was reached between the parties, and the Commission confirmed the agreement. This was in May 2022. As I said today during General Public Comment I really don<U+2019>t understand how this project was allowed to proceed during review under the Flat Policyor at least what presumably is the intent of the Flat Policy. It is hard not to believe that this project will be just like the other one discussed in the pdf, located on the same group of Flats at 2248-2250 Washington. This one sold for a lot of money.$7.45 Million.in September of 2022. It was originally approved presumably using Section 317 (b) (7) back in 2011 after Section 317 was implemented. The floor plan from the web ad for this other Washington Street project shows no second Flat.although this row of housing is located in the same group of housing described as <U+201C>penthouse duplex<U+201D> in the "Flats and Small Apartments (1915-1978 Historic Context Statement)" published by the Department and recently discussed at the HPC and is a really good study by the way. However. The main point of this re-send is to stress the need to preserve existing housing as much as possible, whether that is Flats, or second units, or in-laws, or UDUs. Many of these Flats, or second units, or in-laws, or UDUs have been lost during Alterations that often took advantage of the Demo Calcs never having been adjusted as they should have been. This housing is a great existing resource that should have policies that allow for it to be preserved and if necessary enhanced. I think it can be agreed that scattered around the City in many neighborhoods, there are many, many second units often in single-family-homes, legal and illegal, with kitchens and baths that may need some <U+201C>upgrading<U+201D>, but that nevertheless should be preserved. Perhaps there is a non-speculative housing program that would fit under the Mayor<U+2019>s Executive Directive and/or the HCD requirements that could help property owners with any upgrading/preservation and the Commission can discuss this when proceeding with the Housing Element? But certainly the Residential Flat Policy needs to be codified as discussed in the Housing Element and codified in a way that maintains the existing configuration and location within the structure of each Flat while allowing for reasonable expansion if requested in a permit application. Thank you. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttishshow more

2023-03-16 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2023-03-16 · support · source packet

DEMOLITION CONTROLS
Dear President Tanner: Please see the attached pdf letter on the Residential Flat Policy. Thank you. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttish March 11, 2023 President Rachael Tanner Vice President Kathrin Moore VIA EMAIL Commissioner Derek Braun Commissioner Sue Diamond Commissioner Theresa Imperial Commissioner Joel Koppel Room 400 - City Hall San Francisco, California Dear President Tanner, Vice President… Dear President Tanner: Please see the attached pdf letter on the Residential Flat Policy. Thank you. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttish March 11, 2023 President Rachael Tanner Vice President Kathrin Moore VIA EMAIL Commissioner Derek Braun Commissioner Sue Diamond Commissioner Theresa Imperial Commissioner Joel Koppel Room 400 - City Hall San Francisco, California Dear President Tanner, Vice President Moore and Fellow Commissioners: Based on the back and forth with Director Hillis and Director of Current Planning Watty during the recent deliberations on the five CUAs to legalize the TTD at 258 Cumberland, 345 Rivera, 281 Madison, 2861-2865 San Bruno and 3790-3792 21st Street, it is apparent that the Commission will be grappling with the Demolition Controls in the current Planning Code Section 317 between now and the Summertime break. This letter is to request that the Residential Flat Policy be codified at the hearings that will be scheduled and make the Flat Policy law. As the Commission proceeds to implement the Housing Element with the mandates from Sacramento it is important that Flats be preserved in their existing configuration. As the Residential Flat Policy recognized, Flats are a typology of housing that can be family housing and provide housing to the <U+201C>missing middle<U+201D>. Since the Great Recession of 2008 there have been many examples of Flats absorbed into <U+201C>monster homes<U+201D> due to the loophole in Section 317 (b) (7). For example, look at 3790-3792 21st Street. It sold for $6.5 Million as a single family home on March 15, 2022. It would have been better for San Francisco<U+2019>s housing stock if the original Flats had been preserved in their original configuration, not only to preserve two separate, livable Flats but to preserve relative affordability. There are many other examples like 21st Street. I will try to run through some of them on Thursday. In the meantime, I urge the Commission to work with Staff and the City Attorney to write a new Code, with iron-clad language, to prevent the loss of what is vital and irreplaceable housing by preserving Flats in their original configuration. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttish Email also sent to Commission Secretary, Staff and City Attorneyshow more

2023-03-30 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2023-03-30 · oppose · source packet

1647 Sanchez/290 Day Street Alteration project
Dear Commissioner Braun: Good evening. This is a long email, so I apologize in advance. I wanted to send these attachments to you about this project that was approved as an Alteration long before you were seated but is representative of why the Demo Calcs should have been adjusted per Section 317 (b) (2) (D), not only to preserve existing sound housing, but in this particular case to have a better outcome for our ho… Dear Commissioner Braun: Good evening. This is a long email, so I apologize in advance. I wanted to send these attachments to you about this project that was approved as an Alteration long before you were seated but is representative of why the Demo Calcs should have been adjusted per Section 317 (b) (2) (D), not only to preserve existing sound housing, but in this particular case to have a better outcome for our housing stock. I walked by this site for years taking my boys to the Upper Noe Rec Center. It was sad from the outside. If you look at the interior photos in the first link, it was apparently also sad from the inside. This should have been torn down: A corner lot with egress to the public ROW on three sides; a structure with obvious poor livability and questionable soundness. Instead the developers used, or rather I would say manipulated the Demo Calcs to take advantage of the loophole in Section 317 to avoid Commission scrutiny. This project was reviewed in 2016-2017. So it was torn down, demolished but under the guise as being an Alteration, not as a CUA as it should have been. However, a neighbor DR<U+2019>ed it because she thought it was too large. I think that she and the other neighbors concerned with the project would have more readily accepted a project that provided a third or even a fourth unit rather than a monster home. The immediately adjacent neighbor was seeking just some minimal relief to the loss of sunlight light at the south facing windows in his flat, via minor design changes that the developer would never agree to unfortunately. Instead the developers who stated at the Commission they would live there, sold the completed project for $9.1 million in the Summer of 2020. The second link gives you some of that background regarding that purchaser who tried to sell it a year later for nearly $14 million. And shows how the units are really linked through the garage. And I think also through the required open space deck. It is a de facto single family home. It is empty and unoccupied. And has been for years. And after dropping the price several times, is now off the market. What a waste. Here is the point I am trying to make: I understand the challenges ahead with the Housing Element implementation. But I think there needs to be preservation of housing using objective standards of soundness and livability. This is so important which is one reason why I have requested the Commission to codify the Residential Flat Policy (i.e. 3790-3792 21st Street which was before the Commission earlier, and the other examples I have sent in to the Commission recently). Obviously this project at 1647 Sanchez Street/290 Day Street is an example of why objective standards of soundness and livability can also expand our housing stock. And why the Demo Calcs should be (and should have been) adjusted to preserve the housing that should be saved from speculation. Thank you and Happy Spring. Georgia https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1647-Sanchez-St-94131/home/79156541___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzplOWY5MjMyOTg2YjYxYTk1Y2E2ZTcwNGY3NzZhNzZmNjo2OjYxMTk6NjcxOGI0NzYxMzQ4ZmJhNmYyMDcxZGI5ZDUzYjBmMmQ1ODg5YTQ0ZGYyNmRmZmQwNTAxMzU0ZGIwYjdkZmRlNDp0OlQ https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/05/02/estate-like-noe-valley-compound-eyes-neighborhood-record-with-13-5m-ask/___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzplOWY5MjMyOTg2YjYxYTk1Y2E2ZTcwNGY3NzZhNzZmNjo2OjRkZTk6OWQ2ODM0MjNhMGI3NjQ5ODFjZDFiYzBjZTMzNzQwN2Y4OGQ4MjZiYTE3OTRiZDBlY2U2NTY1OTU5MTRhNjVlMTp0OlQ PHOTO OF COMPLETED PROJECT (CFC issued in 2020)show more

2023-04-20 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2023-04-20 · oppose · source packet

Codifying the Residential Flat Policy: Another Example
Dear Commissioners, Here is another example of why the Residential Flat Policy should be codified. I hope that will be one of the first reforms enacted under the new Housing Element. Flats should be preserved in their original configuration. This property on Washington Street is two legal units in a High Resource Neighborhood. Units, Flats, housing all over the City was lost.not just in Noe Valley but everywhere … Dear Commissioners, Here is another example of why the Residential Flat Policy should be codified. I hope that will be one of the first reforms enacted under the new Housing Element. Flats should be preserved in their original configuration. This property on Washington Street is two legal units in a High Resource Neighborhood. Units, Flats, housing all over the City was lost.not just in Noe Valley but everywhere in the last decade. It is also a prime example of the insane speculation that went on in our City after 2012. Here is a brief summary but please feel free to look at the attachments yourself. 1. Per Redfin 3149-3151 Washington Street went on the Market on 7/7/2013 for $1.995M. 2. It sold less than one month later on 8/2/2013 for $2.855M. 3. Apparently the only Staff review other than the PIC was for windows. There was no review by the Planning Commission. 4. There are several Site Permits the most important one being for the <U+201C>reconfiguration<U+201D> of the units which is BPA #201504143544. There was no Addenda for this permit per the DBI Tracking. 5. The CFC was issued 6/2/2017 so the original Flats were unoccupied for four years. 6. This was developed by an LLC that had speculative web in many other high-end projects around the City. 7. The link to the Socketsite article gives the rest of the story with pictures, including the <U+201C>guest suite<U+201D> at 2149 Washington Street. Again, if any progress is to be made on the <U+201C>housing crisis<U+201D>, under the new Housing Element then housing must also be preserved and one tool is codifying the Residential Flat Policy to preserve Flats in their existing configuration. Thank you, Georgia Schuttish https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://socketsite.com/archives/2023/04/refined-pac-heights-home-reduced-nearly-to-its-2017-era- price.html___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzoyYzA5YTg2Zjc0OGE0YjI0MThiNjUyNzQwZmJkZjQ0Mjo2OjE0Mjg6NmY1OTdiY2FkMjViZmI2NjQyNDNiZTM3ZGRlNjY2OGMxMDJkZDhkOWYzYzEwYjcyNTc1NmM1Nzc1NTRhZDM1MTp0OlQshow more

2023-05-04 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Steve Leeds · email · 2023-05-04 · oppose · source packet

Development without Displacement
Commissioners: My name is Steve Leeds of the West Side Tenants Association, which is a member of the Race and Equity In All Planning Coalition (REP-SF). We appreciate the hard work of Planning staff to mobilize the Equity Team for Housing Element implementation. I<U+2019>m very concerned about Development that enables Displacement. As REP and member orgs. have cautioned in previous hearings and in our communi… Commissioners: My name is Steve Leeds of the West Side Tenants Association, which is a member of the Race and Equity In All Planning Coalition (REP-SF). We appreciate the hard work of Planning staff to mobilize the Equity Team for Housing Element implementation. I<U+2019>m very concerned about Development that enables Displacement. As REP and member orgs. have cautioned in previous hearings and in our communications to Planning, this Housing Element has the potential to cause massive displacement - basically Redevelopment 2.0 but on a vastly larger scale.The Mayor<U+2019>s legislation is proposing to relax demolition controls everywhere except for Priority Equity Geographies. REP, along with tenant advocates, are extremely concerned about this. We have consistently recommended a conditional use authorization hearing process for every development that proposes to demolish existing residential units. Planning itself has acknowledged in Housing Element Actions 2.1.4, and 4.2.8 the rezoning process will cause increased displacement, rolling out the red carpet for predatory real estate. Instead of prioritizing developer giveaways, I strongly urge that Planning focuses on and anti-displacement strategies and affordable housing. Truly affordable housing must be the priority without mass displacement. The Mayor<U+2019>s directive has accelerated the timeline for rezonings, moving them up from 3 years to 1 year. This is very disturbing. In order to prevent widespread displacement, the minimum the City can do is prioritize putting strong eviction protections in place and ensuring all networks of support, capacity, and funding are set up to support tenants at risk of displacement well before proceeding with the rezonings. We must prioritize our most vulnerable and marginalized communities, prevent mass displacement, promote deep affordability first, community input by those most impacted, and remember that SF must be a city that serves people of all racial and economic backgrounds. The Housing Element must include and and honor the expertise of our communities as documented thoroughly in REP-SF's Citywide People's Plan. Thank you. Steve Leeds Inner Sunset - D7 residentshow more

2023-06-15 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

(name not recorded) · email · 2023-06-15 · oppose · source packet

Tenants Union Opposes Mayors Streamlining Ordinance
Dear Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, Please see our attached statement about the Mayor's streamlining ordinance, also included as in-line text below: We write to express our extreme concern with the Mayor/Engardio Streamlining legislation (file 230446). This legislation is a disaster-in-the-making for tenants and affordable rents. It will encourage the destruction of precious rent-controlled buildi… Dear Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, Please see our attached statement about the Mayor's streamlining ordinance, also included as in-line text below: We write to express our extreme concern with the Mayor/Engardio Streamlining legislation (file 230446). This legislation is a disaster-in-the-making for tenants and affordable rents. It will encourage the destruction of precious rent-controlled buildings and encourage permanent displacement of tenants. It is clear that this ordinance was written with no input from knowledgeable tenants rights advocates or eviction defense attorneys. (YIMBYs do not count as tenant advocates, despite their claims.) Our concerns are as follows: ONE: The <U+201C>tenant protections<U+201D> of this legislation rely on an unworkable Right of Return fantasy. In our experience, when tenants are displaced by an event like fire, flooding, or large capital improvements they almost never get to return despite their right to do so. Either construction takes so long they give up or the owner is deceptive and does not invite them back. The city does not have a tracking system, so we have no idea how many tenants have been lost while having a Right of Return. Additionally, the Right of Return in this legislation is even weaker than our own local laws and even the state law, SB 330 it is modeled after, as it only applies to low-income households instead of all tenants displaced by construction. The San Francisco Rent Ordinance does not distinguish between income classes of tenants when they are forced out for a temporary relocation due to construction. TWO: There is no guarantee the replacement units will remain rental units. In a recent CUA for 228 Vicksburg, the Planning Commission approved the demolition of two rent-controlled units using SB 330 and its requirement for replacement units to justify their discretionary decision. Subsequently, a permit (202007099901) has been issued to create three ownership condominium units, so there are no rentals to which displaced tenants can return. Technically, 228 Vicksburg<U+2019>s ownership units may be deed restricted as rent-controlled if ever rented, but we all know this is highly unlikely and in the meantime any tenants with a Right of Return could wait decades before an owner rents out their units. Then you will have the problem of which displaced household gets to return if there is only one unit. This outcome of replacing one class of residents with a higher class will become inevitable; it is by-design from the real estate industry lobbyists who co-wrote SB 330 and who salivate over the chance to demolish rent-controlled buildings. Speculators will create more expensive condominiums while politicians and residents continue to lament the need for affordable rents in the city, and no one who supports this legislation now will take responsibility for their lack of foresight. The reality is that there is no agency or department in this city responsible for tracking and notifying previous tenants when replacement units are constructed and up for rent again. So how are the previous tenants supposed to know that they can return to the units they were displaced from Furthermore, future tenants will have to magically know to look up the Deed of Trust somehow which is a complicated process. The rent-controlled status of a unit is not readily available on Planning<U+2019>s Property Information Map despite it being part of a Planning Commission decision. 228 Vicksburg<U+2019>s redfin.com advertisement does not mention the deed restrictions in any way so the sellers can get maximum price. THREE: Without CUAs and DRs there will be no chance to expose owners lies on planning applications. We have contacted the Planning Department about many projects that will impact present or former tenants due to omissions and falsehoods on pre-applications. A common staff response we heard is that the planning staff is not responsible for interpreting the rent ordinance but an aggrieved tenant can always use the Rent Board to sort it out. This answer is not good enough. And shows no understanding of what the Rent Board can actually do. The Planning Department has a duty to verify the accuracy of applications and have a process to actually protect <U+201C>protected units.<U+201D> Licensed architects submitting drawings of existing conditions should not be allowed to omit unauthorized dwelling units or label them deceptively as <U+201C>media rooms<U+201D> and face no consequences. There should be site visits. Fraudulent schematics should be reported to the state licensing board and the sponsor<U+2019>s applications should be rejected immediately. Instead, we have seen planning staff all the way up to Director Hillis work overtime to fix flawed applications to benefit project sponsors. At 247 Texas St, they even allowed the sponsor<U+2019>s attorney Scott Emblidge to edit directly a staff report (forgetting to turn off <U+201C>track changes<U+201D> ) before the document headed to the Planning Commission, which strikes us as quite inappropriate given his past employment with the city attorney<U+2019>s office. The Commission<U+2019>s very flawed decision was thankfully overturned by the Board of Supervisors who disallowed the destruction <U+201C>protected units<U+201D> when it was the job of the Planning Department to do so under SB 330. Often times, developers and architects misrepresent properties that appear to be single-family home but have an Unauthorized Dwelling Unit (UDU) because then both units would be rent-controlled. Tenants in these concealed UDUs are forced out while the Planning Department looks the other way to the developers<U+2019> deceit and refuses to verify their claims by performing on-site visits. Such was the case of 4118 21st Street where an elderly long-term tenant was forced out from the UDU she had rented for decades. None of this would have come to light if it weren<U+2019>t for the CUA that was filed only after the developer had demolished the building illegally. FOUR: No faith in the Planning Department when it comes to Tenant Protections. The Planning Department staff lacks common Rent Ordinance knowledge and has made mistakes about the status of <U+201C>protected units<U+201D> over and over in our observation. The Planning Department only recently acknowledged that Unauthorized Dwelling Units in pre-1979 structures are rent controlled despite years of our organization pointing out this basic knowledge which we teach our trainees on the first day. Even your assigned city attorney counsel will not advise you on anything about the Rent Ordinance despite the numerous ways it interacts with the Planning Code. At our urging, the department created a staff position that is supposed to bridge the world of tenant law and the planning code, but that person rarely attends commission hearings. We are puzzled as to what their role is if they do not come to advise the commission or train other planners on how to identify rent-controlled units, such as the protected status of the UDU at 45 Bernard St that was missed in DR, by David Winslow whom we view as highly competent otherwise. The fact is that the Planning Department bears the responsibility for tenants displacement when they approve projects based on developers<U+2019> fraudulent claims about the existing conditions of properties and they continue to deny responsibility for their role in displacement. The Department<U+2019>s sympathies with speculators was on full display when they made the appalling staff recommendation to remove the piddly one-year ownership requirement from Supervisor Melgar<U+2019>s Family Housing Opportunity legislation arguing for speculation which was thankfully rejected by cooler heads. FIVE: CEQA Protections are not just for privileged homeowners. Last month, the case of 2861-2899 San Bruno Avenue where 40 tenants currently face displacement from illegally constructed units was before the Planning Commission. Among other issues, new information came to light about the presence of toxins found in depths ranging from 2 to 7 feet. The developer had not only built additional units without the benefit of inspection, but also ignored the cleanup order issued by the Department of Public Health to remove toxins on a site that was previously occupied by a gas station. Removing CEQA review to save time and money for construction of new units will put tenants at risk of inhabiting properties built on hazardous sites. Without CEQA reviews, hazardous conditions will not be disclosed and mitigated at the time of construction. Potential buyers of such properties have access to numerous disclosures required by law but tenants don<U+2019>t and this will only result in more victims similar to those 40 tenants. The city desperately needs to preserve affordable rents and it is inscribed in the Housing Element as a priority. We urge the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to not support this poorly drafted legislation and cause more existing tenants displacement to score a few points with the YIMBYs and developers. Please stand up for existing tenants and rent-control and send this poorly conceived legislation into the trash can. We thank you very much for your time, San Francisco Tenants Union 558 Capp Street <U+2022> San Francisco CA <U+2022> 94110 <U+2022> [phone removed] <U+2022> www.sftu.org Dear Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, We write to express our extreme concern with the Mayor/Engardio Streamlining legislation (file 230446). This legislation is a disaster-in-the-making for tenants and affordable rents. It will encourage the destruction of precious rent-controlled buildings and encourage permanent displacement of tenants. It is clear that this ordinance was written with no input from knowledgeable tenants rights advocates or eviction defense attorneys. (YIMBYs do not count as tenant advocates, despite their claims.) Our concerns are as follows: ONE: The <U+201C>tenant protections<U+201D> of this legislation rely on an unworkable Right of Return fantasy. In our experience, when tenants are displaced by an event like fire, flooding, or large capital improvements they almost never get to return despite their right to do so. Either construction takes so long they give up or the owner is deceptive and does not invite them back. The city does not have a tracking system, so we have no idea how many tenants have been lost while having a Right of Return. Additionally, the Right of Return in this legislation is even weaker than our own local laws and even the state law, SB 330 it is modeled after, as it only applies to low-income households instead of all tenants displaced by construction. The San Francisco Rent Ordinance does not distinguish between income classes of tenants when they are forced out for a temporary relocation due to construction. TWO: There is no guarantee the replacement units will remain rental units. In a recent CUA for 228 Vicksburg, the Planning Commission approved the demolition of two rent-controlled units using SB 330 and its requirement for replacement units to justify their discretionary decision. Subsequently, a permit (202007099901) has been issued to create three ownership condominium units, so there are no rentals to which displaced tenants can return. Technically, 228 Vicksburg<U+2019>s ownership units may be deed restricted as rent-controlled if ever rented, but we all know this is highly unlikely and in the meantime any tenants with a Right of Return could wait decades before an owner rents out their units. Then you will have the problem of which displaced household gets to return if there is only one unit. This outcome of replacing one class of residents with a higher class will become inevitable; it is by-design from the real estate industry lobbyists who co-wrote SB 330 and who salivate over the chance to demolish rent-controlled buildings. Speculators will create more expensive condominiums while politicians and residents continue to lament the need for affordable rents in the city, and no one who supports this legislation now will take responsibility for their lack of foresight. The reality is that there is no agency or department in this city responsible for tracking and notifying previous tenants when replacement units are constructed and up for rent again. So how are the previous tenants supposed to know that they can return to the units they were displaced from Furthermore, future tenants will have to magically know to look up the Deed of Trust somehow which is a complicated process. The rent-controlled status of a unit is not readily available on Planning<U+2019>s Property Information Map despite it being part of a Planning Commission decision. 228 Vicksburg<U+2019>s redfin.com advertisement does not mention the deed restrictions in any way so the sellers can get maximum price. THREE: Without CUAs and DRs there will be no chance to expose owners lies on planning applications. We have contacted the Planning Department about many projects that will impact present or former tenants due to omissions and falsehoods on pre-applications. A common staff response we heard is that the planning staff is not responsible for interpreting the rent ordinance but an aggrieved tenant can always use the Rent Board to sort it out. This answer is not good enough. And shows no understanding of what the Rent Board can actually do. The Planning Department has a duty to verify the accuracy of applications and have a process to actually protect <U+201C>protected units.<U+201D> Licensed architects submitting drawings of existing conditions should not be allowed to omit unauthorized dwelling units or label them deceptively as <U+201C>media rooms<U+201D> and face no consequences. There should be site visits. Fraudulent schematics should be reported to the state licensing board and the sponsor<U+2019>s applications should be rejected immediately. Instead, we have seen planning staff all the way up to Director Hillis work overtime to fix flawed applications to benefit project sponsors. At 247 Texas St, they even allowed the sponsor<U+2019>s attorney Scott Emblidge to edit directly a staff report (forgetting to turn off <U+201C>track changes<U+201D> ) before the document headed to the Planning Commission, which strikes us as quite inappropriate given his past employment with the city attorney<U+2019>s office. The Commission<U+2019>s very flawed decision was thankfully overturned by the Board of Supervisors who disallowed the destruction <U+201C>protected units<U+201D> when it was the job of the Planning Department to do so under SB 330. Often times, developers and architects misrepresent properties that appear to be single-family home but have an Unauthorized Dwelling Unit (UDU) because then both units would be rent-controlled. Tenants in these concealed UDUs are forced out while the Planning Department looks the other way to the developers<U+2019> deceit and refuses to verify their claims by performing on-site visits. Such was the case of 4118 21st Street where an elderly long-term tenant was forced out from the UDU she had rented for decades. None of this would have come to light if it weren<U+2019>t for the CUA that was filed only after the developer had demolished the building illegally. FOUR: No faith in the Planning Department when it comes to Tenant Protections. The Planning Department staff lacks common Rent Ordinance knowledge and has made mistakes about the status of <U+201C>protected units<U+201D> over and over in our observation. The Planning Department only recently acknowledged that Unauthorized Dwelling Units in pre-1979 structures are rent controlled despite years of our organization pointing out this basic knowledge which we teach our trainees on the first day. Even your assigned city attorney counsel will not advise you on anything about the Rent Ordinance despite the numerous ways it interacts with the Planning Code. At our urging, the department created a staff position that is supposed to bridge the world of tenant law and the planning code, but that person rarely attends commission hearings. We are puzzled as to what their role is if they do not come to advise the commission or train other planners on how to identify rent-controlled units, such as the protected status of the UDU at 45 Bernard St that was missed in DR, by David Winslow whom we view as highly competent otherwise. The fact is that the Planning Department bears the responsibility for tenants displacement when they approve projects based on developers<U+2019> fraudulent claims about the existing conditions of properties and they continue to deny responsibility for their role in displacement. The Department<U+2019>s sympathies with speculators was on full display when they made the appalling staff recommendation to remove the piddly one-year ownership requirement from Supervisor Melgar<U+2019>s Family Housing Opportunity legislation arguing for speculation which was thankfully rejected by cooler heads. FIVE: CEQA Protections are not just for privileged homeowners. Last month, the case of 2861-2899 San Bruno Avenue where 40 tenants currently face displacement from illegally constructed units was before the Planning Commission. Among other issues, new information came to light about the presence of toxins found in depths ranging from 2 to 7 feet. The developer had not only built additional units without the benefit of inspection, but also ignored the cleanup order issued by the Department of Public Health to remove toxins on a site that was previously occupied by a gas station. Removing CEQA review to save time and money for construction of new units will put tenants at risk of inhabiting properties built on hazardous sites. Without CEQA reviews, hazardous conditions will not be disclosed and mitigated at the time of construction. Potential buyers of such properties have access to numerous disclosures required by law but tenants don<U+2019>t and this will only result in more victims similar to those 40 tenants. The city desperately needs to preserve affordable rents and it is inscribed in the Housing Element as a priority. We urge the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to not support this poorly drafted legislation and cause more existing tenants displacement to score a few points with the YIMBYs and developers. Please stand up for existing tenants and rent-control and send this poorly conceived legislation into the trash can. We thank you very much for your time, San Francisco Tenants Unionshow more

2023-06-29 · 3 comments · 3 / 0

Dori Ganetsos · email · 2023-06-29 · support · source packet

Constraints Reduction Ordinance - Letter of Support and Technical Assistance
Good morning, Please find attached a Letter of Support and Technical Assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the proposed <U+201C>Constraints Reduction (AKA Housing Production) Ordinance,<U+201D> which is currently scheduled for a hearing in front of the Planning Commission on June 29, 2023. If you have any questions, I can be reached at [email removed]… Good morning, Please find attached a Letter of Support and Technical Assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the proposed <U+201C>Constraints Reduction (AKA Housing Production) Ordinance,<U+201D> which is currently scheduled for a hearing in front of the Planning Commission on June 29, 2023. If you have any questions, I can be reached at [email removed]. Sincerely, Dori Dori Ganetsos (she/her) Senior Specialist - Special Projects Housing Policy Development Division California Department of Housing & Community Development STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 [phone removed] / FAX [phone removed] www.hcd.ca.gov June 16, 2023 San Francisco Planning Commission City and County of San Francisco 49 South Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94103 Dear Commissioners: RE: Constraints Reduction (AKA Housing Production) Ordinance <U+2013> Letter of Support and Technical Assistance The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) understands that the Planning Commission will soon hold a public hearing to consider a proposed <U+201C>Constraints Reduction Ordinance<U+201D> (Ordinance), as released to the public on June 15, 2023. The purpose of this letter is to express HCD<U+2019>s support for the Ordinance and provide technical assistance to the City and County of San Francisco (City) in making a decision on this Ordinance. The Ordinance would amend the Planning Code to remove some constraints to housing production as a step towards implementing the City<U+2019>s adopted housing element, in compliance with State Housing Element Law.1 Moreover, the proposed revisions would better align the Planning Code with the goals of State Density Bonus Law2 and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).3 Background California<U+2019>s Statewide Housing Plan calls for the state to act with urgency to address homelessness and housing need.4 California needs an additional 2.5 million homes, one million of which must be affordable to lower-income households, over this eight- 1 Gov. Code, 65585 2 Gov. Code, 65915-65918 3 Gov. Code, 8899.50 4 Department of Housing and Community Development. <U+201C>A Home for Every Californian: 2022 Statewide Housing Plan Update.<U+201D> Statewide Housing Plan, Mar. 2022, available at https://statewide-housing-plan-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/. San Francisco Planning Commission Page 2 year regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) cycle.5 San Francisco<U+2019>s 6th cycle RHNA is 82,069 units.6 State Housing Element Law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development.7 HCD is responsible for reviewing the housing elements of all cities and counties in California for compliance with State Housing Element Law.8 Once HCD finds an adopted housing element to be in compliance with State Housing Element Law, the jurisdiction must work towards implementing the housing element. If HCD finds that a local jurisdiction has failed to implement a program included in the housing element, HCD may, after informing the local jurisdiction and providing a reasonable time to respond, revoke its finding of compliance until it determines that the jurisdiction has come into compliance.9 According to Annual Progress Report data provided by cities and counties, San Francisco has the longest timelines in the state for advancing housing projects to construction. The City also has among the highest housing and construction costs, and HCD<U+2019>s Housing Accountability Unit has received more complaints about San Francisco than any other local jurisdiction in the state. Last year, HCD announced its San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review to assess how the City<U+2019>s processes and political decision-making delay and impede the creation of housing at all income levels <U+2013> and to provide recommendations to address these barriers. In addition, after providing significant technical assistance to the City, including on the development of robust programs to facilitate housing production at all income levels, on February 1, 2023, HCD found the City<U+2019>s adopted housing element in compliance with State Housing Element Law. HCD also committed to working with San Francisco to identify and clear roadblocks to construction of all types of housing and has actively engaged with City staff as they have worked towards this goal over the past year through both the Policy and Practice Review and the City<U+2019>s housing element. Approving this ordinance would mark an important first step towards both facilitating the construction of housing and implementing the adopted housing element. 5 Ibid. 6 FINAL REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) PLAN: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, available at https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 12/Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf 7 Gov. Code, 65580 8 Gov. Code, 65585, subd. (b) 9 Gov. Code, 65585, subd. (i)(1)(A)-(B) San Francisco Planning Commission Page 3 Proposed Ordinance and Housing Element Implementation HCD<U+2019>s determination that the City<U+2019>s adopted housing element complies with State Housing Element Law was based in substantial part on the City<U+2019>s programmatic commitments to amend the Planning Code in a way that would reduce discretionary and procedural processes, standardize zoning and land use requirements, permit group housing broadly throughout the City, and increase financial feasibility for housing projects. The proposed changes in the Ordinance would fully or partially satisfy some of the housing element<U+2019>s commitments (set forth as Actions) ahead of the timeframes provided in the housing element, including, but not limited to the following: <U+2022> Reduce discretionary processes and neighborhood notification requirements for certain code-compliant housing projects (Action 8.4.17), including requests for Reasonable Accommodation (Action 6.3.10), such as: o Allowing all Reasonable Accommodation Requests to be processed without a hearing in front of the Zoning Administrator (Planning Code Section 305.1) o Removing neighborhood notification requirements and requests for discretionary review for projects that will demolish, construct, or alter dwelling units outside of the Priority Equity Geographies Special Use District (Planning Code Section 311) <U+2022> Remove Conditional Use Authorization (CU) requirements for the following conditions in housing projects (Actions 8.4.8, 8.4.9, and 8.4.10): o Buildings taller than 40 feet (Planning Code Section 209.1) and 50 feet (Planning Code Sections 132.2 and 209.2) o Buildings that previously required CU after a certain height or a setback after a certain height (Planning Code Sections 253-253.3) o Residential projects on large lots in all RH zoning districts at densities based on the square footage of the lot (Planning Code Section 209.1) o Demolition of residential units meeting certain criteria outside of the Priority Equity Geographies Special Use District (Planning Code Section 317) <U+2022> Permit group housing broadly throughout the City and streamlining approvals for group housing projects (Actions 7.2.6), including: o Modifying the definition of a <U+201C>dwelling unit<U+201D> to allow employee housing for up to six employees in alignment with Health and Safety Code section 17021.5 (Planning Code Section 102) o Principally permitting group housing in all zoning districts (at one unit per 415 square feet of lot area in all districts other than the RH-1 zoning district, where group housing is allowed subject to the fourplex bonus program controls) (Planning Code Section 209.1) <U+2022> Remove Planning Commission hearings for program-compliant State Density Bonus projects (Action 8.5.2), including: San Francisco Planning Commission Page 4 o Exempting Individually Requested State Density Bonus projects from other underlying entitlements related to the proposed housing, such as a CU or a Large Project Authorization (Planning Code Section 206.6) o Allowing the Planning Director to approve requests for a concession, incentive, waiver, or modification made for an Individually Requested State Density Bonus project (Planning Code Section 206.6) <U+2022> Modify the requirements for the HOME-SF program and entitlement process (Action 7.2.9), including: o Eliminating environmental criteria such as historic resource, shadow, and wind for qualifying HOME-SF projects (Planning Code Section 206.3) o Allowing for demolition of up to one unit for HOME-SF projects (Planning Code Section 206.3) <U+2022> Standardize and simplify Planning Code requirements for housing developments (Actions 8.3.3 and 8.4.11), including: o Standardizing the minimum lot size to 1,200 square feet and lot width to 20 feet (Planning Code Section 121) o Allowing lot mergers in RTO zoning districts (Planning Code Section 121.7) o Ease exposure and open space requirements for inner courts (Planning Code Section 135) <U+2022> Increase financial feasibility for affordable housing projects (Actions 1.3.9 and 8.6.1), including: o Expanding the Impact Fee exemption to a housing project with units affordable up to 120 percent of the Area Median Income (Planning Code Section 406) o Allowing 100 percent affordable housing projects utilizing State Density Bonus Law to be eligible for Impact Fee waivers (Planning Code Section 406) By implementing the above programs, as well as other Planning Code changes put forward in the Ordinance, the City can increase certainty of approval for a wider range of housing projects, thus reducing the risk associated with building housing in San Francisco. The City<U+2019>s adopted housing element acknowledges that this risk translates to higher housing costs, affirming that <U+201C>regulatory code and permitting processes direct housing to respond to City priorities, and that the overall system can be simplified and more accessible, that community-led strategies support systematic approaches rather than project-by-project decision-making, and that the cumulative effect of complex entitlement and post-entitlement permitting is making the process uncertain and even more expensive.<U+201D>10 The Ordinance would begin to address various local roadblocks to housing approval and construction. 10 2022 Update: San Francisco Housing Element, Page 133, Program 8: Reducing Constraints on Housing Development, Maintenance, and Improvements, available at https://sfhousingelement.org/final-draft-housing-element-2022-update-clean San Francisco Planning Commission Page 5 A housing element is not a paper exercise <U+2013> it is an enforceable commitment to the state that a city or county will take specific actions on specific timeframes over an eight- year period. The implementation of actions in the City<U+2019>s housing element helps ensure compliance with State Housing Element Law, specifically the City<U+2019>s obligation to <U+201C>implement program actions included in the housing element....<U+201D>11 Recommending adoption of this Ordinance would represent an important step towards fulfilling the City<U+2019>s obligations under State Housing Element Law, and would also further the laudable Goals, Objectives, and Policies around which the City<U+2019>s housing element is centered.12 Conclusion The State of California is in a housing crisis, and the provision of housing at all income levels is a priority of the highest order. HCD encourages the Planning Commission to recommend adoption of the Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors. San Francisco<U+2019>s work does not end here. Additional changes and actions may be necessary for the City to fully implement the programs specified in this letter, and further actions will be needed to implement other programs in the City<U+2019>s housing element. HCD will continue to monitor the City<U+2019>s progress towards housing element implementation, and to work with the City on addressing findings in the Policy and Practice Review. HCD appreciates the challenges and various factors the City is considering in these important land use decisions and looks forward to following San Francisco<U+2019>s progress towards housing element implementation. If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or would like additional technical assistance regarding housing element implementation, please contact Dori Ganetsos at [email removed]. Sincerely, Melinda Coy Proactive Housing Accountability Chief cc: Rich Hillis, Planning Director Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs 11 Gov. Code, 65585, subd. (i)(1)(A) 12 2022 Update <U+2013> San Francisco Housing Element, available at https://sfhousingelement.org/final-draft-housingelement-2022-update-clean Work Cell: [phone removed]show more

Christopher Pederson · email · 2023-06-29 · support · source packet

Planning Comm. agenda item 13 - Constraints Reduction aka Housing Production Ordinance (2023- 003676PCAMAP)
Dear President Tanner and Commissioners: I urge the Planning Commission to approve the proposed Constraints Reduction ordinance. San Francisco faces daunting tasks to lessen the housing crisis, to address the climate crisis, and to keep the promises it made in the recently adopted Housing Element. The proposed ordinance is an important step towards accomplishing all of those tasks. Currently multifamily housing proje… show more

Zoe Siegel · email · 2023-06-29 · support · source packet

Support for Item F13 6/29 Planning Commission
Hello, In advance of the 6/29 Planning Commission meeting, Greenbelt Alliance wanted to share our support for the Housing For All Legislation (Item F13). This legislation is an important and necessary step towardmeeting our housing and climate goals. We hope the swift approval of this legislation will inspire cities around the Bay Area to redouble their efforts to grow smartly. Please see our attached letter of suppo… Hello, In advance of the 6/29 Planning Commission meeting, Greenbelt Alliance wanted to share our support for the Housing For All Legislation (Item F13). This legislation is an important and necessary step towardmeeting our housing and climate goals. We hope the swift approval of this legislation will inspire cities around the Bay Area to redouble their efforts to grow smartly. Please see our attached letter of support. Regards, Zoe -- Zoe Siegel (she/her/hers) Director of Climate Resilience | Greenbelt Alliance [phone removed] | Let's connect on LinkedIn | @thezoesiegel Schedule a meeting with me through Calendly Greenbelt Alliance is Celebrating 65 Years of Protecting People and Nature! Learn about our legacy and special events at greenbelt.org/65years | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram June 27th, 2023 San Francisco Planning Commission RE: Support for Housing for All Legislation Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, For over 60 years, Greenbelt Alliance has helped create cities and neighborhoods that make the Bay Area a better place to live<U+2014>healthy places where people can walk and bike; communities with parks, shops, transportation options; homes that are aordable and resilient to the impacts of climate change. Greenbelt Alliance<U+2019>s Climate SMART<U+2014>Sustainable, Mixed, Aordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented<U+2014>Development Endorsement Program provides support for projects that advance the right kind of development in the right places. By promoting climate-smart development we can create thriving, resilient neighborhoods with ready access to transit and housing choices for all of the Bay Area<U+2019>s people. After careful review, Greenbelt Alliance is pleased to support the Housing For All Legislation This legislation is a critical step towards enacting the Housing Element<U+2019>s ambitious housing goals and meeting the City<U+2019>s obligations under state law.This is a once in a decade moment for San Francisco to make pivotal progress on climate change and fair housing by developing a comprehensive housing policy legislation that can advance a range of actions across the "3 Ps" (Produce, Preserve, and Protect). We appreciate the actions San Francisco has taken in recent years to advance aordable housing; however it's not enough. This legislation will help San Francisco meet the obligations set forth in the housing element or else risk loss of state aordable housing and transportation funding - potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding is at stake. This legislation is an excellent opportunity for San Francisco to mitigate climate change, reduce negative environmental impacts, and ensure funding is secured to expand aordable housing production. In California, about 40% of climate pollution comes from transportation, the bulk of that from gasoline and diesel-burning vehicles on our roads. Building more of the right housing in the right places can mitigate climate impacts and reduce housing costs and inequities. But in order to do this we need to change the way we build: as we encourage and engage in equitable, re-safe inll development, it is imperative that we think about how we can really maximize the benets that we<U+2019>re getting from our land. We need to build more inll housing in existing urban areas and that inll housing <U+2014> and all housing <U+2014> needs to include a healthy amount of green 1 infrastructure like Low Impact Development Bioswales, carbon sequestering trees that provide canopy cover and can mitigate the urban heat island eect, native plants that can provide habitat, and other nature-based solutions to mitigate climate risks. We believe that by adjusting zoning and development standards strategically, San Francisco can exercise maximum control over its future while also reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and addressing our climate, housing, and equity crises. This legislation will provide more certainty and reduce planning approval timelines for new housing projects by 3-9 months or more. By eliminating unnecessary processes, standardizing zoning requirements to make them more consistent and predictable, and boosting incentives for new aordable housing San Francisco can build more housing of all income levels and work towards reducing GhG emissions. Greenbelt Alliance believes that the San Francisco Housing Element plays a pivotal role in reimagining a more resilient and inclusive City for all residents to enjoy - but only if the commitments to boosting aordable housing, simplifying the approval process and xing technical code issues are met. This legislation is an important and necessary step toward those goals. We hope the approval of this legislation will inspire cities around the Bay Area to redouble their eorts to grow smartly. Sincerely, Zoe Siegel Director of Climate Resilience, Greenbelt Alliance 2show more

2023-07-13 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2023-07-13 · oppose · source packet

General Public Comment July 13th
Dear Commissioners: I am sure you all saw this article. (Two page pdf below) The renderings look so true-to-life. I think it raises several questions about these new structures once completed. Hypothetical of course, just as the detailed designs in the article are hypothetic. What housing did it replace? Was the original housing that it replaced, sound and livable? Was the new structure an addition to the origina… show more

2023-07-27 · 4 comments · 3 / 1

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2023-07-27 · oppose

Adjust demo calcs, codify the Residential Flat Policy

Jane Natoli · spoken · 2023-07-27 · support

Expand concept and not put housing in just one place

Adam Van Prooyen · spoken · 2023-07-27 · support

Encourage and incentivize zoning

Jake Price · spoken · 2023-07-27 · support

Don't focus on just transit corridors

2023-10-26 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

David Zisser · email · 2023-10-26 · oppose · source packet

San Francisco Housing Policy & Practice Review
Good morning, Please find attached the California Department of Housing and Community Development<U+2019>s San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review. This Review identifies barriers to housing approvals and construction in San Francisco and includes actions that the City must take to ensure that its housing approvals process is consistent with state housing laws, follows best practices, and facilitate… Good morning, Please find attached the California Department of Housing and Community Development<U+2019>s San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review. This Review identifies barriers to housing approvals and construction in San Francisco and includes actions that the City must take to ensure that its housing approvals process is consistent with state housing laws, follows best practices, and facilitates housing production at all income levels. The Policy and Practice Review is informed by extensive quantitative and qualitative research and analysis led by Moira O<U+2019>Neill, an Associate Research Scientist at UC Berkeley, and contained in an academic report that is also attached <U+2013> Examining Local Law, Policy, and Planning Practice on Development in San Francisco Using CALES, in Support of the San Francisco Policy and Practice Review. You can also find both documents linked here. HCD looks forward to working closely with the City to implement the actions in the Policy and Practice Review. Thank you, David Zisser Assistant Deputy Director Local Government Relations & Accountability Housing Policy Development Division 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 552 | Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone: [phone removed] Pronouns: he/him/his San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review California Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Policy Development Division Released October 2023 Table of Contents Introduction ..............................................................1 Statutory Authority for this Review ..........................1 Why Review San Francisco? ...................................2 Relationship of this Review to Other State and Local Efforts .......................................................4 State Housing Law Accountability and Enforcement ................................................ 5 Housing Element Review and Implementation ... 5 Local Efforts .......................................................... 6 Review Approach ....................................................7 Key Findings ..............................................................8 Inconsistencies with State Laws ......................... 8 Historic Inequities in Planning and Zoning Decisions .................................................. 9 Senate Bill 35 and Overall Affordability Trends .... 10 Problematic Local Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .... 12 Publicly Initiated Discretionary Review ............ 13 Public Hearings and Development by Negotiation ................................................... 13 San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 Procedural Complexities .................................. 13 Politics and Stakeholder Disagreements ........ 14 Required Actions ....................................................15 1. Eliminate Discretion and Subjectivity in Planning Review ............................................ 16 2. Reform Local California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Practices .................... 20 3. Reform the Local Administrative Appeals Process ........................................... 20 4. Expedite and Standardize the Post-Entitlement Permitting Process ............ 21 5. Increase Accountability and Transparency ... 22 Recommended Actions ........................................23 Conclusion and Next Steps ...................................26 Endnotes .................................................................27 Appendix A: Required Actions and Recommended Actions in Chronological Order..............................................30 Statutory Authority for this Review This Review was conducted in accordance with the powers conferred under Government Code section 11180 et seq., which gives HCD the authority to investigate and prosecute actions concerning all matters relating to the business activities and subjects under the jurisdiction of HCD, violations of any law or rule or order of HCD, and such other matters as may be provided by law. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the powers to inspect papers, books, accounts, documents, writings and records, hear complaints, administer oaths, issue subpoenas, propound interrogatories, take sworn testimony in connection with the authorized investigation, designate persons to serve subpoenas, and do all other things authorized under Government Code section 11180 et seq. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 1 Introduction This San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review (Review) is the first of its kind conducted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). It identifies, and seeks to remove, barriers to housing approvals and construction at all income levels. This Review includes Findings and Required Actions that San Francisco (City) must take to reform its housing approvals ecosystem and facilitate housing production and is informed by extensive quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. Implementing this Review<U+2019>s Required Actions, as mandated by San Francisco<U+2019>s adopted housing element and Housing Element Law, will ensure that San Francisco<U+2019>s housing approval policies and practices are consistent with state housing laws, follow best practices, and enable the City to facilitate housing production for residents at all income levels. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 2 Why Review San Francisco? California<U+2019>s Statewide Housing Plan calls for the state to act with urgency to address homelessness and housing need.1 California needs an additional 2.5 million homes, including one million homes affordable to lower-income households, over this eight-year regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) cycle.2 Every city and county must do its fair share to ensure that residents at all income levels have a home they can afford. Yet San Francisco stands out for several reasons. San Francisco has the longest timelines in the state for advancing a housing project from submittal to construction. According to self-reported Annual Progress Report (APR) data and prior research from the University of California, Berkeley (UCB), San Francisco has the longest timelines in the state for advancing a housing project from submittal to construction. According to 2022 APR data, it takes an average of 523 days for a housing project to be entitled, compared to 385 days for the next slowest jurisdiction in the state.3 It takes an average of 605 days for San Francisco to issue a building permit to an already entitled housing project, compared to 418 days in the next slowest jurisdiction.4 Independent research by UCB found that the median entitlement timeframe for development that conforms to San Francisco<U+2019>s local zoning and planning requirements is over two years, and that most development was entitled in the eastern portion of the City because that is where density and use controls allowed dense housing.5 Comparing similar code compliant developments in San Francisco and neighboring Oakland in terms of number of units, affordability, and neighborhood, San Francisco<U+2019>s entitlement processes took three years longer.6 If San Francisco<U+2019>s current rate of housing approvals and construction continues, the City will not meet its 6th Cycle RHNA goal. If San Francisco<U+2019>s current rate of housing approvals and construction continues, the City will not meet its 6th Cycle RHNA goal <U+2013> which, at 82,069 housing units, is the highest in the Bay Area region and one of the highest in the state.7 In order to meet its housing need, San Francisco must add 10,259 units of housing, including 5,825 affordable homes, each year through 2031.8 As depicted in Figure 1 on the next page, this is far above San Francisco<U+2019>s annual average housing numbers reported in APR data over the past five years: 4,076 homes constructed, including 1,162 affordable homes. Furthermore, according to data published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, San Francisco permitted just 179 new housing units through the first six months, or 181 days, of 2023 <U+2013> a rate of less than one unit per day.9 San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 3 FIGURE 1: COMPARISON OF CITY<U+2019>S PRIOR HOUSING CONSTRUCTION TO CURRENT RHNA 789 1,348 716 1,652 1,304 1,885 3,448 3,686 3,948 1,606 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Afordable Market Rate San Francisco Housing Completions Over the Past Five Years Compared to 2023-2031 Housing Need Annual Total Housing Need UNITS YEARS Annual Afordable Housing Need --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- Moreover, San Francisco is experiencing median rents that exceed $3,500 a month10 and has the highest construction costs in the state.11 In a 2020 study, the UCB Terner Center for Housing Innovation (Terner Center) found that while housing construction costs increased 25 percent over a 10-year period statewide, the Bay Area<U+2019>s construction costs increased 119 percent, reaching $380 per square foot in 2018.12 In a separate 2018 study by the Terner Center, development stakeholders unanimously agreed that <U+201C>the most significant and pointless factor driving up construction costs [in San Francisco] was the length of time it takes for a project to get through the city permitting and development processes.<U+201D>13 San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 4 Lastly, HCD<U+2019>s Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) has received more complaints about potential violations of state housing laws by San Francisco than any other jurisdiction. The HAU opened 20 cases in response to such complaints, followed next by Los Angeles and Berkeley with eleven cases each. San Francisco is an outlier on housing approvals, in part because of how it applies a blanket discretionary review process to all building permits.14 San Francisco<U+2019>s housing approval processes are also notoriously complex and cumbersome, creating unpredictability and uncertainty. This results in an environment where only the most seasoned development professionals benefit from knowing how to navigate the local processes, and barriers to entry are imposed for new developers.15 These findings invite more questions about San Francisco<U+2019>s local laws and planning practices, and about San Francisco<U+2019>s implementation of new state housing laws intended to spur housing production at all income levels and promote equity. Relationship of this Review to Other State and Local Efforts HCD announced this Review in August 2022. Along the way, this Review directly informed, and was informed by, HCD<U+2019>s other work, including the enforcement of state housing laws and the review of San Francisco<U+2019>s housing element. Policy & Practice Review Housing Element Review Accountability and Enforcement San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 5 State Housing Law Accountability and Enforcement HCD has statutory authority to enforce more than a dozen state housing laws to meaningfully and positively impact the provision of housing in California. In 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom created the Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) at HCD to provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions and hold them accountable for implementing state housing laws. When HCD receives a request for technical assistance or a complaint about a potential violation of state law, the HAU investigates the issue, provides technical assistance as appropriate, and escalates to enforcement, including referral to the California Office of the Attorney General, as necessary. During the course of this Review, the HAU sent seven letters to San Francisco pertaining to active cases, ranging from a Letter of Inquiry to a Notice of Violation of state housing law. Housing Element Review and Implementation HCD is also responsible for reviewing the housing elements of all 539 cities and counties in California for compliance with Housing Element Law, and for ensuring that local governments adopt <U+2013> and then implement <U+2013> plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development.16 After providing significant technical assistance to San Francisco, including supporting the development of robust programs to remove constraints and facilitate housing production at all income levels, on February 1, 2023, HCD found the City<U+2019>s adopted housing element in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law. San Francisco<U+2019>s adopted housing element includes three programs, or <U+201C>Actions,<U+201D> directly related to this Policy and Practice Review, with an implementation timeline of zero to two years: Action 8.8.1: <U+201C>Participate and perform data and process analysis as directed by mandatory Policy and Practice Review HCD scope and timeline.<U+201D>17 Action 8.8.2: <U+201C>Revise local process, procedures, and other relevant requirements to implement priority recommendations of HCD<U+2019>s finalized Policy and Practice Review.<U+201D>18 Action 8.8.3: <U+201C>Amend Housing Element, as needed, to include final actions required by outcomes of mandatory Policy and Practice Review HCD effort.<U+201D>19 Through the above Actions, San Francisco committed to addressing the findings of this Review and implementing HCD<U+2019>s <U+201C>Priority Recommendations,<U+201D> which this Review refers to as <U+201C>Required Actions.<U+201D> HCD continues to monitor San Francisco<U+2019>s implementation of its housing element to ensure that the programs and rezoning efforts identified are completed on time. A housing element is not a paper exercise <U+2013> it is an enforceable commitment to the state that a city or county will take specific actions on specific timeframes over an eight-year period. Once HCD finds an adopted housing element compliant with Housing Element Law, the jurisdiction must work towards implementing the housing element. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 6 If HCD finds that a jurisdiction failed to implement a program included in the housing element, HCD may, after informing the local jurisdiction and providing a reasonable time to respond, revoke its finding of compliance with Housing Element Law until it determines that the jurisdiction has come into compliance.20 The City<U+2019>s failure to implement the Required Actions will result in HCD initiating the process to revoke housing element compliance. Various consequences may apply if the City does not have a housing element in compliance with Housing Element Law, including ineligibility or delay in receiving certain state funds, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General,21 court-imposed financial penalties,22 the loss of local land use authority to a court-appointed agent,23 and the application of the <U+201C>builder<U+2019>s remedy.<U+201D>24 Local Efforts As HCD began this Policy and Practice Review, pursued housing accountability and enforcement actions, and provided technical assistance to bring the City<U+2019>s housing element into compliance with Housing Element Law, San Francisco began to rethink and revise its approach to housing approvals over the past year.25 San Francisco began to implement some of the Actions identified in the City<U+2019>s housing element, partially through Mayor London Breed<U+2019>s Housing for All Executive Directive, which directs City <U+201C>departments to remove barriers to housing construction, reform outdated zoning restrictions, and find long-term solutions for creating more affordable housing.<U+201D>26 In addition, on July 25, 2023, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the Housing Stimulus and Fee Reform Plan, lowering inclusionary housing requirements and reforming impact fees to increase financial feasibility for housing projects. Mayor Breed also introduced a <U+201C>Constraints Reduction Ordinance<U+201D> to implement a variety of Actions identified in San Francisco<U+2019>s housing element. HCD wrote a Letter of Support and Technical Assistance for this ordinance, which was sent to, and subsequently recommended for approval by, the Planning Commission. In July 2023, the San Francisco Planning Department also removed the requirement that most dense housing projects begin with a mandatory Preliminary Project Assessment (PPA) process that added, on average, a year to the application process.27 The City<U+2019>s failure to implement the Required Actions will result in HCD initiating the process to revoke housing element compliance. While these and other local efforts, spurred by state intervention, are beginning to change the status quo of housing review and approval in San Francisco, this Review finds that there is still much to be done. This Review reinforces the importance of continuing to implement the housing element, identifies existing housing element programs that San Francisco must prioritize and revise, and provides additional Required Actions that San Francisco must take to ensure that local laws and planning practices are consistent with state housing laws and will facilitate housing production at all income levels. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 7 Review Approach This Policy and Practice Review addresses the following research topics: 1. At the local level, are state housing laws (including the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act, Permit Streamlining Act, State Density Bonus Law, Senate Bill 35, and Housing Element Law) intended to promote housing production and affordability being fully implemented and are they achieving their intended effect? 2. What are the causes of delay in San Francisco<U+2019>s entitlement process? 3. To what extent do discretionary review processes impact overall project timelines and the housing approvals pipeline? To address these research topics, HCD contracted with a UCB research team led by Moira O<U+2019>Neill, Associate Research Scientist, to conduct an in-depth, year- long analysis of San Francisco<U+2019>s regulatory regime and entitlement practices. The UCB research builds upon prior studies of land use regulation in California <U+2013> led by O<U+2019>Neill and colleagues <U+2013> known as the Comprehensive Assessment of Land Use Entitlements Study (CALES). CALES uses various quantitative, qualitative, and spatial methods and data to understand and analyze how jurisdictions apply local and state law. Using this CALES methodology, the research team analyzed San Francisco<U+2019>s entitlement data for projects resulting in five or more housing units from 2014-2021. This Review includes data on 284 housing developments of five or more units of housing approved by the Planning Department. Each observation captures all available building characteristics, application, hearing, and approval data, resulting in over 300 variables per development. This Review also includes qualitative data from conversations with local stakeholders, including city staff, appointed and elected officials, community-based organizations, housing advocates, affordable developers, market-rate developers, attorneys, and others. HCD invited all members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (five out of 11 participated), Planning Commission (four out of seven participated), and Historic Preservation Commission (zero out of seven participated) to engage with this work. In total, HCD convened 33 stakeholder engagement sessions with approximately 146 participants, and UCB conducted additional in-depth confidential research interviews with 24 participants that HCD did not take part in. For more details on the specific research methods used in this study, and report findings, please refer to UCB<U+2019>s full academic report <U+2013> Examining Local Law, Policy and Planning Practice on Development in San Francisco using CALES, in support of the San Francisco Policy and Practice Review. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 8 Key Findings Based on the quantitative and qualitative research and analysis conducted by the UCB research team, specific Review findings include the following: Inconsistencies with State Laws 1. San Francisco<U+2019>s local rules around discretionary permitting and post-entitlement appeals prevent full implementation of the goals and aims of state housing laws. This includes two aspects of local law that impact procedural rules, existing planning practices, and zoning standards: (1) a provision in the City<U+2019>s Business and Tax Code that renders all permits discretionary,28 and (2) a Charter provision that the City interprets to allow for appeals of all permits, including post-entitlement permits. These both serve as major procedural constraints on housing production, including affordable production. 2. Post-entitlement practices impacting SB 35 projects are noncompliant with state laws. San Francisco<U+2019>s application of SB 35 does not resolve post-entitlement hurdles <U+2013> of which there are many. San Francisco<U+2019>s local rules block full implementation of SB 35 by allowing related post-entitlement permits to face subjective administrative appeals of ministerially approved affordable housing developments. 3. Application intake processes do not comply with the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) but have improved marginally over time in terms of tracking and making notifications publicly accessible. Though San Francisco Planning did not systematically meet PSA notification deadlines for entitlements issued through 2021, it appears the Planning Department is better situated to track the data to monitor its performance in this area. 4. Local rules require entitlement processes to begin before formal application submittal, even with recent changes to planning practices eliminating the Preliminary Project Assessment process, and to navigate multiple hurdles along the way to approval and eventual construction. 5. Subjective and vague Design Guidelines and other design standards and conditions of approval frustrate the Housing Accountability Act requirements for objective standards. 6. Planners and developers reported that the City<U+2019>s political bodies apply local rules in a way that signals they do not understand how state law limits their discretion in the area of State Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act. 7. The City<U+2019>s discretionary, subjective approvals process for large, code-compliant housing projects, including Eastern Neighborhoods (ENX) and Downtown Large Project Authorization (DNX), is inconsistent with the Housing Accountability Act requirements for objective standards. 8. The City<U+2019>s application of the Affordable Housing Fee, and Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program requirements, impose a fee on affordable units in contravention of State Density Bonus Law, and impermissibly penalize developers for utilizing State Density Bonus Law. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 9 Historic Inequities in Planning and Zoning Decisions 9. San Francisco<U+2019>s past planning and zoning practices created major inequities across San Francisco in terms of which neighborhoods would host the majority of the City<U+2019>s housing density and affordability. Stakeholders report that the City<U+2019>s response to its historic failure to engage communities, particularly vulnerable neighborhoods, during planning and zoning has been to increase process at the project-level. a. In theory, adding process at the individual project entitlement and permitting level allows groups without power to shape zoning to advocate for their neighborhood needs before a development is built. But stakeholders share that <U+201C>affluent NIMBYs<U+201D> can, and do, weaponize these process requirements to block housing. This approach has largely left the inequitable zoning map and planning regulations intact while also nurturing project-level disputes that constrain housing approval and production timelines and numbers. b. The consequence is that San Francisco underproduces housing citywide and concentrates nearly all production in the same neighborhoods, thus exacerbating existing conflicts over land use. 10. It is critical to codify community needs at the neighborhood planning level while creating a local ministerial (non-discretionary) process for code- compliant development at the project level if San Francisco is ever to meet its production requirements while also advancing housing equity. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 10 Senate Bill 35 and Overall Affordability Trends 11. A ministerial process like Senate Bill (SB) 35 is a fix to planning approval in San Francisco, with the median SB 35 project moving through the Planning Department in just 3.42 months, compared to two years (or longer) for non-SB 35 projects, demonstrating that with discretionary hurdles out of the way, San Francisco can approve projects quickly. FIGURE 2: PLANNING APPROVAL TIMEFRAME BY MOST INTENSE APPROVAL PATHWAY (2018-2021) SB 35 only (N=9) Discretionary Building Permit (BP) (N=17) PUD (N=2) SB 35 (All began as discretionary process) (N=7) Discretionary BP with Publicly Initiated DR request (N=4) Conditional Use Authorization (CUA) Only (N=17) DPA/LPA/SPA (N=15) Variance (by Zoning Administrator (ZA) (N=11) Variance with Exceptional DR (N=5) CUA plus (N=30) Map Amendment/General Plan Amendment (N=3) Development Agreement (N=4) Variance by Planning Commission (N=1) Median Months to Entitlement 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 46.68 42.16 42.08 39.68 39.48 36 35.67 35.05 32.33 29.39 24.53 24.2 3.42 Median Planning Approval Timeframe by Most Intense Approval Pathway Years 2018-2021 San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 11 12. Before SB 35, nearly three out of every four affordable units entitled came through the City<U+2019>s inclusionary housing program, but SB 35 changed that trend in 2018-2021. Very few units in the earlier years of study came through 100 percent affordable developments. Affordable developers reported that SB 35 and State Density Bonus Law were critical to creating opportunity for more 100 percent affordable developments, which in turn shifted the distribution of what types of development (mixed-income or 100 percent affordable development) occurred in the years following SB 35<U+2019>s enactment, though implementation <U+2013> particularly for State Density Bonus Law <U+2013> was bumpy. FIGURE 3: PERCENT OF AFFORDABLE UNITS APPROVED BY PLANNING BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE 74% 38% 26% 62% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2014-2017 2018-2021 100% Afordable Mixed-Income Years 13. Affordable developers said that SB 35 and State Density Bonus Law were essential to increase financial feasibility and certainty of getting through onerous planning review processes, and the data bears this out. Nearly all developments that benefit from SB 35 also rely on State Density Bonus Law to increase the number of affordable units offered. FIGURE 4: NUMBER OF 100% AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED BY PLANNING* 74% 2014-2017 2018-2021 SB 35 + State Density Bonus Non-SB 35 4 0 5 10 15 20 14 5 Years *There is one project not included in this graph that could be counted as an SB 35 + State Density Bonus development based on data from the Department of Building Inspection, but planning data is unclear. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 12 project approvals. This seems to encourage planners to make environmental review determinations late in the planning review process, either when all other approvals are done or in conjunction with other approvals, even when the entitlement solely requires a CEQA exemption. The problem with this approach to environmental planning review is that it limits the PSA<U+2019>s effect on overall entitlement timelines because the <U+201C>clock<U+201D> on entitlement timelines for qualifying development does not begin before the environmental review documentation is complete.30 17. Planners report that they are more fearful of scrutiny in front of the City<U+2019>s appointed and elected bodies than of CEQA litigation. Environmental planners feel confident their work would survive judicial scrutiny, but administrative appeals are easy to file and create problems for planning practice even if they are withdrawn or denied. Appeals, even if withdrawn, impact staff time and capacity <U+2013> administrative appeals, on average, added 20 days of staff review time to the developments in our dataset and cost the Planning Department approximately $100,000 a year to prepare for. This changes the workflow for the entire division, as environmental planners shift priorities and work to prepare for the appeal hearing. These appeals also add costs to the project proponents in the form of holding costs and added risk. 14. Developers shared that the inclusionary program<U+2019>s on-site and fee requirements were difficult to meet and discouraged development, and the data bears this out. There were more smaller market-rate developments in the later years (2018-2021) that were below the inclusionary housing program<U+2019>s unit threshold. It is important to note that the inclusionary thresholds were much lower in the years leading to 2014-2017 entitlements. Because fully funding the affordable housing needed through government subsidies is prohibitively expensive, leveraging market-rate development to create affordable housing through inclusionary zoning (i.e., mixed-income housing) is one key strategy for producing housing at all income levels. Thus, San Francisco should continue to pursue strategies that both maximize affordability and ensure that projects are financially feasible.29 Problematic Local Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 15. Local rules <U+2013> not state law or CEQA Guidelines <U+2013> require additional CEQA studies, even as Planning Department policies rely heavily on CEQA exemptions. These additional studies add more work, cost, and risk to the environmental review process, even for exempt developments, but are not required by state law. 16. Risk of costly local appeals drives cautious environmental planning practices that limit the impact of the PSA. Planners believe that project opponents abuse CEQA administrative appeals to block or delay other key San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 13 Procedural Complexities 21. The complexity associated with housing entitlement and permitting in San Francisco is not only a barrier to entry to new development professionals pursuing projects in the City but is also causing developers with experience in San Francisco to leave and pursue work in neighboring jurisdictions instead. 22. Planners report feeling fearful and overwhelmed while processing applications for housing developments, due to both the complexities of San Francisco<U+2019>s local Planning Code and the threat of public scrutiny, which is amplified during public hearings. 23. Stakeholders report persistent post-entitlement challenges, including inadequate inter-agency coordination (particularly around utilities connections and ADA assessments), subjectivity in post-entitlement permitting that can send entitlements back to the Planning Department for more review, and inadequate supervision of and a failure to implement performance benchmarking for Department of Building Inspection staff that leads to serious variability in permitting processes that should be standardized. This lack of uniformity and transparency in the post-entitlement process sets the stage for corruption31 32 and distrust. 24. Affordable housing developers report additional procedural complexities, including the aforementioned lack of inter-agency coordination, trouble satisfying public art requirements for 100 percent affordable Publicly Initiated Discretionary Review 18. Publicly Initiated Discretionary Review occurs frequently, impacting at least 20 percent of code-compliant developments of five or more housing units not otherwise subject to a hearing with the Planning Commission, adding unnecessary public hearings and potentially fostering negotiations outside of public hearings. This differs from the perception amongst planners that Publicly Initiated Discretionary Review is not a hurdle for larger housing developments, even if the tool is used most frequently to resolve disputes over small projects <U+2013> like residential decks and expansions <U+2013> between neighbors. On average, the discretionary building permit that faces a request for Publicly Initiated Discretionary Review takes approximately nine months longer to get approved. Public Hearings and Development by Negotiation 19. Continuances of public hearings, meant to avoid later challenges through post-entitlement administrative appeals, are common. Developers state that the City uses continuances to host informal negotiations about the project design and scope between the project applicant and project opponents. Approvals data confirms that continuances occur at a high rate. 20. The City fails to maintain good data on problematic practices, including continuances, appeals (basis, frequency, denials, withdrawals), and voting patterns, making internal and external continued analysis and tracking difficult. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 14 housing developments, and difficulty meeting the City<U+2019>s local hire requirements <U+2013> which some developers attribute to labor shortages. Politics and Stakeholder Disagreements 25. Political bodies are split ideologically, limiting their progress on crafting solutions and influencing the outcomes for housing projects that come before them. Appointed and elected officials want what they believe is best for their communities, but they are not in sync on the role of regulation, or what legal reforms would best achieve production targets, including affordable housing targets, while protecting vulnerable neighborhoods. This divide appears to limit their progress on crafting solutions. 26. Planners and developers believe that San Francisco needs major local procedural reforms to facilitate housing production, but not all commissioners and supervisors agree. 27. Some stakeholders, including planners, do not have confidence that San Francisco will implement the City<U+2019>s housing element without substantial state intervention. The following section includes Required Actions that the City must take to address these Findings. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 15 Required Actions The Required Actions below are critical to addressing constraints to production identified in the Key Findings and, in some cases, to complying with state housing laws. Some of the Required Actions refine or accelerate San Francisco<U+2019>s existing housing element Actions. Implementation of the Required Actions, therefore, will have an especially significant impact on reducing housing approval timelines and increasing housing production at all income levels. As specified in San Francisco<U+2019>s housing element Actions 8.8.2 and 8.8.3, the City must implement the <U+201C>priority recommendations<U+201D> and, as needed, amend the housing element to include <U+201C>final actions<U+201D> required in the Policy and Practice Review. The Required Actions constitute those priority recommendations and final actions. Therefore, failure to implement the Required Actions will initiate HCD<U+2019>s process to revoke housing element compliance and may result in additional enforcement action. HCD<U+2019>s enforcement process will start with a Corrective Action Letter immediately after the City misses the specified deadline for each Required Action, after which the City will have 30 days to implement the Required Action before its housing element compliance is revoked via a Decertification Letter from HCD. Implementing these Required Actions will require intervention at various levels of City government, including, but not limited to, amendments to staff-level practices, Municipal Code amendments, and potentially changes to the City Charter. There also may be potential for state-level legislative amendments to achieve some of the below Required Actions. To avoid enforcement action, the City is expected to work with HCD on strategies to implement these Required Actions, including receiving HCD<U+2019>s approval of any language used in implementing ordinances, and to report to HCD on or before the Action due date to confirm that the City has completed the Action. The tables below outline both high-level and specific Required Actions, as well as the timeframes that the Required Actions must be completed in, and whether the Action implicates a local Policy or Practice. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 16 1. Eliminate Discretion and Subjectivity in Planning Review SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 1.1 Revise entitlement processes to require that housing developments that conform to existing planning and zoning standards move efficiently through a local non-discretionary, ministerial entitlement process. This includes areas outside of Priority Equity Geographies and in Priority Equity Geographies and Cultural Districts where community-led strategies have defined and codified community benefits at the neighborhood or citywide level. A non-discretionary ministerial entitlement process must not, by definition, subject code-compliant housing developments to any discretionary decision making, including Publicly Initiated Requests for Discretionary Review. Complete by January 31, 2024, for projects on reused 4th and 5th cycle lower-income housing element sites that are 20 percent affordable, as required by Housing Element Law.33 Immediately initiate development of community- led strategy to determine appropriate community benefits within Priority Equity Geographies and Cultural Districts that do not yet have codified community benefits. By Fall 2026, establish a local non-discretionary entitlement pathway, with progress updates to HCD every 6 months. Policy (Municipal Business and Tax Regulations Code)i 1.2 Eliminate Planning Commission hearings for all code-compliant housing development in all locations outside of Priority Equity Geographies. This program is past due in the housing element, with an implementation date of July 31, 2023. 30 days. Policy and Practice (Multiple Approaches Available) i HCD understands that some controversy exists about whether a change to the City<U+2019>s Charter is also necessary and urges the City to explore this issue and potential pathways to establish a non-discretionary ministerial process for housing developments. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 17 SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 1.3 Prioritize existing housing element actions surrounding Objective Design Standards & Findings, including amending and replacing the Residential Design Guidelines and Urban Design Guidelines to remove all subjective standards and requirements, and to codify current Planning Department policy rules that are not currently in the Planning Code or design guidelines. 1 year. Policy (Design Guidelines and Planning Code) 1.4 Eliminate the use of <U+201C>neighborhood character<U+201D> and <U+201C>neighborhood compatibility<U+201D> terminology in case report findings and in relevant design guidelines, and remove <U+201C>light<U+201D> and <U+201C>air<U+201D> terminology in case report findings to support discretionary requests. 30 days for case report findings. 1 year for design guidelines. Practice and Policy (Design Guidelines and Planning Code) 1.5 Consistent with the recent action to eliminate the Preliminary Project Assessment, ensure that no mandatory pre-application processes are required in order for a housing development project applicant to submit a preliminary application under the Permit Streamling Act. 30 days. Practice San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 18 SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 1.6 Standardize recording practices amongst planning staff and increase internal tracking and public display of key planning steps, including project intake (application date, completeness determination date, notification dates, start of planning review), required public hearings (including notices and required continuances), and approvals <U+2013> to allow for internal and external monitoring of entitlement processes and ensure that entitlement practices comply with relevant state laws, including the timelines set forth in the Permit Streamlining Act. 90 days. Evaluate and adjust annually. Practice 1.7 Require requests for waivers and concessions under State Density Bonus Law to be processed by the Planning Department, not the Planning Commission, when no other entitlements are required. Pass implementing ordinance within 30 days. Policy (Planning Code) San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 19 SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 1.8 Revise the application of the Affordable Housing Fees and Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program requirements, so as not to impose fees on affordable units for projects under State Density Bonus Law. Affordable units cannot be counted toward the total unit count for a State Density Bonus Law project in determining whether the higher Affordable Housing Fees and Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program requirements apply. As soon as possible, but no later than 1 year. Policy (Planning Code and Planning Director Bulletin No. 6) 1.9 Revise the Large Project Authorization in Eastern Neighborhoods (ENX) and the Downtown Large Project Authorization (DNX) processes to ensure approval criteria for housing projects are written and objective. 1 year. Policy (Planning Code) 1.10 Approve other reforms in the proposed <U+201C>Constraints Reduction<U+201D> Ordinance and the Mayor<U+2019>s Housing for All Executive Directive that will implement the various housing element programs identified in HCD<U+2019>s June 16, 2023 Letter of Support and Technical Assistance. Pass Implementing ordinance within 30 days. Practice and Policy (Planning Code) San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 20 2. Reform Local California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Practices SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 2.1 Review and revise environmental planning review practices to require CEQA exemption determinations within 30 days of receiving and accepting the project application as complete, rather than making this determination at the end of the entitlement process. 6 months. Practice 2.2 Eliminate additional requirements for supplemental studies not required by CEQA statute or Guidelines, such as shadow and wind studies, in environmental review. 1 year to evaluate which local environmental review requirements are not required by CEQA statute or Guidelines. 1-3 years to eliminate additional requirements. Policy (Planning Code) 3. Reform the Local Administrative Appeals Process SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 3.1 Revise local practices so that projects that require ministerial approval pursuant to SB 35, State ADU Law, Housing Element Law, AB 1114, and other state housing laws cannot face any post-entitlement administrative appeals if the project complies with applicable permit standards. End subjective post-entitlement appeals immediately, and all post-entitlement appeals no later than January 1, 2024. Practice San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 21 SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 3.2 Revise local rules so that all development that benefits from a local ministerial approval process, once established, does not face any post-entitlement administrative appeals. Comply with state law (AB 1114) by January 1, 2024. Policy (City Charter) 3.3 Revise rules around administrative appeals for all post-entitlement permits, and narrow which permits are subject to additional administrative review. Comply with state law (AB 1114) by January 1, 2024. Policy (Business and Tax Regulations Code, City Charter) 4. Expedite and Standardize the Post-Entitlement Permitting Process SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 4.1 Standardize post-entitlement review requirements and develop and measure against performance benchmarks for the permitting processes to reduce subjectivity in construction permitting. This includes publishing all post-entitlement requirements, including intake requirements, from all relevant departments included in post- entitlement reviews in checklist form. Any interpretations of relevant municipal codes applied to post-entitlement reviews must be published on the relevant department<U+2019>s website and consistently applied. 9 months. Practice San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 22 SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 4.2 Analyze and reduce constraints imposed on projects receiving City funds for affordable housing development, including removing Public Art requirements for 100 percent affordable housing projects and standardizing and streamlining reviews by the Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Disability. 1 year. Policy (Planning Code) 5. Increase Accountability and Transparency SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 5.1 On developments that are ministerially approved, ensure that planning practice does not allow for city personnel to pressure project proponents into negotiations between neighborhood groups, and that all involvement by city personnel in meetings outside of public hearings comply with state law. Notify city personnel of requirement immediately. Develop protocols to ensure continued compliance within 6 months. Practice San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 23 Recommended Actions To fully address the Findings in this Review and demonstrate that San Francisco is truly <U+201C>Prohousing,<U+201D> San Francisco should implement the following Recommended Actions as well. Like the Required Actions above, some of these also relate to and refine existing housing element Actions and require intervention at various levels of City government. In the instances where these Recommended Actions relate to existing housing element programs, San Francisco is still required to, at a minimum, fully implement their existing housing element programs as written in the element. SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 6.1 Conduct local land use planning and zoning, including upzoning, in an equitable manner such that the task of ensuring equitable development is not left to Development Agreements and project-level negotiations and adjudication. Initiate by completing Planning Department recommendations for upzoning, consistent with the Mayor<U+2019>s Housing for All Executive Directive, by January 31, 2024. Complete by January 2026. Policy (Planning Code and Zoning Map) 6.2 When proposing Planning Code amendments, ensure that revisions simplify or reduce the rules applied to housing projects in order to decrease the institutional or technical knowledge needed by all stakeholders involved in the housing approvals process. Ongoing. Policy (Planning Code) 6.3 Maintain practice of maximizing CEQA exemptions. Ongoing. Practice 6.4 Continue to build out Permit Center to expand oversight to, and coordinate, all permits for multifamily housing development. Ongoing. Practice San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 24 SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 6.5 Improve data management and public sharing of data on building permitting processes. For example, to support programmatic strategies that will expedite plan checks, revisions, and final inspections, develop accountability and tracking measures to determine average review timeframes, and identify methods to cut the timeframes. This may include updating internal permit tracking software and systems that allow all relevant City departments involved in the permitting process to access and input data about key project steps. Ongoing. Practice 6.6 Ensure project applicants are allowed to <U+201C>opt in<U+201D> to local programs, such as HOME SF, rather than being required to utilize the local program over programs developed by state law, such as State Density Bonus Law. When there is a pathway under state law, state law should be the default and easy to navigate. 30 days. Practice San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 25 SPECIFIC ACTIONS TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE? 6.7 Develop data tracking and related self-study to allow for external and internal monitoring of performance along each of the Administrative and Legislative milestones laid out in Mayor Breed<U+2019>s Housing for All Executive Directive, including establishing benchmarks for progress in meeting each milestone. Increase public transparency within 6 months. Complete within 1 year. Practice 6.8 Develop a system where project applicants can escalate post-entitlement permitting issues to staff dedicated to resolving these issues and expediting approvals. 6 months. Practice 6.9 Revise rules around administrative appeals for CEQA determinations by requiring appeal hearings to be expedited (e.g., heard within 30 days from filing), and review filing fees and cost requirements for parties filing appeals. 9 months. Policy (Administrative Code) 6.10 Expedite the timeline to conduct a pro-forma-based study on cumulative governmental constraints on housing development in San Francisco so that the study is complete by January 31, 2025. This study should include analysis of the interventions identified in the Required Actions. Complete by January 31, 2025. Practice San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 26 Conclusion and Next Steps This Policy and Practice Review identifies barriers to housing approvals in San Francisco and provides a pathway for the City to remove them. San Francisco has perfected the art of avoiding obligations under state housing laws by maneuvering around them through local rules that exploit loopholes and frustrate the intent of state housing laws. In other instances, San Francisco<U+2019>s policies and practices are inconsistent with these laws. It is also clear that the City<U+2019>s local rules create constraints on production at all income levels and that San Francisco will not meet its housing element obligations without removing those constraints. The City<U+2019>s current housing element and local efforts speak to some of this but without the specificity and timeframes needed to fully address the constraints. While some of the barriers imposed on housing developments in San Francisco are unique, many of the findings and Required Actions in this Review can serve as lessons learned and best practices for other jurisdictions, thus facilitating faster housing approvals and increased production of homes at all income levels statewide. The most important lesson for the state comes from a holistic understanding of what San Francisco<U+2019>s local law has done well and where it has posed obstacles to housing affordability and production. UC Berkeley<U+2019>s research found that San Francisco concentrated density in inequitable ways and blocked production through the complex housing approvals process. San Francisco provides an important reminder that zoning and planning is one important pathway to housing production at all income levels, but a ministerial approval process is paramount. This suggests that review of zoning and planning requirements should consider three aspects of local law: density and use constraints, the location of available zoning, and procedural rules. San Francisco provides an important reminder that zoning and planning is one important pathway to housing production at all income levels, but a ministerial approval process is paramount. HCD will continue to provide technical assistance to the City as it works towards fully implementing its housing element, including incorporating and completing the revisions mandated by this Policy and Practice Review. Implementing the Required Actions from this Review, in addition to actively working to implement the existing housing element, is required for San Francisco to maintain compliance with Housing Element Law. San Francisco has an opportunity to reverse course and truly be a leader in producing housing efficiently and equitably. While state law and best practices serve as a starting point, the City should take advantage of the Findings and Actions in this Review <U+2013> and the ongoing technical assistance HCD is committed to providing <U+2013> to go beyond what is merely required. The stakes are too high to do anything less. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 27 Endnotes 1 Department of Housing and Community Development. <U+201C>A Home for Every Californian: 2022 Statewide Housing Plan Update.<U+201D> Statewide Housing Plan, Mar. 2022, available at https://statewide-housing-plan-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/. 2 Ibid. 3 Department of Housing and Community Development. <U+201C>2022 Annual Progress Report Data.<U+201D> Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-open-data-tools/housing-element- implementation-and-apr-dashboard 4 Ibid. 5 Report to the California Air Resources Board, titled <U+201C>Examining Entitlement in California to Inform Policy and Process: Advancing Social Equity in Housing Development Patterns<U+201D> in fulfillment of Contract #3900-19STC005. 6 UC Berkeley discusses this in detail in the full research report. 7 FINAL REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) PLAN: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, available at https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-12/Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf 8 Ibid. 9 <U+201C>State of the Cities Data Systems U.S. Census Bureau<U+2019>s Building Permits Survey.<U+201D> SOCDS Building Permits Database, Aug. 2023, available at socds.huduser.gov/permits/. 10 <U+201C>San Francisco, CA Rental Market.<U+201D> Average Rental Price in San Francisco, CA Market Trends | Zillow Rental Manager, available at www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/san-francisco-ca/. Accessed 3 Aug. 2023. 11 Turner & Townsend, <U+201C>International Construction Market Survey 2023<U+201D> 2023, available at https://publications. turnerandtownsend.com/international-construction-market-survey-2023/ 12 Raetz, Hayley, et al. <U+201C>The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California.<U+201D> Terner Center, Terner Center for Housing Innovation, Dec. 2020, available at www. ternercenter. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 28 13 Reid, Carolina, and Raetz, Hayley. <U+201C>Practitioners Weigh in on Drivers of Rising Housing Construction Costs in San Francisco.<U+201D> Terner Center Briefs, Terner Center for Housing Innovation, Jan. 2018 available at https://ternercenter. berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/San_Francisco_Construction_Cost_Brief_-_Terner_Center_January_2018.pdf 14 O<U+2019>Neill, Moira, Giulia Gualco-Nelson, and Eric Biber. <U+201C>Developing Policy From the Ground Up: Examining Entitlement in the Bay Area to Inform California<U+2019>s Housing Policy Debates.<U+201D> (2019) https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1560&context=hastings_environmental_law_journal. 15 Ibid. 16 Gov. Code, 65585, subd. (b) 17 2022 Update: San Francisco Housing Element, Page 147, Program 8.8: Policy and Practice Review, available at https://sfplanning.s3.amazonaws.com/archives/sfhousingelement.org/files/Housing_Element_2022_Update.pdf 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Gov. Code, 65585, subd. (i)(1)(A)-(B) 21 Gov. Code, 65585, subd. (j) 22 Gov. Code, 65585, subd. (l)(1) 23 Gov. Code, 65585, subd. (i) 24 See Gov. Code, 65589.5, subd. (d)(5) 25 For example, the Mayor<U+2019>s Executive Directive dated February 7, 2023 delineates how the City can address at least a few issues that came up during the Policy and Practice Review process, such as the elimination of the Preliminary Project Assessment requirements and revising the Inclusionary Housing requirements. 26 <U+201C>Executive Directive 21-01 Housing for All, City and County of San Francisco.<U+201D> Feb, 2023, available at: https://sf.gov/ sites/default/files/2023-02/Executive%20Directive%2023-01_Housing%20for%20All.pdf 27 Moira O<U+2019>Neill et al, (2023) Examining Local Law, Policy, and Planning Practice on Development in San Francisco Using CALES, p. 35. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 29 28 HCD understands that some controversy exists about whether a change to the City<U+2019>s Charter is also necessary and urges the City to explore this issue and potential pathways to establish a non-discretionary ministerial process for housing developments. 29 As mentioned on page 6, HCD is aware that the City recently reduced the Inclusionary Housing requirement as part of Mayor Breed<U+2019>s Housing for All Executive Directive. These requirements should be regularly reviewed and monitored to ensure they are maximizing affordability without constraining overall housing development. 30 Eller Media Co. v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1217, 1220. 31 Barned-Smith, St. John. <U+201C>Disgraced Former S.F. Building Inspector Sentenced to Prison in FBI Corruption Probe.<U+201D> San Francisco Chronicle, 15 July 2023, www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/sf-curran-corruption-investigation-fbi- sentence-18196961.php. 32 Barned-Smith, St. John. <U+201C>S.F. Corruption Scandal: City Audits Thousands of Properties Connected to Indicted Former Officials.<U+201D> San Francisco Chronicle, 14 July 2023, www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sf-corruption-building- inspection-audit-17885560.php. 33 Gov. Code, 65583.2, subd. (c) San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 30 Appendix A: Required Actions and Recommended Actions in Chronological Order San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 31 Appendix A: Required Actions and Recommended Actions in Chronological Order Required Actions (18 total) ACTION TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE 3.1 Revise local practices so that projects that require ministerial approval pursuant to SB 35, State ADU Law, Housing Element Law, AB 1114, and other state housing laws cannot face any post-entitlement administrative appeals if the project complies with applicable permit standards. End subjective post-entitlement appeals immediately, and all post-entitlement appeals no later than January 1, 2024. Practice 5.1 On developments that are ministerially approved, ensure that planning practice does not allow for city personnel to pressure project proponents into negotiations between neighborhood groups, and that all involvement by city personnel in meetings outside of public hearings comply with state law. Notify planning staff of requirement immediately. Develop protocols to ensure continued compliance within 6 months. Practice 1.2 Eliminate Planning Commission hearings for all code-compliant housing development in all locations outside of Priority Equity Geographies. This program is past due in the housing element, with an implementation date of July 31, 2023. 30 days. Policy and Practice (Multiple Approaches Available) San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 32 ACTION TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE 1.5 Consistent with the recent action to eliminate the Preliminary Project Assessment, ensure that no mandatory pre-application processes are required in order for a housing development project applicant to submit a preliminary application under the Permit Streamlining Act. 30 days. Practice 1.7 Require requests for waivers and concessions under State Density Bonus Law to be processed by the Planning Department, not the Planning Commission, when no other entitlements are required. Pass implementing ordinance within 30 days. Policy (Planning Code) 1.10 Approve other reforms in the proposed <U+201C>Constraints Reduction<U+201D> Ordinance and the Mayor<U+2019>s Housing for All Executive Directive that will implement the various housing element programs identified in HCD<U+2019>s June 16, 2023 Letter of Support and Technical Assistance. Pass implementing ordinance within 30 days. Practice and Policy (Planning Code) 1.4 Eliminate the use of <U+201C>neighborhood character<U+201D> and <U+201C>neighborhood compatibility<U+201D> terminology in case report findings and in relevant design guidelines, and remove <U+201C>light<U+201D> and <U+201C>air<U+201D> terminology in case report findings to support discretionary requests. 30 days for case report findings. 1 year for design guidelines. Practice and Policy (Design Guidelines and Planning Code) San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 33 ACTION TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE 3.2 Revise local rules so that all development that benefits from a local ministerial approval process, once established, does not face any post-entitlement administrative appeals. Comply with state law (AB 1114) January 1, 2024. Policy (City Charter) 3.3 Revise rules around administrative appeals for all post-entitlement permits, and narrow which permits are subject to additional administrative review. Comply with state law (AB 1114) January 1, 2024. Policy (Business and Tax Regulations Code, City Charter) Continued on next page San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 34 ACTION TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE 1.1 Revise entitlement processes to require that housing developments that conform to existing planning and zoning standards move efficiently through a local non- discretionary, ministerial entitlement process. This includes areas outside of Priority Equity Geographies and in Priority Equity Geographies and Cultural Districts where community-led strategies have defined and codified community benefits at the neighborhood or citywide level. A non-discretionary ministerial entitlement process must not, by definition, subject code-compliant housing developments to any discretionary decision making, including Publicly Initiated Requests for Discretionary Review. Complete by January 31, 2024, for projects on reused 4th and 5th cycle lower-income housing element sites that are 20 percent affordable, as required by Housing Element Law.i Immediately initiate development of community- led strategy to determine appropriate community benefits within Priority Equity Geographies and Cultural Districts that do not yet have codified community benefits. By Fall 2026, establish a local non-discretionary entitlement pathway, with progress updates to HCD every 6 months. Policy (Municipal Business and Tax Regulations Code)ii i Gov. Code, 65583.2, subd. (c) ii HCD understands that some controversy exists about whether a change to the City<U+2019>s Charter is also necessary and urges the City to explore this issue and potential pathways to establish a non-discretionary ministerial process for housing developments. San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 35 ACTION TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE 1.6 Standardize recording practices amongst planning staff and increase internal tracking and public display of key planning steps, including project intake (application date, completeness determination date, notification dates, start of planning review), required public hearings (including notices and required continuances), and approvals <U+2013> to allow for internal and external monitoring of entitlement processes and ensure that entitlement practices comply with relevant state laws, including the timelines set forth in the Permit Streamlining Act. 90 days. Evaluate and adjust annually. Practice 2.1 Review and revise environmental planning review practices to require CEQA exemption determinations within 30 days of receiving and accepting the project application as complete, rather than making this determination at the end of the entitlement process. 6 months. Practice San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 36 ACTION TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE 4.1 Standardize post-entitlement review requirements and develop and measure against performance benchmarks for the permitting processes to reduce subjectivity in construction permitting. This includes publishing all post-entitlement requirements, including intake requirements, from all relevant departments included in post- entitlement reviews in checklist form. Any interpretations of relevant municipal codes applied to post-entitlement reviews must be published on the relevant department<U+2019>s website and consistently applied. 9 months. Practice 1.8 Revise the application of the Affordable Housing Fees and Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program requirements, so as not to impose fees on affordable units for projects under State Density Bonus Law. Affordable units cannot be counted toward the total unit count for a State Density Bonus Law project in determining whether the higher Affordable Housing Fees and Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program requirements apply. As soon as possible but no later than 1 year. Policy (Planning Code and Planning Director Bulletin No. 6) San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 37 ACTION TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE 4.2 Analyze and reduce constraints imposed on projects receiving City funds for affordable housing development, including removing Public Art requirements for 100 percent affordable housing projects and standardizing and streamlining reviews by the Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Disability. 1 year. Policy (Planning Code) 1.9 Revise the Large Project Authorization in Eastern Neighborhoods (ENX) and the Downtown Large Project Authorization (DNX) processes to ensure approval criteria for housing projects are written and objective. 1 year. Policy (Planning Code) 1.3 Prioritize existing housing element actions surrounding Objective Design Standards & Findings, including amending and replacing the Residential Design Guidelines and Urban Design Guidelines to remove all subjective standards and requirements, and to codify current Planning Department policy rules that are not currently in the Planning Code or design guidelines. 1 year. Policy (Design Guidelines and Planning Code) 2.2 Eliminate additional requirements for supplemental studies not required by CEQA statute or Guidelines, such as shadow and wind studies, in environmental review. 1 year to evaluate which local environmental review requirements are not required by CEQA statute or Guidelines. 1-3 years to eliminate additional requirements. Policy (Planning Code) San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 38 Recommended Actions (10 total) RECOMMENDED ACTION SUGGESTED TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE 6.2 When proposing Planning Code amendments, ensure that revisions simplify or reduce the rules applied to housing projects in order to decrease the institutional or technical knowledge needed by all stakeholders involved in the housing approvals process. Ongoing. Policy (Planning Code) 6.3 Maintain practice of maximizing CEQA exemptions. Ongoing. Practice 6.4 Continue to build out Permit Center to expand oversight to, and coordinate, all permits for multifamily housing development. Ongoing. Practice San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 39 RECOMMENDED ACTION SUGGESTED TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE 6.5 Improve data management and public sharing of data on building permitting processes. For example, to support programmatic strategies that will expedite plan checks, revisions, and final inspections, develop accountability and tracking measures to determine average review timeframes, and identify methods to cut the timeframes. This may include updating internal permit tracking software and systems that allow all relevant City departments involved in the permitting process to access and input data about key project steps. Ongoing. Practice 6.6 Ensure project applicants are allowed to <U+201C>opt in<U+201D> to local programs, such as HOME SF, rather than being required to utilize the local program over programs developed by state law, such as State Density Bonus Law. When there is a pathway under state law, state law should be the default and easy to navigate. 30 days. Practice San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 40 RECOMMENDED ACTION SUGGESTED TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE 6.1 Conduct local land use planning and zoning, including upzoning, in an equitable manner such that the task of ensuring equitable development is not left to Development Agreements and project-level negotiations and adjudication. Initiate by completing Planning Department recommendations for upzoning, consistent with the Mayor<U+2019>s Housing for All Executive Directive, by January 31, 2024. Complete by January 31, 2026. Policy (Planning Code and Zoning Map) 6.7 Develop data tracking and related self-study to allow for external and internal monitoring of performance along each of the Administrative and Legislative milestones laid out in Mayor Breed<U+2019>s Housing for All Executive Directive, including establishing benchmarks for progress in meeting each milestone. Increase public transparency within 6 months. Complete within 1 year. Practice 6.8 Develop a system where project applicants can escalate post- entitlement permitting issues to staff dedicated to resolving these issues and expediting approvals. 6 months. Practice San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review 2023 | 41 RECOMMENDED ACTION SUGGESTED TIMING POLICY OR PRACTICE 6.9 Revise rules around administrative appeals for CEQA determinations by requiring appeal hearings to be expedited (e.g., heard within 30 days from filing), and review filing fees and cost requirements for parties filing appeals. 9 months. Policy (Administrative Code) 6.10 Expedite the timeline to conduct a pro-forma-based study on cumulative governmental constraints on housing development in San Francisco so that the study is complete by January 31, 2025. This study should include analysis of the interventions identified in the Required Actions. Complete by January 31, 2025. Practice California Department of Housing and Community Development www.hcd.ca.gov For inquiries, email: [email removed] Examining Local Law, Policy, and Planning Practice on Development in San Francisco Using CALES Report in Support of San Francisco Policy and Practice Review Written by: Moira O<U+2019>Neill (PI) Vivek Adury Eric Biber (Co-PI) Deborah Le-An Tan Laura Tepper Ivy Wang Prepared for the California Department of Housing and Community Development in partial fulfillment of contract #22-30-002. 1 Disclaimer: The statements and conclusions in this Report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Acknowledgments: The following students supported building the entitlement dataset and related data cleaning and analysis for this research during the 2022-2023 academic year: Claire Ching, Riya Chopra, Ryan Denker, Olivia Anne Drew Grimes, Rachel Kinzer, Riley Layman, Lily Roberts, Jackson Smith, and Jenny Tsing. Also, Tim Dodson supported data collection related to determining project intake and notification dates. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary....................................................................................................... 6 Background: Why Study San Francisco? ............................................................................ 6 Research Questions and Approach......................................................................................7 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................. 9 SB 35 fixes planning review for eligible housing developments but is not a complete process fix.......................................................................................................................................................10 Unpredictable discretionary review processes create uncertainty and risk<U+2014>even for code compliant development of any size in any location citywide......................................................12 Timeframes for discretionary approvals increased......................................................................12 Local policy and practices are inconsistent with the goals of the Permit Streamlining Act, Housing Accountability Act, and Housing Crisis Act. .................................................................13 Subjectivity and variability persist in the post-entitlement process. .........................................15 Stakeholders suggest local reforms must eliminate discretionary review on some housing or the city will not meet its RHNA or resolve long-standing inequities in land use. .....................15 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 16 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 17 Methods, Data, and Limitations.................................................................................. 18 Overall Research Approach.................................................................................................18 Ongoing Legal Research ...................................................................................................................19 Our Interpretation of State Law and Definition of <U+201C>Full Implementation<U+201D> of State Law.......................19 Unique Entitlement Dataset ...............................................................................................................20 2014 - 2017 Observations .............................................................................................................21 2018 - 2021 Observations .............................................................................................................22 Primary Source Documents...........................................................................................................24 Regression Analysis ..........................................................................................................................25 In-Depth Interviews and Meetings and Review of Public Hearings ...................................................25 Document Analysis ............................................................................................................................26 Study and Data Limitations................................................................................................................26 Findings........................................................................................................................ 28 San Francisco<U+2019>s local rules prevent full implementation of the goals and aims of state housing laws. ........................................................................................................................ 29 San Francisco Planning fully implemented SB 35, but SB 35 is not a complete process fix...30 SB 35 processing timeframes are fast<U+2014>whereas discretionary building permits typically take Developers report that SB 35 transformed planning approval pathways for affordable years..............................................................................................................................................30 development..................................................................................................................................32 SB 35 does not resolve post-entitlement opposition through appeals...........................................33 More developments relied on State Density Bonus Law as compared with prior years, but stakeholders disagree about how easy it is to use the state law................................................36 There was no consensus among developers about how easily developers could use State Both developers and planners shared that State Density Bonus Law has been critical to helping Density Bonus Law in San Francisco............................................................................................38 developers manage requirements under local rules......................................................................38 Local rules complicate application of the Housing Accountability Act. ....................................41 Local rules require entitlement processes begin before the application<U+2014>and navigate multiple hurdles along the way to approval..................................................................................41 Application intake processes were inconsistent with the PSA but improved marginally over time. .......................................................................................................................................................42 3 Planning policy relies on exemptions to comply with CEQA, but local rules require additional studies. .............................................................................................................................................43 Risk of costly local appeals drives cautious environmental planning practices that limit the impact of the PSA. ...........................................................................................................................46 Continuances<U+2014>possibly meant to avoid later challenges through administrative appeal<U+2014>are frequent.............................................................................................................................................51 Publicly Initiated Exceptional DR occurs frequently and may foster negotiations outside of public hearings. ............................................................................................................................................51 Developers report that design guidelines are vague and invite subjective conditions of approval. ...53 Cumulative and unique procedural hurdles create comparatively long entitlement timelines. ............................................................................................................................... 54 Stakeholders report that San Francisco<U+2019>s policy emphasizes project-level adjudication to achieve equitable development outcomes, when what the city needs to achieve equitable development outcomes is zoning and planning reform...................................56 Planners and developers believe San Francisco needs procedural reform that addresses discretionary review, but not all Commissioners and Supervisors agree. ..58 All stakeholder groups report persistent post-entitlement challenges...........................61 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 62 Appendix A: Regression Supplement With Methods............................................... 66 Appendix B: Spatial Distribution of Developments.................................................. 86 Appendix C: Analysis of Accuracy of Annual Progress Report Data on Entitlements and SB 35 Approvals ............................................................................ 94 Table 1: Timeframes to Planning Approvals Issued in 2018 - 2021 Selected Pathways10 Table 2: Entitlement Data Counts by Project and Units Across Years .......................... 21 Table 3: Summary of Total Approvals and Unit Counts Across Study Period ............... 28 Table 4: 2018-2021 Approval Observations and Units by Affordability and Process .... 28 Table 5: Entitlement Timeframe by Approval Pathway 2018-2021................................ 31 Table 6: Median Project Size by Product Type and Approval Pathway......................... 37 Table 7: Frequency of Use of Density Bonus (All Programs)1....................................... 40 Table 8: PPA to Application Timeframes ....................................................................... 42 Table 9: Analysis of Application Status Notifications ..................................................... 43 Table 10: CEQA Compliance Pathways ........................................................................ 45 Table 11: Total Time Spent on All CEQA Appeals 2015-2021 N=48 ............................ 50 Table 12: Total Time Spent on CEQA Appeals 2015-2021 for CALES Observations... 50 Table 13: Total Cost CEQA Appeals 2015-2021 (N=48)............................................... 50 Table 14: Total Cost CEQA Appeals CALES Housing Only (N=19).............................. 50 Table 15: Comparison of Entitlements Requiring CPEs Oakland-San Francisco 2014 - 2017 data....................................................................................................................... 55 Table 16: Variation in Number of Approval Steps, by Process Categories, Non-ADU Discretionary Observations 2018 - 2021 (N=111) ......................................................... 72 Table 17: All Discretionary Non-ADU Observations 2018 - 2021 .................................. 75 Table 18: Regression Using 100 CPE Observations 2014 - 2017................................. 77 4 Table 19: Regression All Discretionary Non-ADU Observations 2014 - 2021 With Controls.......................................................................................................................... 79 Table 20: Regression Results, Dropping Approval Step Outliers (2014 - 2021 Data)... 80 Figure 1 Process Approval Pathway Timeframes.......................................................... 11 Figure 2 Comparison of Timeframes by Affordability Classification, All Years .............. 13 Figure 3 Distribution of Affordable Units by Development Type .................................... 33 Figure 4 CEQA Milestone Timelines Categorical Exemptions Only (2018-2021).......... 47 Figure 5 CEQA Milestone Timelines Multiple Pathways (2018-2021) ........................... 48 Figure 6 Regression 2018-2021 Observations (No Controls)........................................ 69 Figure 7 Ordinary Least Squares Regression 2014-2017 Observations (N=140)......... 76 Figure 8 Regression All Non-ADU Discretionary Observations 2014-2021 (No Controls) ....................................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 9 Correlation Heat Map for 2018-2021 Regression Data (N=111) with Affordability, Neighborhood, and Process Characteristics............................................. 82 Figure 10 Residual Plot and LOESS Line for Simple Regression (<U+201C>No Controls<U+201D> in Table 1) Using All 111 Non-Discretionary Non-ADU Observations 2018-2021....................... 83 Figure 11 Residual Plot and LOESS Line for Simple Regression (<U+201C>All Controls<U+201D> in Table 1) Using All 111 Discretionary Non-ADU Observations 2018-2021............................... 84 5 Executive Summary Background: Why Study San Francisco? San Francisco is the anchor city in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) region, with one of the highest Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) statewide. Complex processes that lead to delayed housing development approvals leave open questions about whether San Francisco<U+2019>s local legal regime will allow the city to meet this housing production target. In 2016, authors O<U+2019>Neill, Biber, and students launched the Comprehensive Assessment of Land Use Entitlements Study (CALES) at the University of California, Berkeley, to understand how cities, including San Francisco, design and apply local and state law to proposed developments of five or more units approved in 2014 - 2017. In an earlier report,1 we found San Francisco<U+2019>s local regulatory regime comparatively prohibitive, risking exclusionary zoning despite explicit policies to promote inclusion and fair housing goals through inclusionary housing programs, rent stabilization, and tenant protections. Among the 28 jurisdictions we studied, San Francisco was among the cities with more land zoned for dense housing, although that zoning was not equitably distributed citywide. But most notable, among all our study cities, San Francisco was an extreme outlier in process requirements and timeframes to approval. The city had a median timeframe to entitlement of over two years for code compliant multi-family housing that benefited from streamlined environmental review. San Francisco<U+2019>s median timeframe was not only longer than its neighbors, it was longer than timeframes in neighboring cities with purportedly more difficult local law. Berkeley, for example, has complex rules that require a use permit2 for all new housing development, and yet the median timeframe to entitlement was four months shorter for comparable multi-family housing. Moreover, once we parsed out our data to explore how environmental review streamlining might impact timelines, we found that Berkeley<U+2019>s median timeframe dropped to less than 10 months for apartment buildings, whereas San Francisco<U+2019>s remained at 24 months for the same type of housing. San Francisco exemplified how cities can write and implement procedural rules in a manner that creates uncertainty of approval. Uncertainty creates risk, and risk influences what developers will propose and build, as well as which developers will consider developing within a city. During our research, affordable developers who worked in neighboring cities explained they could not work within San Francisco because entitlement was too uncertain and difficult. California<U+2019>s legislature has passed nearly 100 laws relevant to housing policy since 2016.3 These laws seek to spur housing production across all income levels and promote equitable housing outcomes<U+2014>namely increased housing production in high opportunity locations. Many important changes to state housing law target subjectivity in discretionary processes, like 1 We refer here to our Report to the California Air Resources Board in fulfillment of Contract #3900- 19STC005. MOIRA O<U+2019>NEILL-HUTSON ET AL., EXAMINING ENTITLEMENT IN CALIFORNIA TO INFORM POLICY AND PROCESS: ADVANCING SOCIAL EQUITY IN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS (2022). We also cross reference prior publications. 2 Project proponents apply for a use permit, often referred to as a conditional use permit, when local rules allow for certain uses subject to approval<U+2014>but not as a matter of right under the local zoning. 3 See Ben Metcalf, Managing Dir., UC Berkeley, Terner Ctr. for Hous. Innovation, Presentation at the California Joint Oversight Hearing with Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: Housing Production: Recent Legislative Actions and Outcomes (Feb. 28, 2023), https://shou.senate.ca.gov/node/21. 6 planning review,4 and work towards quickening approval processes, particularly for multi-family housing. New law and policy aim to accelerate housing production in high opportunity areas, inviting important questions about how well San Francisco has implemented these laws and whether they effectuate production, affordability, and equity. To answer these questions, we expanded and extended CALES to explore San Francisco<U+2019>s local land use regulation in more detail and identify specific roadblocks to dense multi-family housing. This report details our methods, presents findings, and discusses their implications for the California Department of Housing and Community Development<U+2019>s (HCD) Policy and Practice Review. Research Questions and Approach HCD asked (1) whether San Francisco is fully implementing key state housing laws, such as the Housing Accountability Act, the Housing Crisis Act, the Permit Streamlining Act, Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), and State Density Bonus Law; (2) whether local implementation is allowing these state laws to achieve their intended effect of promoting housing production and affordability; (3) what causes delay in the entitlement process and how the city<U+2019>s discretionary review process impacts overall project timelines and the housing approvals pipeline. To answer these questions, we used a spiraling mixed methods research design that joins legal research and qualitative, quantitative, and spatial analyses to understand San Francisco<U+2019>s local regulatory environment. This design helped our study overcome some of the limitations of each method and allowed us to adapt our research approach to the specific needs of studying San Francisco. HCD<U+2019>s questions one and two require us to interpret our data and provide findings based on our interpretation of what state law requires of localities.5 For example, we interpret the Permit Streamlining Act, Housing Accountability Act, and Housing Crisis Act as applicable to all multi- family housing approvals in San Francisco that do not require a local legislative action. We define <U+201C>full implementation<U+201D> of these state laws to mean that San Francisco both complies with state law, but also that local rules or planning practices do not effectively circumvent the purpose of the limitations imposed on cities by state law. We built a unique and highly detailed dataset of 140 planning entitlements6 of five or more units issued in 2014 - 2017. We added 144 observations of entitlements and SB 35 approvals issued 4 For a discussion of what characterizes a discretionary action, see Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 181 Cal. App. 3d 259, 269-74 (1987). When city employees can set standards and conditions for many aspects of a proposed building, the approval process is discretionary. For a definition of a ministerial process in California law, see Prentiss v. City of S. Pasadena, 15 Cal. App. 4th 85, 90, 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 641 (1993) (citing CAL. CODE REGS., tit.14, 15268(b)(1) (2023)(<U+201C>Ministerial<U+2019> describes a governmental decision involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out.<U+201D>)). Importantly, ministerial decisions are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. 5 We discuss this in the report; our analysis depends on some assumptions about what <U+201C>full<U+201D> implementation of state law would entail. 6 We refer to <U+201C>entitlement<U+201D> as a process and <U+201C>entitlement<U+201D> as an observation of that process in the singular and plural throughout this report. Entitlement refers to the type of housing approval that a project proponent secures from the Planning Department, Planning Commission, or Board of Supervisors when 7 in 2018 - 2021 to this dataset.7 Our approvals dataset captured detail on each application and approval step under local rules and state law (like the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA) and important project characteristics (like affordability, building size, and location). We gathered the detail for our dataset from source documents (application documents, planning staff reports, and motion and resolution documents) wherever possible. We analyzed our data using statistics and mapping. We conducted in-depth interviews and used participant observation and primary document analysis to understand why San Francisco<U+2019>s approval process operates the way that it does. We analyzed more than 35 hours of confidential in-depth research interviews with 24 participants representing affordable and market-rate developers, former and current city personnel and staff that work on housing development, land use attorneys, and housing advocates.8 We observed and analyzed notes and transcripts from another 33 meetings that HCD convened with approximately 146 stakeholders. Most were approximately one hour long. Twenty-five of the HCD-led meetings were very small, with one to three participants, in addition to O<U+2019>Neill and one representative from HCD. The small meetings allowed participants to offer deep insights, much like research interviews. In all, we analyzed notes and transcripts from ~68 hours of research interviews and meetings with 14 individuals across the executive and legislative bodies within San Francisco, over 20 former and current planning staff, more than 60 development professionals (evenly split between affordable and market-rate developers), and 6 different housing advocacy groups. We analyzed materials to extract themes and looked for frequency of themes across stakeholder groups. We also cross-referenced written law, recordings from hearings, approval documents, and analyses from our entitlement data. Limitations of Research Approach and Analysis Each method and data point has some limitations. For example, each observation in our approval dataset represents a potential housing or mixed-use development that developers believed had a high enough probability of success that they were willing to pursue entitlement in the first place. There are no project denials in the database to allow for quantitative analysis, but we do have limited data on a few denials we examined during data collection. Gathering data on project denials in a systematic way (for quantitative analysis) would demand substantially expanding the scope of the research project, which was not feasible given the research timeframe. Further, defining a project denial for data collection and analysis is more complex than defining an entitlement. A denial includes what the city reports as a denial but should also include projects that the city effectively <U+201C>denied<U+201D> (where a political body denied a specific entitlement, for example) even though the project remains pending within the city<U+2019>s public portal the local law reviews a proposal to build housing through a discretionary process. Discretionary review is a legal concept that means the city can set standards and conditions for many aspects of a proposed building and the approval process is discretionary. An entitlement typically precedes the building permit process, and it is a process that involves planning department review of a proposal to build housing and potentially requires an approval from a local elected or appointed political body. A ministerial process involves a public official applying law to fact without discretion or subjective judgment. Often, building departments issue ministerial approvals. Uniquely, state law creates a ministerial process that also involves planning review<U+2014>which we discuss at length in the full report. 7 Corrected Annual Progress Reports helped us identify 11 observations late in our research process. We were able to code essential characteristics for these 11 observations to include them in our summary statistical analyses only. 8 Eighteen participants sat for interviews in 2022 - 2023, and several participated in more than one interview. We also analyzed transcripts from six interviews across the same stakeholder groups in San Francisco (affordable developers, planners, market-rate developers, and community-based organization advocates) that O<U+2019>Neill conducted in 2017, where comparisons with prior years was useful. 8 or in its annual reporting. For the purposes of research, a denial could also include a project from which a developer appears to voluntarily withdraw after the city determines that it will not approve the project or will impose conditions that render the project infeasible. There also may be no documentation to verify whether a project that appears to be pending has effectively been denied. In our work, however, where we come across developments that have advanced in the entitlement process but are ultimately denied, we do discuss those developments. All interview participants volunteered, as did all participants in HCD-led meetings. Voluntary participation in interviews and research meetings increases selection bias and limits the generalizability of findings.9 We increased the number of interviews in each stakeholder group and triangulated data and methods to augment the overall reliability of our findings from interviews where possible. Some topics do not allow for this, however. For example, developers may discuss why they are unwilling to apply for entitlement, but there is no other data to explore to understand what deters applications beyond what the interview participants shared. Summary of Findings HCD asked whether the data indicates San Francisco has fully implemented state housing law intended to promote housing production and affordability. All data generally indicates that the answer is no. San Francisco<U+2019>s local rules embed subjectivity and uncertainty into review processes that state law says should be objective, time constrained, and, in some cases, certain. The city<U+2019>s authority to apply discretionary review to any permit, and the ease with which project opponents can appeal planning approvals and permits (including post-entitlement permits) to the Board of Supervisors or Board of Appeals fosters planning practices that limit full implementation of the Permit Streamlining Act, Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act, and in some instances, SB 35 and State Density Bonus Law. Planning staff are concerned about whether planning review will survive scrutiny from local political bodies, not the courts. Planning staff anticipate local political bodies will ignore planning recommendations and extend review processes if that is what neighborhood-level politics demand. Planning practices reflect this assumption, and local policy reinforces it. Developers interpret this planning practice as requiring more than what the law <U+201C>on paper<U+201D> demands through negotiation outside of public hearings to satisfy neighborhood interests. Developers perceive all planning approvals as uncertain and risky, even if the proposed development conforms to all zoning and planning standards. Eight years of approvals data confirms these perceptions. The risk and uncertainty embedded into local law has driven some developers to leave the San Francisco market and has deterred other developers from entering the market entirely. Below, we elaborate on what the data tells us about the direct effects of specific state housing laws on San Francisco<U+2019>s housing approval process, what all data tells us about San Francisco<U+2019>s implementation of different state laws, and the relationship between local rules, planning practices, and lengthy entitlement outcomes. The report that follows details each finding. 9 Selection bias refers to research participants not being fully representative of the group to which they belong. This limits our ability to interpret what we hear as the perspectives of a particular stakeholder group, generally. 9 SB 35 fixes planning review for eligible housing developments but is not a complete process fix. Data shows San Francisco Planning diligently implemented SB 35. Approximately 36 professionals who work on affordable development unanimously reported that SB 35<U+2019>s ministerial process <U+201C>fixed<U+201D> planning review for affordable housing developments because the state law created certainty of planning approval where none existed previously. Stakeholder perceptions are borne out in the planning approval data. Table 1 shows that the median timeframe for planning approval for developments that applied only under SB 35 was ~3.4 months and could take up to eight months. In contrast, code compliant discretionary developments10 requiring only a building permit had a median timeframe of two years and could take as many as four years. Table 1: Timeframes to Planning Approvals Issued in 2018 - 2021 Selected Pathways Process Category Timeframe (Months) Minimum Median Mean Maximum SB 35 only (N=9)1 0.89 3.42 4.24 7.62 Discretionary building permit 7.76 24.20 24.67 47.70 only (N=13) 1This count does not include five applications that developers proposed as discretionary approvals, some before SB 35<U+2019>s enactment, that San Francisco later approved under SB 35. Importantly, stakeholder interviews indicate SB 35 provided both affordable developers and planning staff relief from San Francisco<U+2019>s local rules. Data on how San Francisco Planning processed applications for development before SB 35 indicates Planning prioritized expediting 100% affordable developments.11 Local law still limited how quickly planners could complete review for any development, including 100% affordable development that the city helped fund. In fact, the city entitled only five 100% affordable developments in 2014 <U+2013> 2017, which would yield 567 units if built. The median timeframe to approval for these five 100% affordable developments was 15 months. In contrast, SB 35<U+2019>s ministerial process allowed San Francisco Planning to approve 14 100% affordable developments that would yield 1,663 affordable units if built. The median timeframe for the SB 35 100% affordable developments was less than 7.5 months, inclusive of developments that began as discretionary developments and later applied for SB 35 eligibility review. The median timeframe for 100% affordable housing developments that only applied for approval under SB 35 was less than three months. Most SB 35 developments also used State Density Bonus Law, so they were, on average, larger as compared with another three discretionary 100% affordable developments San Francisco approved in 2018 <U+2013> 2021, or the five entitled in 2014 - 2017. However, SB 35<U+2019>s effects are limited to planning review. All stakeholders still describe the post- entitlement approval process as subjective, lacking standardization and sufficient oversight. 10 Code compliant discretionary development means proposed housing development that conforms to all zoning and only requires a building permit. San Francisco law provides that this development is subject to discretionary review. 11 Interviews at that time indicated internal work and analysis to expedite affordable development, but median timeframes for 100% affordable developments were still 15 months. 10 Stakeholders share that the post-entitlement permitting process depends entirely on the professional assigned to the project, not the project scope itself. Stakeholders report that subjectivity in the post-entitlement process can trigger additional planning review even after a project has moved to the Department of Building Inspection. Because SB 35 is limited to the planning review stage, the state law has no effect on these post-entitlement procedural issues. Developers share that because San Francisco<U+2019>s law offers opportunities for project opponents to challenge, or appeal, permits after entitlement, including demolition permits, SB 35 eligible projects are susceptible to process challenges after planning review as well.12 SB 35 also does not represent a complete fix for San Francisco<U+2019>s procedural challenges. SB 35 applies to qualifying projects so long as San Francisco keeps failing to meet its housing production targets. But missing housing production targets is not San Francisco<U+2019>s goal. Still, San Francisco<U+2019>s implementation of SB 35 signals what is possible with a ministerial process while also spotlighting San Francisco<U+2019>s problematic existing discretionary review. Figure 1: Process Approval Pathway Timeframes Timeframe by Most Intense Approval Pathway (2018 - 2021) SB 35 only (no discretionary process prior) (N=9) 3.42 Discretionary BP (N=17) 24.2 PUD (N=2) 24.53 SB 35 (all began as discretionary process) (N=7) 29.39 Discretionary BP with Exceptional DR request (N=4) 32.33 CUA Only (N=17) DPA / LPA / SPA (N=15) Variance (by ZA) (N=11) Variance with Exceptional DR (N=5) 39.48 CUA plus (N=30) 39.68 Map Amendment/General Plan Amendment (N=3) 42.08 Development Agreement (N=4) 42.16 Variance (by Planning Commission) (N=1) 46.68 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Months to Entitlement Graphic Developed by Dori Ganetsos using CALES data. 36 35.67 35.05 12 The recent appeal of demolition permits for an SB 35 development located at 2550 Irving demonstrates this point. 11 Unpredictable discretionary review processes create uncertainty and risk<U+2014> even for code compliant development of any size in any location citywide. All permits in San Francisco are discretionary under local law unless preempted by state law13 (like SB 35). Stakeholders describe the discretionary housing approval process in San Francisco as risky and unpredictable. Stakeholders report approval is uncertain even if the proposal conforms to all zoning and planning requirements. When we use different statistical methods to analyze the housing approval data, we also find that no type of housing development is easy to entitle in San Francisco. Even a smaller development that conforms to zoning and planning requirements faces unpredictable timeframes. When we analyze the approvals data to explore relationships between specific approval requirements and timeframes, we discover that there are factors<U+2014>like affordability classification, project size, and location<U+2014> outside of what zoning and planning standards require that influence timeframes. This suggests that these other factors might play a substantial role in whether and how a project gets entitled, even when a project conforms to all planning standards and zoning. Timeframes for discretionary approvals increased. Our 2018 - 2021 approvals data indicates that entitlement timeframes have increased as compared to the prior four years. The median timeframe for discretionary approvals of five or more units issued in 2014 - 2017 was 27 months. In 2018 - 2021, the median timeframe for the same climbed to 34 months<U+2014>more than a 25% increase. Figure 2 shows that in both study periods, 100% affordable development moved comparatively faster: 100% affordable development requiring discretionary review had median approval timeframes of ~15 months in 2014 - 2017 and ~20 months in 2018 <U+2013> 2021. Both periods show that the city can quicken the process, to some degree, for affordable development. Interview data from 2017 and 2022 - 2023 indicate that planning staff have been committed to expediting affordable development. 13 The Municipal Business and Tax Regulations Code Section 26(a) provides that San Francisco<U+2019>s departments may <U+201C>take into consideration the effects of the proposed business or calling upon surrounding property and upon its residents . . . [and to] exercise its [or their] sound discretion as to whether said permit should be granted, transferred, denied or revoked.<U+201D> SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., BUS. & TAX REGS. CODE 26(a) (2019). San Francisco Planning<U+2019>s website states that the city interprets this part of the Municipal Code as granting the Planning Commission discretionary authority over all building permits, including permits not otherwise discretionary under zoning and planning requirements. Discretionary Review, S.F. PLAN., https://sfplanning.org/resource/discretionary-review (Jan. 25, 2023). 12 Figure 2: Comparison of Timeframes by Affordability Classification, All Years Classification ent 40.00 35.00 30.90 33.58 36.00 lem 30.00 25.08 ntit 25.00 19.68 E 20.00 15.39 15.00 Months to 10.00 5.00 0.00 2014-2017 2018-2021 2014-2017 2018-2021 2014-2017 2018-2021 100% Affordable Mixed-Income Market Rate Comparison of 2014 - 2017 (N=140) to 2018 - 2021 (N=111) Entitlement (Non-ADU) Timeframes by Affordability Graphic Developed by Dori Ganetsos using CALES data. Local policy and practices are inconsistent with the goals of the Permit Streamlining Act, Housing Accountability Act, and Housing Crisis Act. Stakeholders report that San Francisco<U+2019>s local rules and politics create planning practices that are inconsistent with state housing laws which aim to quicken planning review and reduce subjectivity. Approvals data suggests these stakeholders are correct. First, the data the city makes publicly available on project applications shows San Francisco systematically failed to meet PSA notification deadlines for discretionary approvals issued in 2018 - 2021. Planning recorded more information on application notices in its public portal for applications filed after January 1, 2018, as compared to prior years, indicating that San Francisco Planning is doing more to track and disclose project intake. Still, the city<U+2019>s data shows the city routinely did not meet PSA deadlines. Also, up until July 2023, local policy required the entitlement process for most dense development to begin with a mandatory Preliminary Project Assessment (PPA) process that added, on average, a year to the application process. Second, local rules drive the city<U+2019>s implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which extends timelines. Local rules that allow for easy administrative appeals and require appeal of CEQA determinations to follow entitlement14 push environmental planners to make CEQA determinations at the close of the entitlement process. This practice limits the PSA<U+2019>s effect on overall approval timeframes.15 Also, the state<U+2019>s CEQA guidelines do not require San Francisco Planning to incorporate wind and shadow studies into compliance pathways for exempt developments, but local law does. These supplemental studies add time 14 The Board of Supervisors provides an advisory that explains that Section 31.16 of its Administrative Code requires that the Board will hear an appeal after the final approval action. See S.F. BD. OF SUPERVISORS, APPEAL FILING TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EXEMPTION DETERMINATIONS APPEAL (Aug. 28, 2023), https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/CEQA_Exemption_Determinations_Appeal_Info_Sheet.pdf. 15 We interpret California Government Code 65690(a) as imposing limits on the time to approval under the PSA only after a city makes CEQA determinations. See CAL. GOV<U+2019>T CODE 65690(a) (West 2023). 13 and cost to environmental review, and sometimes provide a basis for local administrative appeals.16 Third, and relatedly, administrative appeals not only delay entitlement for specific projects that face appeal, administrative appeals also influence planning practices at a systems level. Most stakeholders (across groups) perceive that San Francisco<U+2019>s process risks inserting the Board of Supervisors into any approval pathway through an appeal. This process nurtures risk averse planning practices at all stages which derail other local and state policy that aims to quicken review. Data also shows that appeals increase the workload for planners already juggling immense workloads, which in turn impacts the pace of review for other development proposals. For example, an administrative appeal of just one entitlement in our dataset required 374 additional staff hours and $52,204 to prepare the appeal<U+2014>even though the appeal was withdrawn. Notably, nearly all the planners we interviewed or met with are more apprehensive of the Board of Supervisors than potential litigants. Fourth, stakeholders report frequent continuances and multiple hearings for non-CEQA approvals, which they say also allows for changes to proposed development outside of formal hearings. San Francisco<U+2019>s publicly accessible data on hearing dates is incomplete for about half of our 2018 <U+2013> 2021 observations. Still, we found that at least 22% of all 2018 <U+2013> 2021 quasi-adjudicative entitlements had multiple continuances or hearings for a single step.17 Some observations have remarkably high rates of continuances and hearings. One project, for example, had nine continuances for a joined Large Project Authorization and Density Bonus approval step. Fifth, several stakeholder groups report that local policy allows frivolous and meritless challenges with ease (evidenced by withdrawn or denied appeals or withdrawn or denied requests for exceptional discretionary review)18 and with little to no cost to project opponents, yet significant costs to planning staff and developers. Project proponents see increased costs because of the delays and uncertainty that these processes create. The processes also impact the workflow of Planning Department staff, which slows down planning review. For example, data shows that when project opponents request exceptional discretionary review, planners can expect to work several days and sometimes weeks preparing for a hearing on a project with which they already completed review. This requires shuffling work priorities. Developers report that rules that make it easy to challenge imminent planning approvals foster an opaque practice of negotiation outside of formal hearings which risks imposition of subjective conditions of approval. The approvals data show at least 14% of entitlements (across both study periods<U+2014>or eight years) faced administrative appeals that were usually withdrawn or denied.19 16 We note here that San Francisco<U+2019>s public portal only provides access to shadow studies, although many stakeholders including planners stated that wind studies are common. 17 This includes entitlements that only required a planning department or zoning administrator review. If we take out those entitlements that did not require a hearing in front of the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors under planning and zoning law, the rate is at least 30%. 18 Exceptional discretionary review refers to a local rule that allows project opponents to request the Planning Commission exercise discretionary review for an approval that did not otherwise require the Planning Commission<U+2019>s involvement. This request necessitates a hearing, at which time the Planning Commission then determines if it will exercise discretionary review because of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances which could lead to modifying the conditions of approval. More detail on this local process is in the full report. We refer to this as <U+201C>exceptional discretionary review<U+201D> hereafter. 19 Administrative appeal data for 2018 - 2021 depends on internal tracking and self-reported data and is not systematically available on the city<U+2019>s public portal. It is possible that the rate of administrative appeal could be higher. 14 Also, at least 20% of discretionary building permits in study years received a request for exceptional discretionary review. Subjectivity and variability persist in the post-entitlement process. All stakeholders experienced with development in San Francisco shared that the permitting process lacks standardization or uniformity in how the process unfolds. Outcomes, in terms of processing time, are contingent on who is assigned to the development rather than on the form of the development. This variability slows, and sometimes derails, production. Stakeholders describe building permit processes as inefficient and subjective, triggering planning review again even after entitlement. There is also notable difference in the way all stakeholders describe Planning Department and Department of Building Inspection (DBI) staff. Stakeholders blame local approval bodies for overly cautious planning practices. In contrast, stakeholders complain of too little oversight or management of DBI staff, and too few performance standards, as influencing permitting practices. Stakeholders suggest local reforms must eliminate discretionary review on some housing or the city will not meet its RHNA or resolve long-standing inequities in land use. Importantly, planners, developers, and many housing advocates welcomed the state<U+2019>s intervention into local discretion through SB 35. Though planners expressed a need for more technical support from the state when state law augments local planning review, planners agreed with developers that the state ministerial process fixed planning review for most 100% affordable development and offered that a ministerial process could do the same for other housing projects. Stakeholder groups also shared that reforms to expedite and simplify planning review while retaining discretion will fail to fix process problems in San Francisco. Statistical analysis of approvals data suggests these stakeholders are correct. Planning review of code compliant development can take years. This is true, even though our timeline calculations do not capture the frequency of developments subject to discretionary review being punted back to Planning after entitlement for further additional review, because San Francisco<U+2019>s public data portal does not allow for systematic analysis of this problem. Regression analysis suggests that reducing process steps while maintaining discretionary review is unlikely to resolve San Francisco<U+2019>s production challenges.20 Stakeholders shared that rezoning must be coupled with procedural reform that provides a local ministerial process to address production challenges and equity. Planners, developers, and some housing advocates perceive current reform efforts as <U+201C>tinkering<U+201D> with the zoning and planning code, when what they believe is needed is procedural overhaul and equitable upzoning. Stakeholders characterize San Francisco<U+2019>s existing regulation as reflecting historical and current power imbalances across neighborhoods. Stakeholders caution that current density and use controls that limit housing development in more affluent neighborhoods reflect existing neighborhood power over planning and political bodies. Also, the dominance of project-level adversarial politics reflects that some communities can only access power over land use by blocking development at public hearings. When affluent neighborhoods are rezoned, stakeholders caution that neighborhood power and influence over planning and 20 Figure 8 illustrates. For a full discussion of regression analysis using the 2014 - 2021 data, see Appendix A. 15 political bodies will not necessarily disappear. Without a ministerial process for at least some development, stakeholders caution that rezoning will simply catalyze more project-by-project adjudication and administrative appeals as affluent communities block more equitable distribution of dense housing development through existing process tools. If what stakeholders forecast is correct<U+2014>and the data suggests that they are<U+2014>then existing timelines to approval likely underestimate future approval timeframes in higher opportunity neighborhoods that the city is in the process of upzoning or proposing to upzone. Planners, developers, and advocates share that these local rules requiring reform are values- driven. These rules reflect a widespread assumption that more process supports meaningful community engagement and sharing of power over land use which, together, help address structural inequities in the built environment. Several stakeholder groups caution that these assumptions are faulty. San Francisco<U+2019>s process fosters project-level political fights that result in high-risk entitlement processes without altering longstanding inequities in planning standards and zoning. Planners, in particular, share that what San Francisco needed, and still needs, is deep engagement at the policy, planning, and zoning stages to hash out what zoning and planning standards should be, as well as simplified and ministerial approval for development at the project level that serves the city<U+2019>s housing policy goals. Planners and developers caution that as process has gotten worse in recent years, fewer developers can navigate the risk of developing in San Francisco, and this poses major challenges to San Francisco<U+2019>s ability to meet its production targets. During meetings with HCD, some Commissioners and Supervisors called out this local history and the problems of process in San Francisco, seemingly aligned with the perspectives of planners, affordable developers, and housing advocates. At the same time, meetings with both Commissioners and Supervisors also revealed clear disagreement within political bodies on both the source of San Francisco<U+2019>s housing problems and the solution. At least some Supervisors are skeptical that increasing anything other than affordable housing production could tackle the city<U+2019>s housing challenges. Some Commissioners and Supervisors also expressed concern about how State Density Bonus Law and SB 35 alter the urban form, even as they want more affordability. And at least some Supervisors perceived affordability to be welcome citywide, whereas planners and affordable developers say that this is not true. Conclusion San Francisco<U+2019>s planning practice and process problems spring from local law that applies discretionary review to any permit and offers repeated opportunities to challenge project approvals after an already complex and lengthy planning review process. These rules incentivize risk averse planning practices to avoid disruptions to a busy workflow and public scrutiny from political bodies. Risk averse planning practices, in turn, limit full implementation of the Permit Streamlining Act, Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act, and in some instances, State Density Bonus Law. Local rules also limit the effects of SB 35, as affordable developers face post-entitlement appeals. Still, the direct effects of state ministerial review highlight what is possible in terms of resolving San Francisco<U+2019>s process issues. Planners, developers, and housing advocates suggest achievement of the city<U+2019>s equity goals requires a local ministerial process coupled with equitable upzoning. What is also apparent, however, is that reforming zoning and entitlement will be insufficient to attain production targets. The city has major challenges with post-entitlement processes<U+2014>some of which are related, again, to local rules, and some of which are related to variability and subjectivity in permitting processes, staffing, and lack of inter-agency coordination. 16 Introduction In 2016, we launched the Comprehensive Assessment of Land Use Entitlements Study (CALES) at UC Berkeley. CALES explores how communities design and apply land use law to proposals to build dense housing. We used a 2015 California Legislative Analyst<U+2019>s Office report that identified the metro areas with the highest housing costs in the state and where demand has outpaced supply21 to select our first group of study cities and regions. San Francisco was at the top of the list, and we began our work by studying San Francisco and four neighboring cities.22 We eventually grew the study to include 28 jurisdictions in seven metropolitan regions across the state. What we found was that San Francisco zoned comparatively more land for dense housing than nearly every other city we studied across the state. Indeed, San Francisco was one of only two cities studied that zoned more than a third of its zoned land for all income levels.23 Zoning land for dense multi-family housing is a necessary though insufficient condition to achieving affordability and inclusion. California<U+2019>s fair share housing law is premised on this concept.24 Despite San Francisco zoning more land for dense housing than most cities studied, we found that San Francisco<U+2019>s local regulatory regime was comparatively prohibitive and risked exclusion. Even though the city has explicit local policy to promote inclusion and fair housing goals through inclusionary housing programs, rent stabilization, and tenant protections, our comparative analysis categorized San Francisco as <U+201C>prohibitive<U+201D> due to its complex procedural maze and application of laws. Among the 28 jurisdictions studied, San Francisco was unique in that it made all development discretionary. No other city we studied made all building permits (typically issued post-entitlement) discretionary; most used aesthetic regulation or design or site plan review as the blanket discretionary hook during entitlement. A few of our study cities required use permits for all multi-family housing development. But all the other approaches we found existed in the planning code and zoning regulations. No other city studied made building permits discretionary through some other area of local law. San Francisco was also an extreme outlier in terms of timeframes to entitlement<U+2014>with median timeframes of over two years, even for housing developments that met all zoning requirements and planning standards. These lengthy timeframes eclipsed the other study cities<U+2019> timeframes by many months. These timelines also exceeded planner perceptions of <U+201C>average<U+201D> entitlement timeframes in communities nationwide. We found that only 5% of the 140 project observations in our 2014 - 2017 dataset from San Francisco achieved entitlement in 12 months or less. We wrote that San Francisco<U+2019>s land use regime exemplifies how cities can zone land for dense multi-family housing and write and implement procedural rules to create delay and uncertainty of approval. Delay creates cost. Uncertainty creates risk. Increased development costs and risk influences which developers will build within a place, and what those developers will build. In that prior research, interview data and 2014 - 2017 approvals data suggested San Francisco<U+2019>s local regulatory regime burdened affordable development<U+2014>even if the city prioritized affordable CHAS ALAMO ET AL., LEGIS. ANALYST<U+2019>S OFF., CALIFORNIA'S HIGH HOUSING COSTS: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES (2015), https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.aspx. 22 We refer here to our Report to the California Air Resources Board in fulfillment of Contract #3900- 19STC005. MOIRA O<U+2019>NEILL-HUTSON ET AL., EXAMINING ENTITLEMENT IN CALIFORNIA TO INFORM POLICY AND PROCESS: ADVANCING SOCIAL EQUITY IN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS (2022). 23 Id. 24 See CAL. GOV<U+2019>T CODE 65583.2 (West 2023). 21 17 development<U+2014>and likely squeezed out possibilities for middle income housing development entirely. We found that San Francisco<U+2019>s local law facilitated most 2014 - 2017 entitlement being sited in formerly industrial locations or neighborhoods that had multi-family zoning in place for decades. What we concluded was that San Francisco was the most sophisticated of the cities we studied in how its local law effectively blocked dense housing development through complex procedural hurdles rather than traditional density and use constraints. California<U+2019>s legislature has passed nearly 100 laws relevant to housing policy since 201625 to spur housing production across all income levels and promote equitable housing outcomes. Many important changes target subjectivity in planning review and aim to quicken planning review, particularly for multi-family housing. There is also new law and policy to accelerate equitable housing outcomes, in terms of increased production in high opportunity locations. More recent legislative reforms invite important questions about how well San Francisco has implemented these state housing laws intended to promote housing production, affordability, and equity. To explore these questions, we expanded and extended our Comprehensive Assessment of Land Use Entitlements Study (CALES) to better understand San Francisco<U+2019>s local land use regulatory regime and identify roadblocks to all multi-family housing development approvals that would yield five or more units. This report details our methods, presents findings, and discusses their implications for the California Department of Housing and Community Developments<U+2019> (HCD) Policy and Practice Review. Methods, Data, and Limitations HCD asked: 1) At the local level, are state housing laws (including the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act, Permit Streamlining Act, State Density Bonus Law, SB 35, and Housing Element Law) intended to promote housing production and affordability being fully implemented, and are they achieving their intended effect? 2) What are the causes of delay in San Francisco<U+2019>s entitlement process? 3) To what extent do discretionary review processes impact overall project timelines and the housing approvals pipeline? Overall Research Approach We use a spiraling mixed methods research design that joins legal research and qualitative, quantitative, and spatial analyses to understand San Francisco<U+2019>s local regulatory environment and answer the research questions. A spiraling research design is iterative and allows us to reexamine theoretical assumptions and methodological choices throughout the research process. This iterative research approach is sensitive to local conditions and research needs that are sometimes difficult to discover at the beginning of a research process. This approach involves producing analysis at multiple points in the study to allow for a feedback loop with both HCD and San Francisco while also informing our own theoretical assumptions about which law, policy, or planning practice factors support or obstruct housing development. This approach also means we do not rely exclusively on qualitative, quantitative, or spatial analysis to answer any 25 See Ben Metcalf, Managing Dir., UC Berkeley, Terner Ctr. for Hous. Innovation, Presentation at the California Joint Oversight Hearing with Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: Housing Production: Recent Legislative Actions and Outcomes (Feb. 28, 2023), https://shou.senate.ca.gov/node/21. 18 research question. We use qualitative data (interviews) to understand our quantitative and spatial analysis (using our entitlement dataset) and vice versa. Ongoing Legal Research We completed initial legal research into San Francisco<U+2019>s planning and zoning through CALES in 2016. We updated that legal research in 2018 and 2019, and then again in 2021 to understand changes to local planning review processes (for example, the elimination of the pre-application Environmental Evaluation process in 2018) and the impact of state housing laws (including changes to Density Bonus Law, Accessory Dwelling Unit Law, Senate Bill 330, SB 35, and amendments to the Housing Accountability Act), wherever changes are codified or provided for in policy documents. The legal and planning code summary informs our interview questions and guides our current data collection process. In the scope of this work, we updated our review of local law with relevant trial court and appellate court opinions. Our Interpretation of State Law and Definition of <U+201C>Full Implementation<U+201D> of State Law Answering the first research question requires us to explore whether San Francisco<U+2019>s policy and practices comply with state law and whether San Francisco<U+2019>s local policy or practices prevent specific state laws from achieving their intended effect. This requires us, first, to interpret state law and define what it means for a locality to fully implement each law for the purposes of this research. How we define <U+201C>full implementation<U+201D> in the research questions also informs our methods of analysis. We list our understanding of the applicability of specific state laws, their aims, and our definition of <U+201C>full implementation<U+201D> here. We interpret the PSA, Housing Accountability Act, and Housing Crisis Act as applicable to all discretionary approvals, or entitlements, in San Francisco that do not require local legislative action. We read provisions within San Francisco<U+2019>s Planning Code that allow for and anticipate that the Planning Commission will issue a waiver or exception from any planning standards or zoning without local legislative action as adjudicative and within the purview of these state laws. We interpret the goal of the PSA as seeking to <U+201C>expedite decisions<U+201D> on qualifying development projects26 by imposing time limits on application processing and approval decisions. We also interpret the Permit Streamlining Act as imposing limits on the time to approval under the Permit Streamlining Act only after a city makes CEQA determinations.27 If our data shows that a local policy or practice prevents the Permit Streamlining from imposing those time limits, we conclude that the local policy or practice blocks the full implementation of the PSA, even if the data does not show San Francisco violated an express provision of the PSA. We interpret that the goal of the Housing Accountability Act is to increase housing production by limiting the ability of cities to outright deny, reduce the density of, or render infeasible a development that complies with objective development standards. We interpret the Housing Accountability Act to prohibit these actions unless a locality provides written findings that the proposed development would have an unavoidable and impossible to mitigate adverse impact on public health or safety.28 Relatedly, we interpret the 2017 amendments to the Housing Accountability Act, found in Assembly Bill 1515, as modifying the Housing Accountability Act<U+2019>s <U+201C>reasonable person<U+201D> standard for determining compliance with land use regulations29 in favor of 26 CAL. GOV<U+2019>T CODE 65921 (West 2023). 27 CAL. GOV<U+2019>T CODE 65950 (West 2023). 28 CAL. GOV<U+2019>T CODE 65589.5 (West 2023). 29 CAL. GOV<U+2019>T CODE 65589.5(f)(4) (West 2023). 19 approving qualifying development. We read the law consistent with how the First District Court of Appeal read the law.30 We also interpret the <U+201C>deemed to comply<U+201D> provision of the Housing Accountability Act consistent with this same appellate court opinion.31 We interpret this state law as requiring a city to send a project applicant timely written notice and an explanation of non- compliance if a city determines a proposed housing development is inconsistent with applicable standards. We use descriptive statistics and interviews to explore whether San Francisco may have imposed conditions that lead to a reduced density (between application and entitlement), or subjective standards (conditions that render the development infeasible), or otherwise effectively denied a proposal to develop housing that a reasonable person would conclude is compliant with land use regulations under the Housing Accountability Act. Where our data indicates that the city may have imposed subjective standards, conditions that reduce density, or conditions that may render developments infeasible, we describe this as a failure to fully implement the Housing Accountability Act. We do not conclude whether San Francisco violated an express provision the Housing Accountability Act because of the limitations of our data. We gather and analyze documents that are readily available through the city<U+2019>s parcel information map public portal<U+2014>but we cannot confirm that the city did not issue a notice of non-compliance with applicable standards or did not prepare findings, because the documents are not readily available on the public portal. We cannot interpret the absence of those documents on the city<U+2019>s public portal as meaning that those documents do not exist, ergo, San Francisco did not comply with state law.32 We also interpret one goal of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, enacted in October 2019,33 to be to curb delays associated with hearings, continuances, and meetings.34 Where we identify entitlements with multiple hearings and more than five hearings, we describe as inconsistent with this law or that the city is not fully implementing the law. We do not determine whether the city is systematically violating the express prohibition on number of hearings, largely because of the data challenges surrounding hearings as discussed in the body of this report. Unique Entitlement Dataset The Comprehensive Assessment of Land Use Entitlements Study (CALES) dataset is a uniquely detailed dataset on how entitlements issued in select years navigated their approval pathway. Table 2: Entitlement Data Counts by Project and Units Across Years details observations per study year. 30 We refer here to the opinion in Cal. Renters Legal Advoc. & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo, 68 Cal. App. 5th 820, 845 (2021) (<U+201C>Subdivision (f)(4) is intentionally deferential to housing development.<U+201D>). 31 Id. at 831 (a <U+201C>project is deemed to comply if substantial evidence . . . would allow a reasonable person to conclude<U+2019> that it does<U+201D>). 32 We do recommend, however, that San Francisco make those documents publicly available if they exist. 33 We refer here to the passage of Senate Bill 330, approved by the Governor on October 9, 2019. S.B. 330, 2019-2020 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2019). 34 CAL. GOV<U+2019>T CODE 65905.5 (West 2023). 20 Table 2: Entitlement Data Counts by Project and Units Across Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019* 2020 2021 Projects 24 23 55 38 36 42 25 41 Units 2,470 2,069 6,371 3,359 2,824 2,807 2,839 2,869 *We included one SB 35 observation without an eligibility determination date in 2019 based on the date of the building permit. 2014 - 2017 Observations The 2014 - 2017 dataset does not include Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) approvals but does include litigation-related data.35 We do not rely on San Francisco<U+2019>s reporting on entitlement and permitting. Rather, we build our dataset from source documents including application documents, planning staff reports, motion and resolution documents, and legal pleadings where relevant, and construct our own code book. Importantly, in addition to our typical quality control measures, San Francisco uniquely provided us an opportunity to review our 2014 - 2017 dataset with the San Francisco Planning Department<U+2019>s Environmental Review team in 2018 following our first working paper. Using San Francisco<U+2019>s online Property Information Map system (PIM), we augmented the 2014 - 2017 entitlement data in this study by: 1) Collecting additional hearing, correspondence, and approval data on the PPA and Environmental Evaluation Application processes, where available; 2) Collecting in-depth information on the nine observations where parties applied for exceptional Discretionary Review (DR) under San Francisco<U+2019>s Business and Tax Code, including all available data on the requests, hearings, and the Planning Commission<U+2019>s actions; 3) Confirming if and how market-rate developments satisfied San Francisco<U+2019>s inclusionary zoning (IZ) ordinance by reviewing our data and supporting documents (there are 10 market-rate developments in our dataset where we cannot confirm how the projects satisfied the IZ requirement); 4) Supplementing our search for <U+201C>determined to be complete<U+201D> dates issued by the Planning Department (there are none for all 140 observations) with a second search through San Francisco<U+2019>s Property Information Map (PIM)36 for correspondence regarding incomplete applications; and 5) Augmenting existing CEQA-related coding with any available data on Wind, Shadow, and Transportation Demand Management studies for each observation in the 2014 - 2017 dataset. 35 We detail how we collected and quality checked the 2014 - 2017 entitlement data we reference in the Report to the California Air Resources Board (CARB Report). MOIRA O<U+2019>NEILL-HUTSON ET AL., EXAMINING ENTITLEMENT IN CALIFORNIA TO INFORM POLICY AND PROCESS: ADVANCING SOCIAL EQUITY IN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 36-43 (2022). 36 PIM refers to San Francisco<U+2019>s public portal that provides comprehensive access to numerous records associated with parcels. San Francisco Property Information Map, S.F. PLAN., https://sfplanninggis.org/pim/ (last visited Sept. 18, 2023). 21 The Permit Streamlining Act provides planning departments should determine whether an application to develop housing is complete within 30 days of receipt or the application will be deemed complete.37 We found no publicly available data that documents that San Francisco<U+2019>s planners made completeness determinations within 30 days of application for any entitlement of five or more units issued in 2014 - 2017. 38 We explored the data to see if we could determine <U+201C>deemed complete<U+201D> dates as well. For discretionary building permit applications, we could almost always locate the Preliminary Project Assessment (PPA) applications (where applicable) but could not always find Project Applications consistently logged. The Notice of Building Permit Application, however, references the application date (though we cannot confirm the date against a source document). For other approval applications that require only one local approval<U+2014>like a Conditional Use Authorization (CUA)<U+2014>we can locate the PPA documents, but we can only sometimes locate applications for those discrete approvals with date stamps of application receipt by the Planning Department. We also cannot determine from the documents on PIM when planning review began for entitlements issued in 2014 - 2017. For projects that fall under the Permit Streamlining Act, this means that it is not possible to confirm compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act even if the Planning Department staff did not make completeness determinations. For example, we found a few instances of Planning Department correspondence that lists what an application for a discretionary approval (like a CUA) is missing, and states that review has begun and that time limits do not begin until after the project proponent submits the required materials<U+2014>but the letter does not provide when planning review began. These letters are dated many months after the application date.39 The date of the letter suggests non-compliance with the PSA, but the language is vague. Also, although PIM links users to a portal that provides some building permit data (permit number, description, and date), there is little to no supporting documentation available. 2018 - 2021 Observations We first modified the data collection template to account for important changes in state law and to track source documents closely. We have variables to identify the source of data that we used to determine the timeframe, approval, and hearing values. Adding data source variables allows us to code for whether we were able to identify an approval detail or event based on the original document (primary source) or an entry in San Francisco<U+2019>s portal (secondary or self- reported source). We also constructed new variables to explore: How many public hearings (including continuances) to which a project was subjected. The approval body required of a developer or property owner before issuing an approval. Changes to project characteristics (in terms of the number of units proposed, or types of units proposed) throughout the entitlement process. How developments that qualified for state ministerial approvals (such as SB 35) navigated the approval process. 37 CAL. GOV<U+2019>T CODE 65920 (West 2023). 38 During our prior research in San Francisco, we did not request this information through a Public Records Act request. We did confirm in meetings with San Francisco personnel that at that time, Planning did not track the relevant information. 39 For example, using one of our CUA observations to illustrate, we can find the application (with the submission date) and the Planning Department<U+2019>s notice that details what is missing, and that review is underway. The time lag between the two is about 10 months and does provide when planning review began. 22 Consistent with prior coding, we also always code for <U+201C>other approvals<U+201D> we could not anticipate from legal research and review of San Francisco<U+2019>s local planning and zoning ordinances. In 2018 - 2021 data, examples include approvals like those requiring sidewalk legislation to allow a development to meet other code requirements. We also continuously add variables to augment the dataset to answer the research questions above. We built our potential observation list to collect data from multiple sources. We referenced Annual Progress Report (APR) data to identify all reported entitlements or ADU or SB 35 approvals that would yield five or more new residential units if built. The APR listed duplicates. We cleaned for duplicates as we only wanted to examine unique projects in the APR. Once we had unique reported entitlements, we ran a match within our own 2014 - 2017 dataset. We ran a fuzzy-join text matching algorithm40 between unique entitlements in the APR with our 2014 - 2017 dataset. We found six APR unique projects that overlapped with observations in our 2014 - 2017 data (which we had already cleaned and confirmed involved entitlements in those years). We do not include those in our 2018 - 2021 dataset.41 We incorporated the remainder of APR entitlements into our data collection strategy. We then reviewed CEQA-related approvals in San Francisco's PIM portal and Planning Commission agendas using San Francisco<U+2019>s public database of environmental review notices of determinations and exemptions.42 We identified another group of observations (developments that appeared potentially approved in 2018 - 2021) to incorporate into our data collection strategy. Our 2018 - 2021 data includes 16 SB 35 observations and 17 discretionary ADUs. We provide more detail on the accuracy of APR data in Appendix C. In all, a team of trained students collected data on 196 potential observations of entitlement/approvals issued in 2018 - 2021 after constructing a project list from the APR, cross- referencing environmental review determinations, and any other materials that listed out SB 35 project approvals. After preliminary data collection we determined 144 observations belonged in our study for analysis of entitlements and SB 35 approvals issued in 2018 - 2021. We excluded pending entitlements, entitlements outside of our study years, and Development Agreements associated with a major phased development where no phase or building had yet secured its final entitlement. We completed a full quality check of 133 of our 2018 - 2021 observations. The quality check process involved checking each coded value we recorded in the database twice against the source document or the PIM entry if no source document was available. Where there was an ambiguity or confusion about what the coded value should be, O<U+2019>Neill reviewed the value and the source material to make a final coding decision. We completed a partial quality check for 11 observations we gathered late in our data collection process, after referencing amended Annual Progress Reports, to allow for reliable summary statistics, including regression analysis, and all spatial analysis. We exclude these 11 observations from our analysis of frequency of continuances, changes in proposed density from 40 A fuzzy join is a joining method that is used for merging two datasets that are not perfectly matched. The reason we ran a fuzzy join is that there may be differences in how an address was written in the APR and our original dataset. A fuzzy join allows us to match projects that may have similar but not identical addresses in the APR and the CALES dataset. 41 We would have to first confirm with San Francisco Planning whether these six potential observations were new entitlements and not modifications before including them in our dataset. 42 Environmental Review Documents, S.F. PLAN., https://sfplanning.org/environmental-review-documents (last visited Sept. 18, 2023). 23 application to approval, project intake processes, inclusionary housing program compliance pathway, and frequency of additional studies during environmental review. Primary Source Documents Whenever possible, we relied on primary source documents; San Francisco does not make all primary source documents readily available. For example, calculating timeframes to entitlement for discretionary observations requires tracking the earliest required application date. Prior to discontinuing the PPA requirement in July 2023, San Francisco required project proponents submit a PPA for specific types of development before submitting a project application. We have 87 observations in our 2018 - 2021 dataset that would have required a PPA application. We were able to locate the signed and dated PPA application document to determine the first application date for 48 of those observations through PIM. We sourced PPA application dates for another six observations from PPA-related correspondence (including the PPA decision document). We had to rely on PIM entries for PPA dates for 22 observations because either the application itself was not dated, or there was no PPA application in the PIM portal. San Francisco<U+2019>s PPA process required project proponents to submit significant information about the proposed development. Another example relates to San Francisco Planning<U+2019>s policy that mandates a pre-application neighborhood notification process, and a pre-application hearing called the <U+201C>Pre-Application Community Outreach Process<U+201D> or <U+201C>Pre-Application Meeting.<U+201D>43 This pre-application process requires project proponents to send notices and copies of plans to adjacent neighbors and neighborhood organizations before applying to develop land for any new construction or alteration that would change an existing structure by seven vertical feet or 10 horizontal feet. San Francisco Planning compiles the list of neighborhood organizations that project proponents must notify. Though PIM makes most PPAs available, PIM rarely provides source documents that furnish detail about pre-application hearings. Also relevant, determining compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act requires tracking whether a project proponent applied for entitlement by submitting an application package to the Planning Department. While our dataset contains initial application dates for most of our 2018 - 2021 observations, we can source these dates from primary source documents<U+2014>signed and dated applications<U+2014>for only 58 observations. We rely on references to application dates in Plan Check Letters sent by the Planning Department and approval documents in another 29 observations. Where we do not have a primary source document, we rely on PIM entries for application dates, which is data that a San Francisco Planning Department planner entered into the PIM system directly. In sum, more than half (56%) of the application dates in our dataset are essentially self-reported dates from Planning<U+2014>and not readily verifiable with application documents. We also highlight here that in at least four instances, the PIM entry reports an application date after the approval event (which is available through a primary source document). In another five instances, the PIM system reports an application date that is prior to the PPA date. We assume these are errors (an application should neither follow an entitlement nor predate a preliminary application procedure) but we report out what the data shows, nonetheless. Although these potential errors do not impact descriptive findings on time frames to approval, they do limit analysis of consistency with the PSA. 43 Pre-Application Meeting, S.F. PLAN., https://sfplanning.org/resource/pre-application-meeting (July 30, 2023). 24 Regression Analysis We ran several regressions to analyze existing relationships within the CALES dataset. We include all regressions, supplementary analysis, and robustness checks in a separate methods Appendix A, though the main findings are in this report. We ran regression models on 2014 - 2017 data and 2018 - 2021 data separately, and then together. We used the statsmodel Python module44 to run all regressions in this analysis. We calculated all regression coefficients with robust standard errors (Errors of Order 3 (HC3)) in order to account for the existence of outliers and other issues within the data such as heteroskedasticity (variation in regression errors across our observations) and provide a small sample correction.45 Note that if we did not use robust standard errors, the standard errors of our estimates would be smaller, so the standard errors and subsequent hypothesis testing are conservative. In-Depth Interviews and Meetings and Review of Public Hearings We have interviews from our prior research across cities from 2017. We used transcripts from six interviews conducted in 2017 with stakeholders within San Francisco (an affordable developer, market-rate developer, city employee who managed affordable development, city planner, land use attorney, and community organization advocate) in this analysis. For this research, we also completed an additional 28 in-depth interviews with 18 additional participants that did not participate in interviews in prior years or in meetings led by HCD between late-fall 2022 and May 2023. We interviewed participants from the following groups: developers (market- rate and non-profit affordable developers); private sector professionals (architects, land use lawyers, planners); government personnel (including city planning staff); and representatives from community-based organizations (including affordable housing advocates). We identified some of these interview participants as experts within San Francisco and reached out to them to participate in an interview. Other participants reached out to us to participate in interviews as well. We advised all participants that the research would be reported to HCD, but we would protect the confidentiality of each participant consistent with our research protocols. For that reason, we do not quote any individual participant and only report on themes based on what multiple participants or entire stakeholder groups shared. We observed another 33 meetings that HCD convened for their Policy and Practice Review with approximately 146 stakeholders, including city planning personnel, Commissioners, Supervisors, market-rate developers, affordable developers, and housing organizations. Twenty of those meetings invited one participant, and five meetings invited two to three participants. These 25 HCD-led meetings with one to three participants offered in-depth conversations, much like research interviews. Most were an hour, though a few were longer or shorter. Most meetings included participants, one member of the HCD team and O<U+2019>Neill. A handful of much larger meetings (with more than three participants) included more than two HCD team members 44 Documentation for this module can be found at STATSMODELS, statsmodels.org/stable/index.html (May 5, 2023). 45 In regression analysis, the errors are defined by the difference between the observed values of the dependent variable (in this case, project timeframes) and values predicted by the regression specification. Accurate estimation of the uncertainty of OLS-predicted values generally depends on constant errors across observations. However, in this study, we do not assume that error is constant (homoscedasticity). For instance, model error might be larger for observations with substantially longer timeframes (i.e., where projects take two to three times longer than the median timeframe). When we use robust standard errors, we no longer assume that errors are constant across all observations, which can mitigate the impacts of this regression analysis being based on observational data. Further, we are using a small sample correction to mitigate the fact that our universe of observations is relatively small and to account for the natural clustering in timeframes that occurs at each local land use approval step. 25 and O<U+2019>Neill, along with participants. In each of these meetings, HCD informed the participants that O<U+2019>Neill would be observing and listening to the conversation for research purposes and that the research would support the state<U+2019>s Policy and Practice Review. About half of the meetings with Commissioners and Supervisors also included a deputy city attorney in the meeting with HCD. Stakeholders discussed planning review and post-entitlement processes in-depth. In all, we analyzed notes from interviews and meetings with representatives from six different housing advocacy groups, over 20 planning staff and more than 60 development professionals (evenly split between affordable and market-rate development). We also heard from 14 individuals split across the executive and legislative bodies within San Francisco. Two members of the research team performed a line-by-line reading of a subset (10%) of the interview transcripts and notes from interviews and meetings46 to identify recurrent concepts to generate a codebook in MaxQDA. We developed codes through an inductive process<U+2014>a process in which we analyzed the transcript to identify codes based on themes that the speaker emphasizes. We also generated some codes for analysis using a deductive process<U+2014>a process in which we analyze the notes and transcripts for content which indicates the speaker perceives that San Francisco either violated a state law or believes a policy or practice blocks a state law from having its intended effect. Once we had a codebook, three members of the research team coded all transcripts using the same software. We used MaxQDA software to summarize the findings by code and used the summaries to identify cross-cutting themes. This report pulled out findings where the team reached greater than 90% agreement on coded segments. We also generated stakeholder abstracts that summarized dominant themes (including internal consensus and disagreement on key topics within stakeholder groups). Where interview participants or meeting participants directed us to specific public hearings, we also reviewed those hearings to confirm what participants shared did occur. We only inserted quotes from public hearings or relevant media reporting into this report and did not include any direct quotes from conversations between stakeholders and either HCD or O<U+2019>Neill. Document Analysis Both interview and meeting participants, along with data collection, identified more than 41 proposed developments for a more detailed review process by our research team. We also located and analyzed documents associated with those 41 potential developments to explore in- depth what occurred during planning review. Study and Data Limitations Regression analysis using CALES data does not establish causal relationships. We rely on qualitative data to establish causality. Interview data is limited by the fact that all study participants volunteered. Relatedly, data from individuals and groups that agreed to participate in meetings with HCD is also limited by the fact that these participants volunteered. Voluntary participation in interviews increases selection bias and limits the generalizability of findings from interviews. We increased the number of interviews to reduce bias, but that does not allow us to generalize about San Francisco<U+2019>s policies or practices. Interview findings, however, can help us craft questions for quantitative analysis. Interview findings can provide important insights when 46 Some participants asked that the interview/meeting not be recorded for transcription purposes. In those instances, O<U+2019>Neill took detailed notes during the conversation, and the team joined those notes with transcripts from other interviews or meetings for qualitative analysis. 26 combined with regression and spatial analysis that regression and spatial analysis alone cannot yield. The advantage of our 2014 - 2017 entitlement dataset is that it is uniquely detailed. The limitation of that dataset, however, is that our original coding structure aimed for comparative analysis across cities. This means that when we coded our 2014 - 2017 observations, we collapsed some San Francisco processes into single variables to compare processes across jurisdictions. For example, Large Project Authorizations and Downtown Project Authorizations were coded together in our master dataset as <U+201C>exceptions<U+201D> because that was the most analogous to similar processes in other cities. That limits our ability to explore how those two distinct processes operate when we are studying San Francisco only. To address this in coding for the 2018 - 2021 data, we created two coded datasets. The 2014 - 2017 dataset has less detail than the 2018 - 2021 dataset. Another important limitation of our entire entitlement and SB 35 approval dataset relates to what each observation represents. Each observation reflects successful entitlements or SB 35 approvals only. That means that this universe of projects that we use for quantitative and spatial analyses represents those developments that successfully navigated the entitlement process in San Francisco. This means that the observations also represent those developments that developers likely had a high enough probability of success that they were willing to pursue entitlement in the first place. We do not have data suitable for quantitative analysis on when and how the city may have denied applications for entitlement in our dataset. That was beyond the current research scope. There is also no reliable data suitable for quantitative or spatial analyses on parcels where a property owner is unwilling to apply for entitlement. Also, we gathered insights from stakeholders through interviews regarding what occurs during entitlement and what influences whether some buildings get built. Specifically, stakeholders suggest that smaller buildings, which those stakeholders define as 20 units or less, may get entitled but become financially difficult to build post-entitlement. The stakeholders attributed this to an entitlement process that mediates conflicts with opponents in a way that may lead to a final entitlement of a project that is not financially possible to build.47 If entitlement processes contribute to whether a proposed development is financially feasible<U+2014>and in turn whether a developer will pull building permits to build<U+2014>then theoretically we might see a difference in the rate of filing for building permits for buildings that are 20 units or less as compared to larger buildings (21 units or more). We have two challenges concerning exploring this issue with quantitative methods. The first is that augmenting the entitlement data with post-entitlement permitting data is very difficult; San Francisco<U+2019>s building permit data is not as accessible online or as reliable as entitlement data. Also, San Francisco<U+2019>s local law makes it difficult to systematically identify what counts as the permit that represents the beginning of construction activity and/or intent to build the building because San Francisco has a discretionary building permit process. 47 Relatedly, at the time of this writing, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on a study concluding that the City<U+2019>s Inclusionary Housing Program is rendering some development fiscally infeasible. See Noah Arroyo, Affordable-Housing Quotas Imperil New S.F. Building Projects, Study Says, S.F. CHRON. (Jan. 22, 2023), https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sf-affordable-housing-projects-17727101.php. 27 Findings We report findings in response to each of the questions that HCD asked, drawing on all data and methods to answer each question. Our findings sometimes rely on data from both our 2014 - 2017 and 2018 - 2021 datasets, and sometimes draw exclusively on the 2018 - 2021 dataset. We also compare four years to four years where appropriate and construct year-to-year comparisons or group years by two-year comparisons (e.g., 2014 - 2015 compared with 2018 - 2019) where appropriate. Table 3 summarizes the total number of observations in our dataset, and the units they would yield if built, both in terms of market-rate units and affordable units. We narrowly define affordable units to refer to deed-restricted below market-rate housing units. Group housing, student housing, and single room occupancy housing are not included in any affordable housing count. Table 4 elaborates on the type of observations within our 2018 - 2021 data only. Table 3: Summary of Total Approvals and Unit Counts Across Study Period Study Period 2014 - 2017 Units from Entitlement of Developments of Five or More Units Total Approvals 140 Total Units 14,269 Affordable Units 2,168 % Affordable Units/ All Units 15% 2018 - 2021 Units Approved from Approval of Developments of Five or More Units 144 11,339 3,039 27% Table 4: 2018-2021 Approval Observations and Units by Affordability and Process Affordability Category Project Count Market-rate Units Affordable Units 100% Market-Rate Discretionary Non-ADU1 55 4,264 <U+2013> 100% Market-Rate Discretionary ADU2 16 110 <U+2013> Mixed-Income Discretionary Non-ADU 52 3,473 873 Mixed-Income Discretionary ADU 1 21 3 Mixed-Income SB 35 2 4 1,659 100% Affordable Discretionary Non-ADU 4 4 210 100% Affordable SB 35 14 426 294 28 1This includes 2 Group Housing Projects and 1 Student Housing Project. Although we elaborate on the contours of specific rules and planning practices when we discuss each finding, there are the two aspects of San Francisco<U+2019>s local law that dominate nearly all interviews and provide critical framing for virtually all of our findings. The first local law is one that makes all housing approvals in San Francisco discretionary. The Municipal Business and Tax Regulations Code Section 26(a) provides that San Francisco<U+2019>s departments may <U+201C>take into consideration the effects of the proposed business or calling upon surrounding property and upon its residents . . . [and to] exercise its [or their] sound discretion as to whether said permit should be granted, transferred, denied or revoked.<U+201D> The city interprets this law as granting the Planning Commission discretionary authority over all building permits, including permits not otherwise discretionary under zoning and planning requirements. The Planning Commission delegates this discretionary authority to the Planning Department to review applications that meet Planning Code standards and Design Guidelines. But when disputes arise over a building permit, <U+201C>concerned parties may choose to file a [request for exceptional] DR.<U+201D>48 A DR effectively stops the Planning Department<U+2019>s approval process, sets a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission, and triggers additional planning staff analysis to prepare for the hearing. Once a party has requested DR, unless they withdraw their request, there is always a public hearing. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission reviews materials and hears testimony and then determines whether it will <U+201C>approve, disapprove or require modifications to the project.<U+201D>49 The city states that the Planning Commission exercises this form of discretionary review only in exceptional circumstances when disputes between neighbors cannot be resolved through mediation.50 The procedure, based on how it is written, indicates that the process of requesting and holding a hearing can add months to the approval timeline, even if the Planning Commission leaves the Planning Department<U+2019>s approval intact. Another topic that dominated interviews is the ease with which project opponents can challenge discretionary approvals and post-entitlement permits through an administrative appeal under City Charter Section 4.106(b). The city charter provides that the Board of Appeals (an appointed political body) will hear appeals of building permits and demolition permits, unless either permit is issued after the Planning Commission authorizes a Conditional Use.51 The Board of Supervisors hears appeals of any post-entitlement permit associated with a Conditional Use Authorization and any appeal of a CEQA decision.52 San Francisco<U+2019>s local rules prevent full implementation of the goals and aims of state housing laws. HCD asked whether the data shows that San Francisco is fully implementing state law, including the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act, Permit Streamlining Act, SB 35, and State Density Bonus Law. The answer, as indicated by the data, is no. Developers, planning professionals, and most housing advocacy organizations perceive local rules as 48 Discretionary Review, S.F. PLAN., https://sfplanning.org/resource/discretionary-review (Jan. 25, 2023). 49 Discretionary Review, S.F. PLAN., https://sfplanning.org/resource/discretionary-review (Jan. 25, 2023). 50 The city also elaborates on its interpretation of the power this provision affords the Planning Commission in the Application Packet for Discretionary Review. See Discretionary Review, S.F. PLAN., https://sfplanning.org/resource/discretionary-review (Jan. 25, 2023). 51 The city details the limitations of the Board of Appeal<U+2019>s jurisdiction. About Us, Board of Appeals, SF.GOV, https://sf.gov/departments/board-appeals/about (last visited Sept 18, 2023). 52 Appeal of Certain CEQA Decisions, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., ADMIN. CODE 31.16 (2013). 29 blocking the full implementation of the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act (SB 330), Permit Streamlining Act, and State Density Bonus Law. Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis of housing approvals yields findings that are consistent with these stakeholder perceptions. Stakeholders also report that SB 35 effectively expedites planning review, but does not resolve post-entitlement problems within San Francisco. We report findings related to SB 35 and State Density Bonus Law first, and then move through findings related to steps in the entitlement and post-entitlement process. San Francisco Planning fully implemented SB 35, but SB 35 is not a complete process fix. SB 35 provides a state ministerial process for qualifying urban multifamily code compliant housing developments in jurisdictions that fail to meet their RHNA production targets in prior RHNA cycles. In San Francisco, SB 35 applies to qualifying housing where 50% or more of the units are affordable. A ministerial process is significant for developers and planners in San Francisco because local law renders all approvals discretionary. The state ministerial process eliminates pre-application requirements and hearings (discussed in more detail below), the opportunity for project opponents to request DR, and CEQA review. Once San Francisco Planning determines a project is eligible for SB 35, the developer proceeds directly to the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) for permitting. SB 35 processing timeframes are fast<U+2014>whereas discretionary building permits typically take years. SB 35 cabins the eligibility review period to 90 or 180 days depending on the project size (measured by units).53 Like many other cities, San Francisco <U+201C>restarts<U+201D> the review clock if there are any changes to the application.54 The data shows San Francisco Planning diligently applied this state law. We found that planning review for developments that began as SB 35 applications take about four months but no more than eight months. Table 7 shows that, in contrast, discretionary building permits take approximately two years to entitle or complete planning review before they begin to work with the DBI. Stakeholders explain that entitlement delays increase holding costs, but approval delays may also result in being subject to higher fees, particularly when delays span over years. Timeframes for all non-ADU developments along specific approval pathways spotlight the difficulty of entitlement and the need for a local ministerial process in addition to other zoning and procedural reforms. 53 CAL. GOV<U+2019>T CODE 65913.15(c)(1)-(2) (West 2023). 54 Moira O<U+2019>Neill & Ivy Wang, How Can Procedural Reform Support Fair Share Housing Production? Assessing the Effects of California<U+2019>s Senate Bill 35, 25 CITYSCAPE 143, 143-70 (2023). 30 Table 5: Entitlement Timeframe by Approval Pathway 2018-2021 Process Categorization Min. Timeframe Median Timeframe Max. Timeframe Mean Timeframe Standard Deviation SB 35 Only (no discretionary process prior) (N=9) 0.89 3.42 7.63 4.29 2.63 SB 35 Conversion (all began as discretionary) (N=7)2 15.39 29.39 41.39 29.18 10.32 Discretionary BP (N=17) 7.76 24.20 47.70 24.07 8.58 Discretionary BP with Exceptional DR request (N=4)3 10.32 32.33 55.56 32.64 19.76 Variance (by ZA) (N=11) 19.73 36.00 69.27 41.40 19.96 Variance (by ZA) with Exceptional DR (N=5) 10.39 39.48 146.69 59.28 52.30 Variance (by Planning Commission) and Exceptional DR (N=1) 46.68 46.68 46.68 46.68 <U+2014> DPA / LPA / SPA (N=15) 23.31 35.67 67.03 38.33 13.59 CUA Only (N=17) 18.71 35.05 59.34 35.90 12.45 CUA4 Pplus (N=30) 17.00 39.68 105.40 46.01 21.99 PUD5 (N=2) 7.73 24.53 41.33 24.53 23.76 Development Agreement (N=4) 32.09 42.16 51.52 41.98 7.94 Map Amendment/General Plan Amendment (N=3) 34.49 42.08 64.90 47.16 15.83 31 1 We do not include two observations, discretionary building permit projects with additional administrative approvals, in this timeline calculation. One involved a discretionary building permit and an exception, and the other was a discretionary building permit with an ADU. 2 We have one additional SB 35 project in this category that does not have an eligibility determination date. Though we know it received a building permit, we cannot include it for timeframe calculations. Each of the observations in this category proceeded through a discretionary approval process before initiating an SB 35 application. Some applications pre-date SB 35<U+2019>s enactment. 3 This includes two discretionary building permits that received requests for exceptional DR and faced administrative appeals. 4 Includes CUAs with other processes that typically go to the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission but not the Board of Supervisors (such as CUA with a Variance, or CUA with a Certificate of Appropriateness). 5 PUD refers to Planned Unit Development. Developers report that SB 35 transformed planning approval pathways for affordable development. Developers described SB 35 as eliminating risk because the law creates certainty in entitlement where none existed before. Some planners reported a steep learning curve at the outset; they shared that major changes like this to planning review are difficult to implement at first<U+2014>and that early state guidance could help planning staff improve implementation. Developers, however, described San Francisco Planning<U+2019>s implementation of SB 35 as efficient and helpful. The data largely confirms that San Francisco Planning made most SB 35 eligibility determinations quickly and within required timeframes. The outliers represent proposals to develop affordable housing using local discretionary processes, sometimes because the project proponent filed the application before SB 35<U+2019>s passage and/or effective date. Approval data also shows that state ministerial review allowed for faster processing which facilitated the approval of nearly three times the number of 100% affordable developments in 2018 - 2021 as compared to 2014 - 2017. There were only five 100% affordable developments entitled in 2014 - 2017. In 2018 - 2021 alone, San Francisco approved eighteen 100% affordable developments, and 14 of those developments used SB 35<U+2019>s ministerial process. Because of SB 35, most affordable units approved in 2018 - 2021 came through ministerially approved 100% affordable developments that used State Density Bonus Law. In 2014 - 2017, 74% of affordable units came from mixed income developments. In 2018 - 2021, 62% of all affordable units came from 100% affordable developments. 32 Figure 3: Distribution of Affordable Units by Development Type Graphic Developed by Dori Ganetsos using CALES data. SB 35 does not resolve post-entitlement opposition through appeals. Affordable developers that have used SB 35 describe several post-entitlement difficulties that extend construction timelines. One difficulty affordable developers describe is that San Francisco<U+2019>s local rules allow project opponents to use the administrative appeals process to delay construction by challenging post-entitlement permits. (We discuss other post-entitlement difficulties below.) Construction activity impacts neighbors, who then may file complaints during the construction process.55 But some neighborhood organizations escalate their opposition to construction by using administrative appeals to the Board of Appeals, which under local law suspends permit approvals until the appeal is resolved.56 2550 Irving Street exemplifies how post-entitlement challenges can delay construction of housing approved under SB 35. 2550 Irving, a 100% affordable development that would provide 90 units of supportive housing,57 has faced at least two post-entitlement appeals of permits.58 San Francisco Planning determined the development was SB 35 eligible on August 17, 2022. In November 2022, the Mid-Sunset Neighborhood Association appealed the demolition permit required to demolish a two-story office building because of concerns about toxins. The filing of the appeal suspended the building permit pending resolution. The Board of Appeals heard the 55 One notable example relates to 78 Haight Street, which will house transitional-aged youth at risk of homelessness. We found three complaints from neighbors about construction logged in PIM so far. A neighborhood organization complains about inadequate notices about this development online, as well (though it characterizes the housing product incorrectly). 78 Haight, HAYES VALLEY SAFE, https://www.hvsafe.com/78-haight/ (Mar. 17, 2022). 56 Wherever PIM recorded an administrative appeal of a permit, we captured that in our database. San Francisco<U+2019>s public portal provides incomplete information about appeals and post-entitlement challenges, so we also asked interview participants to provide examples of projects that faced post-entitlement challenges. We then cross-referenced the DBI permitting system to see if we could find more information on the impact of appeals on permits. 57 Application data indicates that at one point, this project was proposed to offer 98 units. 58 San Francisco<U+2019>s public portal reports two appeals associated with the demolition permit for this development, both filed on December 5, 2022 (numbers 22-091 and 22-092). The neighborhood association also filed an appeal of the construction permit. 33 first appeal of the demolition permit on February 22, 2023, and denied the appeal (with a 3-2 split vote). Online records show that DBI reinstated the building permit, months after the initial approval date of October 28, 2022, on March 7, 2023. The same organization also appealed the construction site permit, originally approved on June 26, 2023. This permit was also suspended pending resolution, and on August 16, 2023, the Board of Appeals voted 2-2 on whether to grant the appeal and whether to continue the hearing. Both the appeal and the motion to continue failed as only four of five Commissioners were present. Ahead of both hearings, HCD sent Letters of Technical Assistance to the City and County of San Francisco<U+2019>s Board of Appeals regarding 2550 Irving, informing San Francisco that under state law, the city should not hear administrative appeals on SB 35 approvals.59 In related media, the neighborhood organization stated that they want more environmental remediation before construction.60 The developer and the Mayor<U+2019>s Office of Housing and Community Development pointed to testing, review, and approval from public health and toxic substances agencies. The Chronicle reported that Supervisor Engardio publicly expressed support for 2550 Irving as <U+201C>much needed [housing that] should not be delayed<U+201D> though he also believed agencies could better communicate safety assurances to neighbors.61 During confidential interviews, however, some stakeholders shared that they do not believe the neighborhood association is primarily concerned about environmental hazards; some stakeholders instead believe that the neighborhood opposes the development because of its size and the development<U+2019>s intended residents. The agenda for the hearing on August 16, 2023, included a ~1,200-page record for this one appeal. During the hearing, Board of Appeals Commissioners disagreed about the effect of SB 35 on their power to review the permit and the appropriate scope of authority for Commissioners to exercise, generally, when deciding a matter that requires technical expertise. The Commissioner remarks during the hearing illustrate several of the ideological divides within local political bodies that stakeholders described during interviews. The public comments from Commissioners, some of which are quoted below, reveal conflicting perspectives on the normative value of state preemption of local power, the appropriate scope of administrative review of the work product from agency personnel with specific technical expertise, and the purpose and function of the Board of Appeals in general. Another point I wanted to make is in regard to SB 35 and SB 35 preemption. As one of the public commenters commented tonight . . . since SB 35 was passed several years ago, 2018-2019, there has been a proliferation of new state level legislation also taking aim at local review processes. And most have been drafted by San Francisco's own representatives in Sacramento, and those representatives in Sacramento need to know your opinions on these things because they're doing their darndest to make sure there is no review process anymore, that the planning commission can<U+2019>t hear these items and they<U+2019>re trying to get it so that the Board of Appeals can<U+2019>t hear these items either, and if you believe in local review as I do as a member of this body, it's your duty and your responsibility to let your representatives 59 One of the letters is available online. See Letter from Shannan West, Hous. Accountability Unit Chief, Cal. Dep<U+2019>t Hous. & Cmty. Dev., to S.F. Bd. of Appeals, City & Cnty of S.F. (Feb. 22, 2022), https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/SanFrancisco-LOSTA- 022223.pdf. 60 The Chronicle reports on the challenges. See, e.g., J.K. Dineen, Judge Rules Contested Sunset District Affordable Housing Project Can Proceed, S.F. CHRON. (Dec. 9, 2021), https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/judge-rules-contested-sunset-district-affordable-16688685.php (unsuccessful attempt to secure an injunction). 61 Id. 34 know what<U+2019>s at stake here and what this means to you [deep pause] I do think what<U+2019>s going on here goes far beyond the lot lines of 2550 Irving, and I don<U+2019>t necessarily think that even granting this appeal will fix the larger environmental hazards in the Sunset District . . . but I think there is a much bigger picture here in terms of the legal background and what is going on between several different agencies . . . .62 I see a distinct difference between that remediation and the permit here that we are here to pass judgment on. . . . We recognize that there is a problem . . . that problem is there is PEC contamination in the Central Sunset particularly around this site, and that needs to be remediated. . . . However, I see a distinct difference between that remediation and the permit we are here to pass judgment upon . . . . The appellant themselves admitted that the construction of this site has no bearing on the issues and levels that will be taking place in the neighborhood. So I see a very bright line between the contamination which needs to be remedied, and the permit that we are here to consider. . . . You know what, this is something that happens to us a lot in different circumstances, usually less dire, usually with a lot less scientific data that we have to parse our way through. When we end up with landlord-tenant issues, we find ourselves with a conflict . . . that needs to be worked out . . . . [I]t is probably best venued in the civil courts . . . but we look not to that issue, but we look to the permit and underlying issues within our jurisdiction . . . . I see how SB 35 can be very confusing, it can be tedious, it can be difficult, but I have to ask myself do we have grounds under SB 35 to have grounds to appeal this, or overturn this permit, even if we identified it as being material to these issues that were here and I don<U+2019>t think this permit is material to the contamination thing, but even if we did, in this circumstance I don<U+2019>t see a way to get there because the objective standards under the Planning Code . . . are through the Maher ordinance.63 DPH has engaged the Maher procedures. They've gone one further for us as a neighborhood association has for them to do and brought in the DTSC because they have more expertise and more resources . . . and so that process that is supposed to take place is ongoing . . . . Let's be clear here, we get nervous sometimes as a board about playing amateur architect. Right now we're playing scientists and we're playing amateur environmental scientists . . . . [L]et's realize it doesn't have anything to do with the permit in front of us today. I will not move to uphold the appeal. I so fundamentally disagree . . . . [P]eople on appeals boards make judgments on experts all the time . . . . And then we had people representing to us that there would be communication, same thing, they made it sound like there was going to be community participation, none occurred . . . . I think there is an appropriate time to say that the experts got it wrong, or the process was wrong. . . . I would ask that we continue this [to allow Board of Appeals President to join discussion].64 I am not comfortable telling the Sunset residents that they should feel safe, and that is what it really boils down to for me, it is a moral ethical issue for me, and I do and I can take that into account. . . . this body isn<U+2019>t the one that should be hearing this, unfortunately we don<U+2019>t have another body that is more appropriate to hear this . . . . [W]e<U+2019>re attorneys not environmental experts . . . . [T]his shouldn<U+2019>t be litigated in the context of permit appeals . . . . [B]ut we don<U+2019>t have an appropriate forum. . . . [I]nstead what we have is the Board of Appeals, which for all intents and purposes has become a catch all in many ways and we have taken it upon ourselves in many instances to make consequential decisions and push for consequential 62 S.F. Bd. of Appeals: Hearing on Appeal No. 23-034 (Aug. 16, 2023) (statement of Alex Lamberg, Comm<U+2019>r, Bd. of Appeals), emphasis added. 63 Commissioner Eppler is referring here to San Francisco Health Code Article 22A that gives the San Francisco Department of Public Health oversight of characterization and mitigation of hazardous substances in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater in the Maher Area identified in the city<U+2019>s Building Code Article 106A.3.2.4. 64 S.F. Bd. of Appeals: Hearing on Appeal No. 23-034 (Aug. 16, 2023) (statement of John Trasvia, Comm<U+2019>r, Bd. of Appeals), emphasis added. 35 change in city policy in city operations in city administration. And to me this is the most consequential of any the issues we've dealt with since I've been on the board . . . this one takes the cake. There are people's lives at risk here. And I don't think we should be the body who is imbued with this power, but ultimately our state legislators have ripped away the other layers of review so it can't go to the Planning Commission. It can<U+2019>t go to other commissions. It's here, and we ultimately have de novo review of this, potentially with SB 35 limitations, but you know . . . ultimately legal advice is just that <U+2013> it's legal advice and we as Commissioners get to make the say. I obviously don<U+2019>t think we have the votes to grant the appeal here tonight . . . but you know, if there was a time to make a leap of faith, this was the time.65 More developments relied on State Density Bonus Law as compared with prior years, but stakeholders disagree about how easy it is to use the state law. State Density Bonus law allows for developers building residential or mixed-use projects with five or more units to build more housing units than zoning would otherwise allow in exchange for a prescribed number of below-market-rate units. The law provides bonuses in the form of additional density and waivers of some local standards. State Density Bonus Law is a state mandate and the state law may preempt local implementation programs with a bias towards <U+201C>producing the maximum number of total housing units" under 65915(r) of the Government Code. The law prohibits cities from applying development standards to a density bonus project that would make it impossible to build at the densities or with the concessions or incentives provided in State Density Bonus Law.66 San Francisco<U+2019>s Planning Code Section 206 implements State Density Bonus Law and provides two local density bonus programs, the HOME-SF program67 and the 100% Affordable Housing Bonus Program.68 We found that nearly all SB 35-approved developments also relied on State Density Bonus Law. State ministerial review through SB 35 and State Density Bonus Law allowed for ministerially approved 100% affordable developments that were, on average, larger (measured in units) than 100% affordable developments requiring discretionary review. The median project size (measured by units) of all SB 35 developments is 121 units. The mean is 119 units. The median project size (measured by units) of all 100% affordable non-ADU discretionary observations is 13 units. The mean is 53 units. For comparative purposes, the median project size (measured by units) of 100% affordable developments entitled in 2014 - 2017 was 134 units, and the mean was 113 units. The median project size (measured by units) of all non-ADU discretionary observations is 24 units and the mean is 799 units. The two largest developments that exceeded 800 units if built<U+2014>among the outliers<U+2014>required discretionary approval. 65 S.F. Bd. of Appeals: Hearing on Appeal No. 23-034 (Aug. 16, 2023) (statement of Alex Lamberg, Comm<U+2019>r, Bd. of Appeals), emphasis added. 66 CAL. GOV<U+2019>T CODE 65915(e)(1) (West 2023). 67 Housing Opportunities Mean Equity <U+2013> San Francisco Program (HOME-SF), SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., PLAN. CODE 206.3 (2019). 68 The 100 Percent Affordable Housing Bonus Program, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., PLAN. CODE 206.4 (2018); see also Affordable Housing Bonus Program (AHBP), S.F. PLAN., https://sfplanning.org/ahbp#:~:text=State%20Density%20Bonus%20Law,- In%201979%2C%20the&text=Ten%20percent%20of%20total%20housing,age%20requirements%20for% 20older%20persons (last visited Sept. 18, 2023). 36 Table 6: Median Project Size by Product Type and Approval Pathway Type Median Project Size Units Mean Project Size Units (rounded) Standard Deviation Project Size Units (rounded) 100% Market-Rate, Discretionary Non-ADU1 (N=55) 9 78 193 100% Market-Rate, Discretionary ADU (N=16) 6 7 3 Mixed-Income, Discretionary Non-ADU (N=52) 47 84 104 Mixed-Income, Discretionary ADU (N=1) 24 24 <U+2014> Mixed-Income, SB 35 (N=2) 360 360 127 100% Affordable, Discretionary Non-ADU (N=4) 13 53 83 121 119 59 100% Affordable, SB 35 (N=14) 1 This grouping includes two Group Housing Projects and one Student Housing Project. Thirty-one developments in our 2018 - 2021 dataset used State Density Bonus Law to increase the number of allowable units, and another six developments used the local HOME-SF program (all entitled in 2021). We see a notable increase in projects using density bonus programs in 2021, overall. In total, developments that secured approvals in 2018-2021 relied on density bonus programs more often than the developments entitled in 2014-2017 as well. Only four developments entitled in 2014 - 2017 used any density bonus program. Also important is that developers used State Density Bonus Law more often than the HOME-SF program. Fifteen SB 35 ministerially approved developments in our 2018 - 2021 dataset all used State Density Bonus Law. The remaining developments that used State Density Bonus Law were discretionary mixed-income developments. At least 13 of the mixed-income developments used State Density Bonus to help meet requirements under the local Inclusionary Housing Program requirements. Five mixed income developments used Home-SF to meet requirements under the local Inclusionary Housing Program requirements as well. 37 There was no consensus among developers about how easily developers could use State Density Bonus Law in San Francisco. Some developers expressed that the waivers both help create an appealing and efficient development and increase the likelihood of entitlement, overall. Some developers shared that the city<U+2019>s local rules and guidelines do not apply state law correctly69 and/or that the city steered them away from using State Density Bonus Law. Developers also reported that the city applies the law so as to increase inclusionary program fee requirements once development size increases. Planners shared that design review can interfere with application of State Density Bonus Law, as political bodies may request reduced heights or removal of floors to projects that qualify for density bonuses. Affordable developers shared their frustrations concerning how planners have to do substantial work to apply different density bonus programs to help 100% affordable housing developments benefit from SB 35 while also securing required waivers. Planners also commented that State Density Bonus Law is complex, and that they (planners) would really benefit from more state guidance on its application. But planners and affordable developers emphasized that ministerial review and State Density Bonus Law were, together, critical to creating opportunities for more affordable housing within San Francisco. Both developers and planners shared that State Density Bonus Law has been critical to helping developers manage requirements under local rules. Developers shared that State Density Bonus Law was critical to make development financially feasible. Planners also shared that developers use State Density Bonus Law to facilitate large projects that the Planning Commission might otherwise deny. Planners explained that the city<U+2019>s Large Project Authorization (LPA)<U+2014>theoretically meant to allow for larger projects and for modifications and waivers<U+2014>does easily support larger development. Planners perceive that when developers use the modifications and waivers under the LPA, the Planning Commission interprets the project as no longer compliant and covered by the Housing Accountability Act, allowing political bodies to deny approval. Planners report that developers therefore use State Density Bonus Law to make large projects work while also staying covered by the Housing Accountability Act. One development, outside of our study years, that stakeholders discussed during interviews as illustrative of this issue was 1010 Mission Street. Planners reported that the developer first sought an LPA for a group housing development which the Planning Commission did not like and denied. The developer then used State Density Bonus Law to get an approval. Cross referencing documents, we found that the developer requested an LPA that was later withdrawn. The developer secured a final entitlement with an Individually Requested State Density Bonus approval and Downtown Project Authorization. 69 Section 206.6 of San Francisco<U+2019>s Planning Code may require revision after the passage of AB 1763, which provides an 80% density bonus, four incentives or concessions, and special parking ratios for 100% affordable housing projects, and AB 2345, which increased the maximum range of the density bonus to 50% for housing projects with 15% very low-income units, 24% lower income units, or 44% moderate income units. See CAL. GOV<U+2019>T CODE 65915(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(4). AB 2345 also lowers the required percentage of lower income units required to obtain multiple incentives and concessions under 65915(d)(2). Table 206.6B seems inconsistent with those provisions under state law. San Francisco Planning, however, also issues Bulletins explaining how it applies state law. See, e.g., S.F. PLAN., BULL. NO. 6, IMPLEMENTING THE STATE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM (Feb. 2023), https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/DB_06_Implementing_State_Density.pdf. 38 Planners also stated that State Density Bonus law is critical to promoting productive dialogue about how to make proposed developments better, because once it becomes clear that the city cannot deny the project (and only after it is clear the city cannot deny the project), the public discourse shifts towards how to improve the design to be sensitive to neighborhood needs. Participants offered 321 Florida Street, a mixed-used mixed-income development entitled in 2021 that required an LPA but also used State Density Bonus Law, as an example of a how state law helped secure entitlement rather than a project denial. After it was clear the city could not deny the development, planners also reported that the conversation with the community focused on how to improve the design in a manner that did, in fact, improve the aesthetics of the proposed development. Another example participants provided was 1560 Folsom Street, another large mixed-use mixed-income development entitled in 2021 that required an LPA but also used State Density Bonus Law. The outcome for 1560 Folsom allowed for special sidewalk placards to celebrate the area<U+2019>s local history. Planners note, however, that State Density Bonus Law, while critical to increasing certainty of entitlement for larger developments, may not produce more efficient and speedy deliberative processes during entitlement. Consistent with this perception, our data shows that the only approvals under State Density Bonus Law that planning department staff issued were those approvals associated with SB 35 projects. All other requests for density bonuses for discretionary projects required approval from San Francisco<U+2019>s Planning Commission. Relatedly, we found some observations with multiple continuances for hearings for joint LPA and State Density Bonus Law approvals, as well. Our data also shows that while an LPA coupled with a State Density Bonus Law approval may secure approval from the Planning Commission, the approval is still vulnerable to being overturned by the Board of Supervisors if the community perceives the final entitlement outcome to be contrary to neighborhood needs. 2300 Harrison Street illustrates this issue. This proposed mixed-use building would have added three stories to an existing three-story commercial building and demolished an adjacent parking lot. The development would add ~27,000 square feet of office and retail space on a site occupied by Lyft, along with 24 units of housing, of which three would be deed-restricted affordable. After the Planning Commission approved the development, community organizations appealed the Community Plan Exception under CEQA to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors unanimously upheld the appeal. A community group publicly stated that the entitled development represented an exploitation of State Density Bonus Law.70 70 Media reported that the new development would result in ~95,000 square feet of retail/commercial space. We reviewed the project proposal documents, and those documents indicate the proposed development would add approximately ~27,000 square feet of commercial space, and 24 units of housing, to an existing building that had ~68,000 square feet of office space. See Laura Waxmann, S.F. Supervisors Take United Stance Against Mission Development at Former Lyft Offices, S.F. BUS. TIMES (Aug 19, 2020), https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2020/08/19/sf-supervisors-vote-down- mission-district-office.html. 39 Table 7: Frequency of Use of Density Bonus (All Programs)1 Year (N=Total N Density Bonus Used Approvals/Per Year) N State Density Bonus used 2014 (N=24) 0 - 2015 (N=23) 2016 (N=55) 2017 (N=38) 2018 (N=33) SB 35: 3 0 1 3 Other: 3 - Unknown Unknown 5 2019 (N=34) 2020 (N=25) SB 35: 3 SB 35: 5 Other: Other: 2 2 5 7 2021 (N=41) SB 35: 4 Other: 15 16 1We do not calculate which density bonus programs (state or local) 2014 - 2017 entitlements used. Stakeholders also do not agree on whether State Density Bonus Law is good for San Francisco. Market-rate developers shared that State Density Bonus Law has been critical to increasing the feasibility of housing development while also satisfying the local inclusionary program as on-site requirements increased over time.71 Affordable developers heavily relied on State Density Bonus Law to increase the size of 100% affordable development, which did increase the number of units approved. Some Commissioners and Supervisors also described density bonuses as critical to reaching affordable housing targets. But some Commissioners and Supervisors expressed concern about how the city<U+2019>s application of State Density Bonus Law might derail community outreach or historic preservation. Some planners shared that implementing State Density Bonus Law was difficult at times and required educating political bodies on where San Francisco retained discretion and where it did not under the law (which was further complicated by San Francisco<U+2019>s context of all permitting being discretionary). Planners also perceived that local political bodies did not like the impact of State 71 Section 415.3 details the thresholds. Qualifying applications initiated before January 12, 2016, had a 14.5% on-site inclusionary requirement; applications initiated after that date had variable thresholds depending on the project size and a complex scheme of alternatives. Under Section 415.6(a)(1), a development larger than 10 units but smaller than 25 that elected on-site units would have to meet a 12% threshold. Section 415.6 (a)(2) and (a)(3) provided that owner occupied developments of 25 units or more would have to meet a 20% threshold, and rentals developments larger than 25 units would have to meet a 18% threshold. Section Section 415.6(a)(5) also provided for incremental increases beginning in 2018, which would raise the thresholds even higher for developments of 10 <U+2013> 24 units to 15% and larger developments would increase incrementally each year, but not to exceed 26% for owner occupied developments and 24% for rental developments. SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., PLAN. CODE 415.3, 415.6 (2021). 40 Density Bonus Law on urban form because it limited subjectivity in design review, or its impact on inclusionary outcomes in terms of the overall yield of on-site affordable units.72 Consistent with these planner perceptions, some Commissioners and Supervisors did express concern about state law that overrides design considerations. Local rules complicate application of the Housing Accountability Act. When discussing the importance of SB 35 and State Density Bonus Law, another important theme emerged. Several stakeholder groups reported that local political bodies do not consistently follow the Housing Accountability Act and deny proposed development covered under state law. Importantly, stakeholders did not describe the Planning Commission as blatantly violating state law but explained that instead, complex local rules make it difficult to determine which local approvals are within the purview of the Housing Accountability Act and which are not. If there is any ambiguity about whether the Housing Accountability Act applies, and a proposed development is at all controversial, that ambiguity leads to a project denial. Planners emphasized here again the importance of state guidance on how the law changes local processes. When state law does not create a ministerial process (like SB 35) but limits local discretion, state guidance provides clear communication to political bodies and the public how the state law changes local processes. That is critical, planners say, in a local context like San Francisco where at least some within the political bodies and communities interpret local rules as allowing the city to retain the power to deny an approval. If state law significantly limits the right to deny an approval, planners recommend that the state guidance be clear so as to enable staff and Commissioners to say publicly that state law dictates a particular outcome.73 Local rules require entitlement processes begin before the application<U+2014>and navigate multiple hurdles along the way to approval. Prior to July 1, 2023, the process for entitlement for many multifamily non-ADU and non-SB 35 developments began with a required Preliminary Project Assessment (PPA).74 The Mayor<U+2019>s Office recently eliminated this hurdle through an Executive Directive, but we explain how this impacted the observations within our dataset. Under the PPA process, a project proponent was required to complete the PPA before they could submit their project application. San Francisco<U+2019>s PPA process required project proponents to submit significant information about the proposed development. We have 87 observations in our dataset that would have required a PPA application under that local policy. We can verify PPA application dates against source documents for more than half of those, but otherwise rely 72 Commissioner Diamond on June 1, 2023, expressed concern about the impact of State Density Bonus Law on urban form when questioning whether Supervisor Melgar<U+2019>s proposed legislation to increase density in a west side neighborhood would, in conjunction with State Density Bonus Law, lead to nine- story buildings. 73 It is important to note, however, that during this research, HCD sent two advisory letters to the city on the impact of SB 35 on post-entitlement administrative appeals, and the limitations that SB 35 placed on San Francisco<U+2019>s ability to hear post-entitlement appeals in the context of an SB 35 approval. San Francisco<U+2019>s Board of Appeals heard both post-entitlement administrative appeals, even though at least one of these letters explicitly stated that SB 35 did not allow for post-entitlement appeals. 74 San Francisco Planning now provides that it no longer accepts PPAs consistent with the Mayor<U+2019>s Executive Directive issued on February 7, 2023, subsection II.9. OFF. OF THE MAYOR, CITY & CNTY. OF S.F., DIRECTIVE 23-01, HOUSING FOR ALL (Feb. 7, 2023), https://sf.gov/sites/default/files/2023- 02/Executive%20Directive%2023-01_Housing%20for%20All.pdf. 41 on self-reported dates from San Francisco<U+2019>s system. The average time from PPA application to project application was about a year. Table 8: PPA to Application Timeframes (months) Median Mean Standard Deviation PPA to Earliest Application Date 4.96 11.71 21.00 San Francisco Planning, responding to direction from the Mayor<U+2019>s Office, eliminated the PPA process. Still, San Francisco Planning policy mandates a neighborhood notification process before a project proponent files an application, and a pre-application hearing called the <U+201C>Pre- Application Community Outreach Process<U+201D> or <U+201C>Pre-Application Meeting.<U+201D>75 This pre-application process requires project proponents to send notices and copies of plans to adjacent neighbors and neighborhood organizations before applying to develop land for any new construction or alteration that would change an existing structure by 7 vertical feet or 10 horizontal feet. San Francisco Planning compiles the list of neighborhood organizations that project proponents must notify. However, San Francisco Planning does not consistently track pre-application meetings in its public portal. Stakeholders have differing perspectives on the value of this pre-application meeting process. Some Commissioners and Supervisors referred to the pre-application process as important community outreach. Other stakeholders perceive it as a requirement that assumes conflict exists before a developer has even proposed a development. Application intake processes were inconsistent with the PSA but improved marginally over time. The Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) requires cities to provide information to applicants about city requirements for applications to develop housing and sets limits on how long a city can take to determine an application is complete and begin planning review. This state law applies to all discretionary development projects that are quasi-adjudicatory actions (like a variance or conditional use requirement). The PSA also limits the amount of time a city can take to process an application, but the clock begins to run after Planning prepares environmental review documents. We collected information on application dates, and any notices regarding the status of applications and the dates of those notices, when available on PIM, for 135 discretionary, non- ADU entitlements that we believe did not require a legislative act or development agreement for approval. This list includes more observations than we analyze<U+2014>or it includes observations we collected some data on that we did not include in our timeline analysis because they were not yet entitled, or they were entitled in 2022 or 2023 . Of these 135 observations, we found notifications sent to project proponents about their entitlement<U+2019>s application status (inclusive of notices about the incompleteness of their applications) for 75 observations(~56%). Of those 75 observations, we were able to determine 75 Pre-Application Meeting, S.F. PLAN., https://sfplanning.org/resource/pre-application-meeting (July 30, 2023). 42 an application date and notice of status date for 72 observations. Of those 72 observations, 56 notifications (~78%) were outside of the required 30-day period. Of the 56 (out of 72 observations) that are in our dataset for analysis (observations entitled from 2018 - 2021), 41 notifications (~73%) were outside of the required 30-day period. This does not mean that San Francisco Planning complied with the PSA in the other 60 instances, only that there is insufficient data to determine compliance or non-compliance with the PSA in half the observations. We also looked at whether San Francisco Planning improved its project intake and notification processes over time. We have a confirmed application date for 130 out of 135 observations. In all five observations where we could not confirm an application date, we could also not confirm a notice of status date. Of these 130 observations, 65 observations have a confirmed application date after 1/1/2018, and 65 observations have a confirmed application date before 1/1/2018. Of the 65 observations that have a confirmed application date after 1/1/2018, we found San Francisco Planning sent notifications to project proponents about their entitlement<U+2019>s application status (inclusive of notices about the incompleteness of their applications) for 53 observations (~82%). Of these 53 observations, 37 notifications are dated after the required 30-day period (70%). Of the 65 observations that have a confirmed application date before 1/1/2018, we found notifications sent to project proponents about their entitlement<U+2019>s application status (inclusive of notices about the incompleteness of their applications) for 19 observations (~29%). Of these 19 observations, 19 notifications are dated after the required 30-day period (100%). This suggests that San Francisco improved its application intake and notification process, but only marginally. What is also clear is San Francisco Planning is doing a better job to track the data, which can facilitate internal monitoring of this issue and continued improvement. Table 9: Analysis of Application Status Notifications Application Date Before Application Date After 1/1/2018 (N=65) 1/1/2018 (N= 65) Percentage of observations where notice of 29% (N=19) 82% (N=53) application status is available Percentage of observations where notice, if 100% (N=19) 70% (N=37) available, is outside of the required 30-day period Planning policy relies on exemptions to comply with CEQA, but local rules require additional studies. State law provides that if a development approval is discretionary, CEQA applies. With a few exceptions, local law determines whether CEQA applies to classes of housing development by making those housing approvals discretionary. State law, however, allows cities to quicken environmental review for some development. There are statutory exemptions in the California Public Resources Code, and the state<U+2019>s CEQA Guidelines provide for another thirty-three categorical exemptions. For example, a planning department can use the Class 32 infill exemption for an urban infill project to bypass CEQA review if the project satisfies certain conditions. The department must still prepare documentation. But the process is comparatively 43 faster than more intensive environmental review processes, like an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), within most jurisdictions in the state. When a project is not categorically exempt, the planning agency conducts an initial study to assess whether there is substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. If it is not clear that the impacts can be mitigated below a significance threshold, a planning agency must prepare an EIR. If there is not substantial evidence of a potentially significant effect on the environment, the agency issues a Negative Declaration (ND). If there is substantial evidence that a project will significantly impact the environment, but the developer can properly mitigate the effects, then the agency issues a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). California law also allows the planning agency to reuse existing EIRs to facilitate <U+201C>streamlining<U+201D> some classes of development through the environmental review process. This is called <U+201C>tiering.<U+201D> Tiering allows the proposed development to satisfy CEQA<U+2019>s requirements by relying on existing EIRs, typically programmatic EIRs associated with a plan, and narrowing the environmental review documents to only those issues that have not been evaluated in a prior EIR that covers the proposed project. Tiering requires a prior environmental review document (generally an EIR) typically connected to a prior large-scale planning approval (usually a General Plan or Specific Plan); however, the source of the document varies. A Community Plan Exemption (CPE), for example, is a tiering-based exemption available to projects consistent with a community plan, General Plan, or zoning. When proposed development satisfies environmental review through tiering, it should theoretically reduce project-level costs for the developer because cities generally pay the costs of the relevant plan- or program-level EIR.76 EIRs are uncommon in San Francisco. Most developments benefit from streamlining. San Francisco is like its neighbors in this way, though San Francisco<U+2019>s timeframes are quite different from other neighboring jurisdictions we have studied. One notable change between 2014 - 2017 and 2018 - 2021 is that there are more categorical exemptions in the latter four years. That highlights that San Francisco Planning made a change in planning practice that simplifies and lightens the burden of environmental review for qualifying development<U+2014>and yet overall, entitlements timelines increased in 2018 - 2021. 76 Robert Olshansky, The California Environmental Quality Act and Local Planning, 62 J. AM. PLAN. ASS<U+2019>N 313, 319<U+2013>20 (1996). 44 Table 10: CEQA Compliance Pathways Year Entitled and N Categorical Exemption Tiering (CPE) Addendum MND/ND EIR Multiple Pathway CEQA Unknown* 2014 (N=24) 4% 79% 4% 0% 12% 0% 0% 2015 (N=23) 4% 56% 4% 15% 15% 7% 0% 2016 (N=55) 16% 67% 0% 11% 5% 0% 0% 2017 (N=38) 3% 82% 0% 3% 11% 0% 3% 2018 (N=31) 29% 45% 3% 13% 3% 3% 3% 2019 (N=29) 48% 38% 0% 10% 0% 0% 3% 2020 (N=18) 44% 17% 6% 17% 17% 0% 0% 2021 (N=33) 52% 33% 0% 9% 6% 0% 0% Although San Francisco uses exemptions and tiering to comply with CEQA, local rules, not state CEQA guidelines, also require developers complete additional studies. Developers and planners in interviews and meetings indicated that local law demands that planning require wind and shadow studies. We collected information on whether San Francisco Planning required additional studies for 100 discretionary, non-ADU observations. We found no information about wind studies in San Francisco<U+2019>s public portal, which is noteworthy because wind studies came up frequently in interviews. Also, we note here that Class 32 infill exemptions require Transportation Demand Management studies. Out of the 44 observations that satisfied CEQA through a Categorical Exemption, 22 (50%) required additional studies. ~18% (N=8) of all observations that benefited from a Categorical Exemption (N=44) also required a Shadow study. ~43% (N=19) of all observations that benefited from a Categorical Exemption (N=44) required a Transportation Demand Management study. ~11% (N=5) of all observations that used a Categorical Exemption (N=44) required both Shadow and Transportation Demand Management studies. Out of the 33 observations that satisfy CEQA through a Community Plan Exemption, 24 (72%) required additional studies. ~32% (N=11) of all observations that used CPE (N=33) also required a Shadow study. ~70% (N=23) of observations that used a CPE (N=33) also required a Transportation Demand Management study. 45 ~30% (N=10) of all observations that used a CPE (N=33) required both Shadow and Transportation Demand Management studies. One observation (out of two) that complied with CEQA through a CEQA Addendum required a Transportation Demand Management study. Neither project required a Shadow Study. Out of the 12 observations that required a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, 10 (83%) required additional studies. ~33% (N=4) of all observations that required a ND or MND (N=12) required a Shadow Study. ~67% (N=8) of all observations that required a ND or MND (N=12) required a Transportation Demand Management study. ~17% (N=2) of all observations that used an ND/MND (N=12) to satisfy CEQA required both Shadow and Transportation Demand Management studies. Out of the six observations that required an Environmental Impact Report, 3 (50%) also required a Shadow Study. Risk of costly local appeals drives cautious environmental planning practices that limit the impact of the PSA. In theory, using streamlined environmental review should quicken the planning review process. The PSA sets sixty-day time limits on approving development proposals that qualify for CEQA exemptions and streamlining, once the city makes a determination that the development is exempt from environmental review.77 But in San Francisco, that is not necessarily true. One possible explanation might be that if environmental determinations always follow other entitlement approvals, using a streamlined environmental review process may have little impact on overall timelines if the other approval steps require more time (though a streamlined process should still reduce costs associated with more intensive environmental planning review). After reviewing pre-application requirements and notification practices, we explored the data to understand when San Francisco Planning began environmental review and made CEQA determinations. We were able to isolate the environmental review determination or approval date in 95 of our discretionary non-ADU observations. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate what we found: that environmental review determinations almost always happen close to or at the same time as final entitlement decisions under local land use regulation. In 20 of those observations, the environmental determination and approval date is also the latest approval. For the remaining observations in this group, environmental determinations or approvals are often close to the final entitlement date. For 21 (out of 95) observations, the environmental approval date is at most seven days before the final approval date. For 36 (out of 95) observations, the environmental approval date is at most 30 days before the final approval date. For 48 (out of 95) observations, the environmental approval date is at most 60 days before the final approval date. This is important because of the limitations on entitlement review timeframes that the PSA imposes but, as noted, the clock begins to run after Planning prepares environmental review documents, not before. Because environmental determinations occur so close to the end of the entitlement period, the PSA seems to have little effect on overall entitlement timeframes. 77 CAL. GOV<U+2019>T CODE 65950 (West 2023). 46 Figure 4: CEQA Milestone Timelines Categorical Exemptions Only (2018 - 2021) 47 Figure 5: CEQA Milestone Timelines Multiple Pathways (2018 - 2021) Commissioners, planners, and developers all agreed that CEQA slows approvals, and all<U+2014> including planners and Commissioners<U+2014>expressed concerns about CEQA abuse. During interviews and meetings with these stakeholders, we asked why environmental review takes as long as it does, as most development in San Francisco is categorically exempt from environmental review or benefits from a streamlined CEQA process. Developers believe San Francisco Planning is too slow to assign environmental planners to projects. Commissioners believe planners are overly cautious because they fear judicial scrutiny. In contrast, planners from multiple departments shared that there are two features of local rules that extend environmental review: (1) local rules requiring further studies add more work, and (2) administrative appeals, or the risk of administrative appeals, to the Board of Supervisors78 steers planning practice and influences how long review takes overall. On the second point, planners elaborated that because it is easy to appeal planning approvals, the risk of appeal influences planning practices. For environmental review, both Commissioners and planners perceive that there is a high risk that project opponents will challenge projects by 78 State law governs much of the requirements for administrative appeals of CEQA determinations (see CAL. PUB. RES. CODE 21151(c) (West 2023); CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, 15025(b) (West 2023)) but local rules require that the filing deadline for an administrative appeal of a CEQA determination begins to run only after final entitlement decisions under local land use regulation. 48 challenging environmental determinations. What is most striking about the difference between Commissioner and planner perspectives is that Commissioners believe planners are worried about judges, but planners expressed confidence that their work would survive judicial scrutiny. Instead, planners expressed concerns regarding the Board of Supervisors. Planners shared that even if most administrative appeals are withdrawn or denied, the beginning of an appeal creates more work for planning staff members managing environmental review. That additional work changes the pace of all environmental planning reviews for all projects because the projects that face an administrative appeal change review priorities. Also important, the experience of the administrative appeal for planners during the administrative appeal hearing influences their approach to work, overall. The risk of an appeal makes planners more conservative and risk-adverse in their work. One notable trend in interviews and meetings with planners was that planners appeared much more apprehensive of the Board of Supervisors than potential litigants. One planner also stated that, when elected, political bodies are highly critical of planning staff work within a public hearing. This can be demoralizing and impacts the department<U+2019>s working culture. We reviewed our data across 2014 - 2021 to determine the rate of administrative appeal (inclusive of CEQA-related appeals and other appeals). At least 14% of the approvals in our data (2014 - 2021) faced administrative appeals. We say at least 14% because we are not certain that we have located all records on local administrative appeals, as the city does not make past records on administrative appeals readily available online. It is also true that most of the appeals we could locate are denied or withdrawn, and most administrative appeals involve challenges to CEQA determinations as well. San Francisco Planning<U+2019>s environmental planning division also tracks administrative appeals worked on by their team. This log captures appeals of residential and non-residential entitlements. We reviewed their log of staff hours spent on administrative appeals involving CEQA. Twenty out of 48 administrative appeals filed in 2015 - 2021 that San Francisco Planning tracked overlap with our 2014 - 2021 dataset. Of these 20, the internal department data offers information on cost and time for 19 of our observations. Although the other appeals are not for multi-family housing development, planners shared that these appeals also influence how planners work on housing entitlements. Out of the 20 administrative appeals associated with entitlements in the CALES dataset, San Francisco Planning data indicates that 11 (55%) were denied, five (25%) were withdrawn, only one was upheld, and three were closed with no other details.79 San Francisco Planning reports that it logged a total of 5,680.75 hours because of all 48 administrative appeals related to CEQA that they tracked from 2015 - 2021. San Francisco Planning logged a total of 3,031.25 additional staff hours to prepare for CEQA-related administrative appeals associated with entitlements in the CALES database. Translating these hours into days, we find that on average, planners add about 20 days of work per year to their workload to deal with CEQA-related administrative appeals for housing entitlements. 79 This is consistent with what San Francisco Planning reports for all of the administrative appeals. 49 Table 11: Total Time Spent on All CEQA Appeals 2015-2021 N=48 (days) Minimum Median Max. Mean Standard Deviation Total Time Related to Admin. Appealed 0.56 8.69 71.06 15.11 14.92 Table 12: Total Time Spent on CEQA Appeals 2015-2021 for CALES Observations (days) Minimum Median Max. Mean Standard Deviation Total Time Related to Admin. Appealed 1.88 12.78 71.06 19.94 18.05 Administrative appeals add costs to the developer in lost time and higher holding costs, but there are also direct costs to the city associated with the work to prepare for an appeal, even if the appeal is withdrawn. San Francisco Planning reported that all administrative appeals related to CEQA cost the city a total of $793,993 in the years where San Francisco tracked the data (2015-2021). Administrative appeals related to CEQA and associated with entitlements in the CALES dataset (2015-2021) cost the city a total of $421,314. One entitlement in our dataset, 1500-1540 Market Street,80 required 374 additional staff hours and $52,204 in costs to San Francisco Planning to prepare for the appeal<U+2014>even though the appeal was withdrawn. Table 13: Total Cost CEQA Appeals 2015-2021 (N=48) (USD) Minimum Median Max. Mean Standard Deviation Total Cost Related to Admin. Appeals $535 $10,245 $81,558 $16,893 $16,860 Table 14: Total Cost CEQA Appeals CALES Housing Only (N=19) (USD) Minimum Median Max. Mean Standard Deviation Total Cost Related to Admin. Appeal $2,167 $13,741 $81,558 $22,174 $20,501 80 This is a 100% market-rate mixed-use development that satisfied the inclusionary program with an in- lieu fee. 50 During interviews and meetings, we also learned that San Francisco Planning has undertaken substantial internal work to address at least some part of this problem by consolidating what is presently six steps in the planning review and permitting into three steps. The aim is to bring the process from application through permitting into one department and facilitate one appeal period for project proponents. It is unclear, however, how these proposed operational changes would address post-entitlement appeals, if at all. Continuances<U+2014>possibly meant to avoid later challenges through administrative appeal<U+2014>are frequent. According to stakeholders, changes to the proposed development might appear voluntary but result from negotiations outside of hearings facilitated by Planning staff (who are mediating between project proponents and opponents) before a scheduled Planning Commission hearing. The negotiation is meant to facilitate Planning Commission approval, but developers report that what developers end up agreeing to can render a project infeasible. This is another perception that is difficult to verify through government documents, as there would be no written record of negotiations occurring informally before a scheduled hearing. Stakeholders suggested we look for continuances, or a frequency of continuances and multiple hearings, as evidence of this outcome. We have 93 discretionary, non-ADU observations that required quasi-adjudicative hearings (but not legislative action). All 93 observations have some information about hearings, but only about half have complete information about hearings. Still, approximately 22% (N=20) of these observations, inclusive of observations that do not require public hearings under local zoning and planning law, have multiple hearings or continuances associated with a single approval step. One of the entitlements with multiple hearings had multiple hearings related to CEQA approvals. Another two observations were related to density bonus approvals only<U+2014>one related to the local program and the other to State Density Bonus Law. Nine observations had more than three continuances or hearings for a single approval step. One of these observations (out of nine) is a discretionary building permit project (with no request for exceptional DR), which utilized San Francisco<U+2019>s local density bonus program, HOME-SF, for approval. The two continuances and one hearing for this observation were associated with the approval of the local density bonus program. This building permit project<U+2019>s application date was 3/3/2020, and San Francisco Planning approved it on 5/13/2021. Three observations required five or more hearings for approval. One of these projects had nine continuances for the same approval step. It is also possible that the rate of multiple hearings for a single approval step might be higher than what the data currently reveals<U+2014>as interviews suggest. Our ability to verify these statements against hearing-related data is contingent on San Francisco Planning making the data publicly available. When we analyze our data overall, we find that the density proposed is greater than density in final approval for 23 observations. Four (out of 23) observations are associated with a continuance. Another two (out of the 23) are associated with an administrative appeal. Publicly Initiated Exceptional DR occurs frequently and may foster negotiations outside of public hearings. San Francisco uniquely allows an interested party to request the Planning Commission exercise exceptional DR, which involves the Planning Commission <U+201C>effectively taking a second look at the proposed project.<U+201D> This occurs even when the zoning and planning code do not require a 51 hearing in front of the Planning Commission, but where an interested member of the public states there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that warrant a public hearing. There was not a consensus across stakeholder groups on the impact of this policy. Most of the city personnel and Planning Commissioners we spoke to through HCD-led meetings expressed perceptions that the ability to request exceptional DR is primarily, if not almost entirely, associated with disputes between neighbors relating to modifications or smaller developments (like single-family dwellings). These groups did not perceive exceptional DR as a dominant obstacle to multifamily development but as helpful to mediating smaller disputes between neighbors, even if it might take too much of the Planning Commission<U+2019>s time. San Francisco Planning shared their log of staff hours to support exceptional DR hearings between 2014 - 2021. Exceptional DR adds fees to all permits to support this process; the department collects between $750,000 - $1 million per year in permitting fees to support staff time for the exceptional DR process. When we examine data on the staff hours logged to support exceptional DR, we find that between 2014 <U+2013> 2021, San Francisco Planning had to allocate ~1,872 full days (8 hours per day) or ~7 business years (262 days at 8 hours per day) to additional work to respond to exceptional DR requests. But only about 4% of those hours were spent on exceptional DR requests associated with the multifamily housing entitlements in our dataset. From the perspective of staff who manage that work, the number of work hours dedicated to addressing exceptional DR hearings, generally, may make the same work for multi-family housing seem minimal compared with the work hours spent addressing all other exceptional DR requests. This may influence staff and Commissioner perceptions of whether DR burdens developers proposing multifamily housing. But we also found that across almost all participants in confidential research interviews (where HCD was not present), regardless of the stakeholder group, exceptional DR was a dominant issue. The only interview participants that did not to bring up DR were those participants that self-described as only having worked with large-scale phased developments. Interview participants raised the topic of DR as a key obstacle to housing production and described the Planning Code Section 311 neighborhood notification process associated with a discretionary building permit, and potential for a request for DR and related hearing, as an opportunity to oppose entitlement on the eve of approval. Stakeholders described this provision as offering an early <U+201C>appeal<U+201D> of a planning approval for smaller or mid-size code compliant buildings. These participants also shared that even the request for DR could result in a change to the project that results in something that is no longer financially feasible to build. Some stakeholders also shared that opposition comes from different types of neighbors; some are interested in the impacts on their own properties, but others use this process to address neighborhood-level concerns. In the latter context, stakeholders share that frequent project-level adjudications are the consequence of inequitable zoning and planning. The DR provision also came up in interviews when parties discussed the suggested reforms laid out in the recent housing element. Some city personnel that expressed support for proposed rezoning, specifically upzoning in more affluent areas, also predicted that upzoning without eliminating DR in certain neighborhoods would result in project opponents effectively using DR to delay housing development. In terms of its use, there are publicly initiated requests for DR for 19% of the discretionary building permits in our 2018 - 2021 data and 21% in the 2014 - 2017 data<U+2014>for a combined rate of 20% across eight years for building permits only. We also know that the developments that require exceptional DR take comparatively longer to entitle, as well. The frequency with which exceptional DR comes up for code compliant multi-family housing (relative 52 to other code compliant multifamily housing) might explain why different stakeholder groups have such different perspectives on the same procedural rule, in terms of its influence on entitlement timelines generally. In our 2018 - 2021 data, 35% of all variances also had hearings for exceptional DR. There were also another two requests for exceptional DR associated with discretionary ADU observations. One of the requests for exceptional DR was withdrawn. The Planning Commission heard the second request and granted DR. There are an additional two requests associated with approvals that already went before the Planning Commission<U+2014>but the Planning Commission heard both requests for exceptional DR (and denied them).81 During interviews, stakeholders reported that once a party requests DR, Planning Staff (to mediate between the project proponent and the party requesting DR) might verbally ask the developer to change the proposed development to incentivize the party requesting DR to withdraw their request. We cannot verify this through the available entitlement data, however. We explored the data to find instances of requests for DR being associated with developments that change in size (measured by units) over time. We did come across two proposals to develop five or more units through the local ADU ordinance that resulted in tenant requests for DR, though both would later be withdrawn. The first development that would lead to a tenant request for DR involved a request for five ADUs that required a variance. The Zoning Administrator approved a variance for three units, and a later revised approval document states the proposal changed from five to three units. The request for DR occurred after the variance approval, but before the later revision<U+2014>though there is nothing that indicates there is a relationship between the request for DR and the later revision to the proposed number of units. In the request for DR, the tenants complain that the approved ADUs would interfere with parking both temporarily and permanently. The tenants also detail an ongoing dispute with the project proponent, their failed attempts to initiate mediation, and their failed efforts to delay final permitting. Another DR request involved a proposal to build nine ADUs, but a building permit was ultimately issued for just six units. This project involved no special discretionary approval step, so it is even more difficult to determine why the proposal changed over time. The DR documents indicate that the organization that requested exceptional DR initiated the request because of concerns about the impact of the ADUs on parking, and the specific impact on a family with a child with a disability. The request for DR was ultimately withdrawn. Again, there is no data that directly links the reduction from nine to six units to the DR request; the DR request only indicates an ongoing dispute with tenants over parking impacts related to an accessibility and disability issue. Developers report that design guidelines are vague and invite subjective conditions of approval. Planners and developers describe design guidelines as highly subjective, allowing for random outcomes, problematic, and wielded as a <U+201C>weapon.<U+201D> Many stakeholders report that the design guidelines are not about design; they are about anticipating complaints from neighbors around light, air, <U+201C>inches or feet<U+201D> in setbacks, and related features within development that trigger complaints from neighbors, and satisfying neighbors. 81 One of these observations required a CUA and the other required a zoning map amendment. 53 Planners shared that although the guidelines are not part of the Planning Code, they are codified in a roundabout way through a cross reference to the Planning Code. For example, 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 of existing residential buildings in R Districts. According to the Planning Department, <U+201C>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.<U+201D>82 Importantly, developments that comply with the Planning Code but do not conform to the Guidelines end up back in deliberative processes, and sometimes back in front of planning staff, even when they have completed planning review and secured entitlement. Planners, developers, and architects note, however, that the subjectivity in the Guidelines makes this an inevitable outcome. Also, in the context of discretionary building permits, the design guidelines raise issues that often lead to requests for exceptional DR as well. The Guidelines are filled with requirements that on their face allow for subjective interpretation through words like <U+201C>compatible,<U+201D> <U+201C>respect,<U+201D> and <U+201C>character.<U+201D> Examples include, <U+201C>In areas with a defined visual character, design buildings to be compatible with the patterns and architectural features of surrounding buildings.<U+201D> Explanatory text mandates that designers in areas of <U+201C>mixed visual character<U+201D> <U+201C>draw on the best features of surrounding buildings<U+201D> and <U+201C>design buildings to help define, unify and contribute positively to the existing visual context.<U+201D> Site Design guidelines are also often subjective, requiring, for example, that designs <U+201C>[r]espect the topography of the site.<U+201D> Guidelines addressing Building Scale and Form intend to ensure design is <U+201C>compatible with that of surrounding buildings.<U+201D> Scale of buildings must be <U+201C>compatible<U+201D> in terms of height and depth of surrounding buildings, as well as with the <U+201C>scale at the street<U+201D> and mid-block open spaces. Building forms, facades, proportions, and rooflines must be <U+201C>compatible<U+201D> with those of existing buildings. Cumulative and unique procedural hurdles create comparatively long entitlement timelines. We explored our 2014 - 2017 data to run a comparative analysis with neighboring cities where we had similar data. Importantly, our 2014 - 2017 dataset indicates that entitlement timelines were generally shorter than in 2018 - 2021. Still, 2014 - 2017 timelines were longer than other jurisdictions. We searched our data to match observations from our 2014 - 2017 data with similar entitlements in Oakland, Berkeley, and Redwood City, looking for the best matches across the following characteristics: <U+2022> Same neighborhood characteristics (defined by 2019 Tax Credit Allocation Committee maps; we do not match high resource neighborhoods with low resource neighborhoods); <U+2022> Either for sale or for rent (in other words, we do not compare for sale developments to for rent developments); <U+2022> Around the same size (plus or minus five units). They need to have the same income characteristics (either all market-rate, all mixed-income, or all 100% affordable developments); and 82 Residential Design Guidelines, S.F. PLAN., https://sfplanning.org/resource/residential-design-guidelines (Mar. 4, 2020). 54 <U+2022> Similar local process characteristics (we do not compare a code compliant development that also benefited from a CPE with a non-code compliant development that required a conditional use permit or variance but also benefited from a CPE). We use these criteria based on several assumptions about neighborhood-level politics across all cities. For example, we assume the political context varies across neighborhood types (in terms of income level). We also assume that neighborhood opposition might vary based on project type (for sale condos versus for rent apartments, and affordable versus market-rate). The last criterion (process steps) is the most difficult for us to match because no two study cities have identical regulatory environments. We therefore looked for equivalencies within local processes based on whether a development required special approvals or not. We were unable to find matches in Berkeley and Redwood City. We found that the average difference between all San Francisco-Oakland pairs is 1,086 days (~3 years). The difference in timelines appeared related to San Francisco<U+2019>s pre-application requirements and exceptional DR process. Table 15: Comparison of Entitlements Requiring CPEs Oakland-San Francisco 2014 - 2017 data Address Jurisdiction Project Size (units) and Type 2019 TCAC Classification Neighborhood (Name) Affordability Complianc e with IZ (SF) Required Local Approvals Timeframe to Entitlement (days) Difference in Timeframes 83 1924 Mission San Francisco 11 units for rent Low Resource Mission Market-Rate (possibly 1 1- bedroom affordable unit)84 On-site Discretionary Code Compliant (Building Permit only) 1,203 days <U+2013> 3253 Ettie St. Oakland85 9 units for rent Low Resource Clawson Market-Rate N/A Discretionary Code Compliant (Design Review only) 348 days 855 days 7540 Macarthur Oakland 11 units for rent Low Resource Eastmont Hills Market-Rate N/A Discretionary Code Compliant (Design Review only) 51 days 1,152 days 198 Valencia St. San Francisco 28 units for rent Low Resource SoMa Market-Rate Unknown Variance, Public Initiated Discretionary Review 1,302 days <U+2013> 3129 Elmwood 30 units for rent Low Resource Jingletown Market-Rate N/A Variance, Design Review 150 days 1,152 days 83 Only populated for Oakland projects. This column shows the many more days it took for the Oakland project to entitle, relative to its matched San Francisco project. 84 There is an August 2018 One Unit Compliance with Inclusionary Housing Program Affidavit that provides that one of the one-bedroom units would be affordable<U+2014>but we could not locate a deed restriction in PIM. 85 It looks like the developer successfully secured excavation, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing building permits post-entitlement in 2018, but those expired in 2019 and 2020. 55 Address Jurisdiction Project Size (units) and Type 2019 TCAC Classification Neighborhood (Name) Affordability Complianc e with IZ (SF) Required Local Approvals Timeframe to Entitlement (days) Difference in Timeframes 83 Oakland 956 63rd St. Oakland 28 units for rent Low Resource Paradise Park Market-Rate N/A Variance, Design Review 105 days 1,197 days 645-647 Valencia St, San Francisco 7 units for rent Moderate Resource Mission Market-Rate N/A Variance, Public Initiated Discretionary Review 1,435 days <U+2013> 4429 Piedmont, Oakland 9 units for rent Moderate Resource Piedmont Avenue Market-Rate N/A Variance, Design Review 137 days 1,289 days 2201 Market San Francisco 17 units for rent Low Resource Mission Market-Rate Fee Variance, Public Initiated Discretionary Review 1,160 days <U+2013> 5325 San Pablo Oakland 17 units for rent Low Resource Gaskill Market-Rate N/A Variance, Design Review 287 days 873 days Stakeholders report that San Francisco<U+2019>s policy emphasizes project-level adjudication to achieve equitable development outcomes, when what the city needs to achieve equitable development outcomes is zoning and planning reform. The comparatively longer timeframes in San Francisco are associated with processes that illustrate a larger, complex, and recurring theme that dominated several interviews with developers, planners, and affordable housing advocates. From the table above, we pull out the entitlement at 1924 Mission to explain what stakeholders report<U+2014>San Francisco<U+2019>s current policy attempts to resolve neighborhood-level concerns about inequitable land use development through project-level adjudication rather than more equitable planning and zoning. 1924 Mission Street involved a proposal to construct an 11-unit building with ground-floor retail on a site with an auto body shop. The project proponent submitted a required PPA in March 2014.86 This pre-application process required submitting an application for assessment with the site plan, floor plan, building elevations, and photographs. This PPA process also required 86 This is a required process applicable (at the time) to all proposed developments of seven or more units. San Francisco has since modified applicability; it is required for developments of 10 or more units, creation or expansion of group housing using 10,000 square feet or more, and unspecified <U+201C>other complex projects.<U+201D> Preliminary Project Assessment (PPA), S.F. PLAN., https://sfplanning.org/resource/ppa- application (July 11, 2023). 56 notice to the neighborhood87 and a pre-application neighborhood meeting. The pre-application neighborhood meeting is supposed to identify neighborhood grievances and prevent requests for exceptional Discretionary Review.88 Importantly, developers state that these pre-application processes do not achieve that end, and this example is consistent with those perceptions. The Planning Department issued a Certificate of Determination on April 2, 2015, that the project qualified for a CPE (tiering). According to the Notice of Building Permit Application, the project proponent then applied for discretionary building permits on May 23, 2016.89 The Planning Department issued the Notice of Building Permit Application on March 20, 2017. A local neighborhood organization applied for the Planning Commission to take exceptional Discretionary Review on April 19, 2017. The application for exceptional Discretionary Review provided that the neighborhood organization requesting review believed the proposed development was inconsistent with the General Plan<U+2019>s policy priority that <U+201C>[t]hat existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods.<U+201D>90 The application for Discretionary Review stated that proposed rents would be high, and expressed concern that <U+201C>gentrification-inducing design, intended to target higher-end tenants, will create local upward price pressure on surrounding tenants.<U+201D>91 Importantly, the neighborhood organization expressed concerns that this proposed development was one of several that created harm in the neighborhood. The applicant noted that the harm was related to <U+201C>the cumulative impact of this and the other seven projects proposed for the immediate vicinity of Mission St.<U+201D>92 The request for Discretionary Review asked that the Planning Commission consider the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed development and other developments and <U+201C>demand this project alter its appearance in order that it comes into line with neighboring buildings on the Mission corridor in a way that better helps preserve the cultural and economic diversity<U+2019> of the corridor and the Mission District.<U+201D>93 The Planning Commission heard this request on July 6, 2017. The Planning Commission agreed that there were <U+201C>extraordinary and exceptional circumstances<U+201D> that warranted Discretionary Review and that <U+201C>project refinements were necessary to address concerns over the project<U+2019>s compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.<U+201D> The Planning Commission conditioned the building permit approval on the following grounds: the ground floor retail space needed to be designated for trade shop use, the project proponent needed to explore providing a mural on one wall, and the project proponent needed to <U+201C>work with Planning Department staff on refin[ing] the exterior design to provide a stronger relationship to the surrounding context.<U+201D> The Building Department issued a demolition permit to demolish the auto body shop in August 87 The notice requirements for the Pre-Application Meeting demanded notification to all property owners within a 300 feet radius, all relevant neighborhood organizations, and anyone who requested notice. Meetings may only be held during certain hours, and project proponents must keep a record of all attendees. 88 The first page of the Pre-Application Meeting Packet logged in PIM provides: <U+201C>The meeting<U+2019>s intention is to initiate neighbor communication and identify issues and concerns early on; provide the project sponsor the opportunity to address neighbor concerns about the potential impacts of the project prior to submitting an application; and, reduce the number of Discretionary Reviews (DRs) that are filed.<U+201D> 89 There is no Project Application logged in PIM. 90 This language comes from the Application for Discretionary Review, page 4, logged in PIM. 91 Id. 92 Id. 93 Id. 57 2019 and a temporary shoring permit for an empty lot in 2021. DBI<U+2019>s Permit Tracking system seems to indicate review of plans through spring of 2021, but no activity is logged after that.94 It is also unclear how the final project-specific conditions of approval resolve the larger, neighborhood level concerns about gentrification and displacement raised during this request for exceptional Discretionary Review<U+2014>which are at least in part related to the city<U+2019>s zoning and planning that dictates where developers may build multi-family housing citywide. Planners and developers believe San Francisco needs procedural reform that addresses discretionary review, but not all Commissioners and Supervisors agree. Stakeholders explained that three features of San Francisco<U+2019>s local law invite project-by-project adversarial politics that will prevent San Francisco from meeting housing production targets and equitable housing outcomes: (1) density and use controls that limit development to specific neighborhoods, (2) procedural law and policy that renders all approvals discretionary, and (3) charter provisions that allow project opponents to appeal multiple post-entitlement construction permits. When discussing SB 35, affordable developers and planners explained the state ministerial process resolved the second issue without touching the first or third. SB 35 may fix planning review for eligible projects, but it cannot fix San Francisco<U+2019>s housing production pipeline because two major impediments to production remain. (SB 35 also only applies because San Francisco has failed to meet its RHNA targets<U+2014>which is not the city<U+2019>s aim.) According to planners, developers, and many housing advocates, achieving production targets, affordability, and equity demand long-range planning, rezoning for density in higher opportunity areas in conjunction with a local ministerial approval process, and charter reform to limit post- entitlement appeals. Some planners shared that a local ministerial process would have more legitimacy with community members than a state ministerial process; legitimacy that planners perceive as important within San Francisco because of the city<U+2019>s poor track record in prior decades of engaging with certain neighborhoods and low-income communities. But many stakeholders, including planners, shared their belief that current and proposed local procedural reforms, including the Mayor<U+2019>s Housing for All Executive Directive, are insufficient to remove policy constraints on production. According to these stakeholders, current reforms merely <U+201C>tinker<U+201D> with the planning code while leaving blanket discretionary review and the administrative appeal process intact. Stakeholders who shared this perspective stated plainly that they think the Mayor<U+2019>s Office can only do so much to fix these issues<U+2014>the real fix depends on the Board of Supervisors and possibly the electorate. There were a handful of stakeholders who emphasized that the Mayor<U+2019>s Office must lead in addressing problems with permitting and felt entitlement processes were not the problem. Every stakeholder that shared that San Francisco needs a local ministerial process and charter reform also felt accomplishing either one is politically impossible. Several planners expressed a belief in the need for state intervention<U+2014>but not necessarily a preference for state intervention. Interview participants across several stakeholder groups emphasized that local processes that require the most reform are intertwined with values and assumptions about what these 94 It is difficult to ascertain much more than the status of a permit from building permit data. 58 procedural rules offer in terms of stakeholder engagement, historic and cultural preservation, and ultimately, spatial equity. Several planners also explained that San Francisco has inadequately engaged community around planning and zoning for decades. There was a consensus among planners that recent efforts by Supervisors to connect with low-income communities around land use still lack sufficient and intentional community engagement. Planners also described a need for the city to mend relationships with community through acknowledgment of and documentation of past harms. Some affordable developers echoed these concepts when they described how some neighborhoods continue to have the city<U+2019>s legacy of racism codified in neighborhood association covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R). Planning staff and some housing advocates explained that it is not in the city<U+2019>s best interests to keep existing processes as they are if the city<U+2019>s goal is to redress these past harms and increase housing production in an equitable way. But because process requirements are framed as key to stakeholder engagement and participation, planners believe no local political body wants to dismantle them. Process in San Francisco is sacrosanct. Consistent with this perspective from planners, some Commissioners emphasized the importance of engagement, but Commissioners focused on engagement during the project entitlement phase. The difference in how stakeholder groups described the need for community engagement in relationship to planning, zoning, and project development is significant. Planners discussed a need for engagement at larger scales and at the legislative level, to facilitate equitable planning and zoning, not just at the project-level. Commissioners focused on engagement at the project- level. Interview participants also elaborated and described existing density and use controls and project-level adjudication as reflecting how power over land use is inequitably distributed citywide. Certain neighborhoods wield enough power over political bodies to block changing density and use controls, so no multifamily housing is proposed in the first instance. These constituents who benefit most from the spatial distribution of density and use controls do not need to attend public hearings to block housing development. Developers propose dense multifamily housing (and affordable housing) where housing may be built under zoning and planning standards.95 That leaves communities in the neighborhoods where zoning allows housing to be built with one primary pathway to access power over land use; they must go through project-level adjudication, or public hearings. Some neighborhoods have built up power over time and can now effectively block all development through project-level adjudication. Other neighborhoods have more recently begun advocating for community needs through project adjudication. Planners also described alliances between wealthy residents and community activists with less money and influence that are working to protect their communities from harm from what they perceive to be the <U+201C>greedy developer.<U+201D> Stakeholders explained that project-level adversarial politics may seem responsive to inequitable land use patterns because it allows communities to advocate for what they need, but 95 These perspectives were consistent with what we discovered in earlier research on San Francisco<U+2019>s zoning, reviewing zoning neighborhood planning between 1921 (beginning with the 1921 San Francisco Building Zone Ordinance, and reviewing 1948, 1979 and 1990 zoning) through the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan adopted in 2009. We found that the entitlements for 5 or more units issued in 2014 - 2017 were concentrated almost entirely in neighborhoods that had zoning for multi-family housing in place since at least 1921 (the Mission) or in neighborhoods that may have been zoned industrial neighborhoods but later rezoned for mixed-use (such as SoMa and Potrero Hill). 59 this approach fails to change power imbalances or solve for structural inequities. Neighborhoods that have prevented density (through zoning and planning standards) remain unavailable for development. Other neighborhoods feel perpetually burdened. When project opponents from vulnerable neighborhoods cannot stop an approval, they also interpret the entitlement as signaling that political bodies do not care about their neighborhood<U+2019>s needs96 even though planners state that the opposite is true. Planners believe that the Planning Commission cares very deeply about neighborhood needs. From the perspective of planners, it is because the Commissioners care deeply about neighborhood needs that they slow or block housing approvals. Planners shared local rules do too little to facilitate meaningful public input into design because the local rules without state intervention lead to just one conversation about how the city may deny the proposed development. Planners perceive that soliciting meaningful community input into design does not happen until political bodies and neighbors accept a project approval is imminent. Only then, according to planners, does the entitlement process facilitate community input to make the design better and prevent unintended harm the neighborhood. But planners report that at present productive dialogue to allow for community input depends entirely on state law that intervenes in local discretion in some way, and that the current local regulatory framework provides an inefficient and slow means to achieve housing production sensitive to neighborhood needs. Participants in confidential research interviews cautioned that proposals to rezone need to be coupled with local ministerial processes or the rezoning will leave the existing inequities in place. Planners predict that any rezoned neighborhoods that have not welcomed dense housing in the past will use San Francisco<U+2019>s procedural law to block development if rezoning is not coupled with a ministerial approval process. Affordable developers share this perspective. Also, planners believe a local ministerial process would require all parties to pay more attention to the requirements of the code, which would better achieve more predictable and desired housing outcomes. Many planners and housing advocates said that disrupting this structural imbalance of power requires the kind of procedural overhaul that challenges entrenched beliefs about what current discretionary processes offer, which these stakeholders believe makes local procedural reform politically impossible. Planners believe the ideological divide within political bodies limits legislative proposals; planners believe Supervisors are limited to developing legislation that Supervisors believe will get passed,97 which may or may not result in effective reform. Nonetheless, there was an unequivocal consensus among planners and affordable developers that San Francisco needs major procedural reform because not all neighborhoods welcome affordable housing development. Although within stakeholder groups there was agreement on these topics, there was no consensus across stakeholder groups on any of these points. Planners and developers (including affordable developers) agree that San Francisco needs substantial local process reform that removes some discretion, but not all Commissioners and Supervisors share this perspective. During meetings with HCD, some Commissioners and Supervisors<U+2019> perceptions clearly aligned with planners and developers on the relationship between zoning, procedural rules, and substantive standards on development and inequities across neighborhoods. These 96 During interviews, one development noted as illustrative was 792 Capp Street, which required a Conditional Use Authorization to demolish a single-family dwelling to build four units; the CUA hearing was continued seven times before entitlement. 97 Supervisor Melgar<U+2019>s public statements during the hearing on June 1, 2023, where she states her recommendations are to help ensure that the Housing Element gets passed, reflect a similar perspective. 60 participants acknowledged the challenges with existing discretionary review and administrative appeals of post-entitlement permits, and articulated these rules as potential constraints on supply and affordability. These Commissioners and Supervisors explained the difficult tradeoffs political bodies grapple with when developing or amending procedural rules, but they did acknowledge a need for legal reform. Other Commissioners and Supervisors, however, expressed entirely different perceptions. Some Commissioners and Supervisors emphasized the importance of maintaining discretionary review while proposing that reforms should promote faster, more predictable processes. Some Supervisors characterized San Francisco<U+2019>s political bodies as consistently inclined to approve most proposals for housing and stated that all neighborhoods welcome affordable housing (though they did not distinguish between neighborhood groups responding to proposals to build affordable housing and their own voting records on affordable housing). The perspectives of some Supervisors on the topic of affordable housing sharply contrasted with what both affordable developers and planners shared. Affordable developers stated that many San Francisco neighborhoods do not welcome affordable development and residents are concerned about more units or taller buildings, generally. Affordable developers also perceived the west side of the city as particularly unwelcoming of affordable development. Some Supervisors also shared their skepticism about the need for market-rate housing supply to address the city<U+2019>s housing issues, and their belief that inadequate funding for subsidized housing was the primary obstacle to addressing the city<U+2019>s housing needs.98 While affordable developers and planners agreed that more state funding is critical for San Francisco to develop needed affordable housing, affordable developers and planners also called out local policy obstacles to production (including post-entitlement problems). In sum, affordable developers see funding and regulatory reform as both essential to increasing affordable development, whereas some Supervisors critique the latter as an approach to solving the city<U+2019>s housing challenges. Some Commissioners and Supervisors also expressed deep concerns about state law that they interpreted as punitive, or harmful to local implementation of important aesthetic controls and historic preservation. What also really stood out was the difference between affordable developer and planner perspectives and those of some members of political bodies on the role of state law in accelerating affordable development. All stakeholder groups report persistent post-entitlement challenges. During interviews and meetings, all stakeholders, ranging from developers, architects, lawyers, and planners, complained of persistent challenges post-entitlement. Some of the dominant concerns related to the lack of uniformity in post-entitlement permitting. These stakeholders perceive that permitting depends on who is assigned to the process rather than on the form or 98 In the November 15, 2022 hearing on the draft Housing Element, Supervisor Preston, for example, repeatedly stated that the aim of state law is to avoid providing more funding and to instead deregulate market-rate housing as the pathway to increase affordable development. See S.F. Bd. of Supervisors: Hearing on the Draft Housing Element 2022 (Nov. 15, 2022) (statement of Dean Preston, Supervisor). Supervisor Preston shared these same perspectives in an open letter online, as well. Letter from Dean Preston, Supervisor, S.F. Bd. of Supervisors, to Gustavo Velasquez, Director, Cal. Dep<U+2019>t Hous. & Cmty. Dev. (Aug. 11, 2022), https://56a418ca-94d2-476c-9a45- f491ca4a0387.usrfiles.com/ugd/56a418_6abc98cb39f3429b85a1e3f2fb69fa17.pdf. 61 requirements of the development. Developers also commented that the system of review, itself, incentivizes extending review timelines. There is also no mechanism to escalate projects to someone with a higher position or a deeper understanding of what the projects require. The fact that there is priority review for affordable development is also negated by the fact that other developers can pay for priority review, so there is no true prioritization in the review process. Developers also shared that the subjectivity in the post-entitlement process can trigger a second stage of planning review even after the development has proceeded to the Department of Building Inspections. Affordable developers were emphatic that state law, like SB 35, does nothing for post- entitlement challenges. All developers grapple with inadequate interagency coordination during the post-entitlement phase of development that creates duplicative review processes, delays, and inefficiencies. Interviews and meetings also suggest that affordable development may be most impacted. Developers attribute these problems to city departments lacking a production focus, and that no single person or department is sufficiently empowered to monitor the process. One stakeholder described post-entitlement as a <U+201C>kickball game<U+201D> with developers going back and forth between departments and personnel. Planners also described problems with permitting processes as at least in part due to a poorly structured operation that lacks adequate policy and transparency, so staff are unaccountable in the way that planning staff are held accountable. Developers shared similar perceptions. Stakeholders describe the lack of an intermediate administrator between DBI and the Building Inspection Commission (an administrator within the city<U+2019>s executive branch) as a deficiency that contributes to inadequate coordination within and between departments. Affordable developers shared significant difficulties with utilities processes for affordable development that led to extended periods of no power during and after construction. One developer characterized the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) power requirements as <U+201C>crippling<U+201D> for affordable housing development. All developers expressed frustration with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), generally, with some developers describing PG&E as monopolistic and engaged in <U+201C>political retribution<U+201D> with SFPUC by imposing infrastructure improvements or deprioritizing projects that go through the SFPUC. Affordable developers also report challenges with poor inter-agency coordination around meeting accessibility requirements, trouble with satisfying public art requirements, and difficulty meeting local hiring requirements because of labor shortages. Nearly all participants offered their concerns about current efforts to address challenges with DBI and permitting. One frequent comment was that any directive to improve permitting processes (for example, by shortening permitting timelines) depends on having a baseline to make improvements from, but there is no baseline because there is poor data on permitting and no one has managed to track that information. Conclusion We entered this research understanding that San Francisco<U+2019>s entitlement timeframes were much longer than other jurisdictions. (The state<U+2019>s Annual Progress Report Data Dashboard would later show that San Francisco self-reported the longest entitlement timeframes across the state.) What remained unclear was why retaining discretion over all development creates comparatively longer timeframes in San Francisco. Neighboring jurisdictions in the Bay Area also used discretionary review to approve all multifamily housing as well, but they did not take as long. Oakland, for example, retained discretion over all development of five or more units and 62 the median timeframe to approval was six months. Redwood City applied discretionary review to similar housing development and required more approval steps and the timelines were still shorter. Even entitlement in the City of Berkeley, which requires a use permit for any development, did not take as long as San Francisco. These are findings we could not explain because we did not dive into the details of how different discretionary pathways influenced approval outcomes or timeframes for specific types of multi-family housing. Our earlier data also made it clear that San Francisco Planning prioritized 100% affordable developments<U+2014>yet it was also true that affordable development did not move quickly, and the local regulatory environment was not hospitable to affordable housing despite staff efforts to quicken approvals for affordable development. In fact, our interviews from prior years signaled that even as San Francisco Planning prioritized 100% affordable development, local regulation, and local application of environmental review created risk that some affordable developers simply could not manage. Consistent with what interview and meeting participants shared, the 2014 - 2017 housing approvals data revealed there were only five 100% affordable developments entitled in those four years. Nearly three out of every four affordable housing units entitled in 2014 - 2017 depended on mixed-income development, or application of the city<U+2019>s inclusionary program to market-rate housing. It is important to note that before SB 35, increasing affordable housing production depended almost entirely on market-rate developers. The data we have now, however, offers more insight into what parts of San Francisco<U+2019>s system generate comparatively longer timeframes and why. San Francisco, like so many other cities we have studied, continues to grapple with the consequences of inequitable land use policy from earlier decades. One of the primary tools San Francisco uses to redress past wrongs is process. Thus, like many other cities, San Francisco local law creates a procedural maze for housing entitlement through both zoning and aesthetic regulation. But what the data above tells us is that in San Francisco, the procedural maze is one with walls that move. Provisions within the Business and Tax Code and the city<U+2019>s Charter allow project opponents to repeatedly challenge approvals during and after planning review, and in some instances, impose new conditions of approval. No proposed housing development is immune under local law. This fosters a system of lengthy and repeated negotiations throughout and beyond entitlement. The state asked whether San Francisco was fully implementing state housing law, and the data indicates that for the most part, the answer is no. This is true despite the diligent work of city personnel to facilitate housing approvals. What came through as a dominant theme in most interviews and meetings with developers was high regard for planning personnel combined with a heightened level of frustration with planning department processes. It was also clear that several Commissioners and Supervisors want to see more housing production, as well. What exactly about local law blocks full implementation of state law that aims to simplify and quicken process? Stakeholders explained that the same rules which allow for repeated challenge to approvals, including post-entitlement approvals, are what invite subjective conditions of approval and constant negotiation outside of public hearings during the entitlement process. They also report that the risk of administrative appeal to local political bodies drives all planning practice, not just environmental planning practices<U+2014>although environmental planning is particularly burdened. Though we found that most administrative appeals are withdrawn or denied, we heard that the beginning of an appeal creates more work for planning staff, which in turn changes the pace of all environmental planning review for all projects. All environmental determinations under CEQA occur near the end of the entitlement process (right before or at final entitlement). This practice seems to eviscerate the effects of PSA on timely approvals. If left as is, existing blanket discretionary review and planning practices will likely diminish the 63 effects of SB 330 as well, which targets excessive continuances and hearings, going forward. That suggests that addressing this problem requires scrutinizing both existing planning practice and the local administrative appeal process. According to most stakeholders we consulted, although many parts of San Francisco<U+2019>s local law need reform, the efficacy of any reform hinges on whether the city can revise its Business and Tax Code and Charter. San Francisco<U+2019>s application of SB 35 yields the most insight into what legal reforms will likely expedite planning review. SB 35 changed San Francisco<U+2019>s application and intake process for qualifying development. Although the 2018 - 2021 data indicates that San Francisco<U+2019>s application intake process under local law was inconsistent with the PSA, the city regularly complied with SB 35<U+2019>s time constraints on planning review. When discussing what is needed to improve the housing approval pipeline in general, participants in confidential interviews shared that San Francisco needs a local ministerial process that parallels SB 35, to eliminate blanket discretionary review of all permits, thoughtful reform of local administrative appeal processes, and equitable rezoning in low density affluent areas. But no interview participant was optimistic that San Francisco could deliver on these reforms without state intervention in local power. Also important<U+2014>there was consensus among several stakeholder groups that communities within San Francisco have been harmed by the city<U+2019>s planning and zoning in the past, but no consensus on how the city should proceed going into the future. There was also no consensus between stakeholder groups, particularly between city staff and city officials, on what housing production would best serve the city<U+2019>s housing needs, on the role of local regulation in enabling or blocking housing production, the role of state law on facilitating housing production, and what the city should do to meet housing need and achieve spatial equity. For example, planners and city personnel discussed the city<U+2019>s RHNA obligations when defining the city<U+2019>s housing problems. Planners described San Francisco land use policy with a wide lens, pulling in developer perspectives, neighborhood needs, and politics when discussing the effects of current policy and planning practice on production outcomes. Also notable, most city staff described how reforms could advance participation goals or spatial justice, but they also described individual policies and planning practices as pieces within a larger system that accounted for law, policy, and cyclical market conditions. Planners and city personnel offered detailed analysis of what is not working that was easy to verify using other data. City staff were clear that local legal reform would be the best solution, but also were not hostile to state laws that addressed some of San Francisco<U+2019>s procedural challenges. Discussions with members of the political bodies responsible for developing and enacting the local legal reform were very different. All Commissioners and Supervisors agreed that the housing approval process was slow and needed improvement. One Supervisor even went so far as to describe San Francisco<U+2019>s entitlement process as difficult by design. Some Commissioners and Supervisors were also as pragmatic as staff offered robust explanations of how local regulation operates across the city, distinguishing between law and practice and explaining how politics influence planning practice and production outcomes. A few foregrounded specific and precise local legal reforms to support housing production citywide with sensitivity to equity and spatial justice within the city<U+2019>s existing policy framework and current market conditions. Some were deferential to planning staff as experts on what is needed in terms of procedural reform. Some were explicit in their support of program statements in the housing element that call for ministerial processes for at least some development. But some political participants responded to questions about how policy and planning work within San Francisco with answers focused almost entirely on contributing factors to production 64 that were outside of the city<U+2019>s purview<U+2014>like state funding for affordable housing. Some Commissioners focused most on how to improve implementation of the existing rules while retaining discretion in all planning review. There was also a split in how the Commissioners and Supervisors perceived state law, and the housing element process, as well. Some were explicit that they felt the state was penalizing San Francisco through the RHNA process, and that regulatory and practice reform would not resolve the challenges San Francisco is facing. Thus, what the data also shows is that the primary gatekeepers to local policy reform do not agree with each other or city staff on the scope of San Francisco<U+2019>s housing need or on what the city must to do to meet that need. There is also no agreement on the relative importance of local regulation in creating, perpetuating, or ameliorating the city<U+2019>s housing problems. 65 Appendix A: Regression Supplement With Methods In earlier writing, we found that longer timeframes within a city were not necessarily associated with more approval steps on average. But our analysis compared median timeframes and average local steps to entitlement in one city to another city. We did not explore the potential relationship between timeframes and local steps to entitlement in any single case study city. This analysis, within San Francisco only, is important because at least some procedural reform proposals assume that reducing steps to approval while maintaining discretionary review will shorten timeframes. At the same time, stakeholders describe San Francisco<U+2019>s regulations as creating variability and uncertainty in the approval process, even when a proposed development has few steps to approval. Generally, within a single city, even if entitlement takes a long time overall, we expect that more approval steps extend timeframes. Theoretically, if a development conforms to existing planning and zoning and requires no local-level approvals, it should take less time than a development that requires one or more special approvals to secure entitlement. San Francisco<U+2019>s local law does provide for dense residential buildings in some neighborhoods, without any special approvals. San Francisco<U+2019>s law also allows dense residential housing in other neighborhoods but with required special approvals. For example, development over a specific height threshold in some areas requires a Conditional Use Authorization or Large Project Authorization. If the local law is operating as we think it should, planning review might take longer when a development requires a Conditional Use Authorization before a building permit than if the development requires only a building permit. Finally, when a property owner proposes development that requires a rezoning or General Plan Amendment, it might take even longer than a project requiring a Conditional Use Authorization because what the developer is proposing is not provided for in existing planning and zoning. But what we have heard within interviews so far is that this is not how local planning and zoning operates in practice. Most stakeholders described a process where neighbors may oppose any proposed development in any context, and planners are placed in a position of mediating disputes. Because of this, the time to entitlement (and certainty of approval) is unpredictable for all development subject to discretionary review, whether a project conforms to the local planning and zoning or not. Stakeholders describe informal and formal pre-application processes for initial outreach and meetings to help planners, and the property owners anticipate neighborhood reaction and adjust a proposed development before proceeding through the entitlement application process. They also described a process where planners worked to mediate and resolve potential conflicts before proposals went in front of approval bodies (like the Planning Commission). But stakeholders also note that although a property owner may begin negotiations with neighbors before the application (and in cases where the Planning Department requires a Preliminary Project Assessment, sometimes before that process), and continue negotiations throughout planning review, project opposition may not manifest until late in the process. They emphasized that smaller buildings are most vulnerable. Therefore, no matter what work the planners and property owners put into anticipating and mediating disputes over proposed projects, the process allows the risk of opposition for new, sometimes unpredictable, reasons to remain. Because opposition can emerge at any time, stakeholders say this makes the timeframes and approval outcomes uncertain. 66 These statements suggest that we should explore the entitlement data to see if entitlement for code compliant development is associated with shorter timeframes as compared with entitlement that requires special approvals or deviates from planning and zoning. Theoretically, code-consistent development should always move faster. One way we do this is to explore relationships between local steps to entitlement and timeframe to entitlement. If longer timeframes are associated with more approval steps, then policy proposals that focus on eliminating or consolidating approval process steps to expedite housing approvals should help shorten timeframes. But if more approval steps are not associated with longer timeframes, this means that something else is occurring to lengthen timeframes. If that is true, reducing the number of discretionary approval steps, alone, may not resolve the uncertainty and unpredictability stakeholders describe. Although analyzing our entitlement dataset using regression cannot <U+201C>prove<U+201D> or <U+201C>disprove<U+201D> what stakeholders have shared, this additional analysis allows us to use more than one method and multiple data points for insights, which is more reliable than relying on only one method or data point. We chose to run linear regression models, rather than probability models, because we are interested in understanding what drives project timeframes in San Francisco<U+2014>not necessarily what drives extreme delays within the context of San Francisco<U+2019>s regulatory environment. If we used a probability model, we would need to generate a binary variable as the dependent variable in our analysis. This variable would distinguish observations that are delayed (in terms of the project timeframe). San Francisco<U+2019>s extraordinarily long entitlement timeframes make this very difficult. For example, generating a binary cutoff for delayed timeframes at the median would lead to a cutoff of 39 months. That means we would be defining observations with incredibly long timeframes as <U+201C>not delayed<U+201D> because they were below this median, and then using the probability model to see whether certain factors generate delays beyond 39 months. Since most discretionary projects in San Francisco are delayed, even if they are delayed for less than 39 months, a probability model with a binary dependent variable is not best suited for our analysis. Also, that model would ignore project factors that are associated with two- or three-year timeframes because it would classify these projects as <U+201C>not delayed.<U+201D> 67 Regression Analysis Using 2018 <U+2013> 2021 Data (OLS Models) We first analyze the existing associations between local land use approvals99 required for entitlement in 2018 - 2021 and project timeframes using a multivariable, Ordinary Least Squares Regression (OLS). First, we ran a simple, OLS regression using local land use approval steps as the single independent variable, and timeframes as the dependent variable. We used the statsmodel Python module to run all regressions in this analysis. We calculated all regression coefficients with robust standard errors (Errors of Order 3 (HC3)) to account for the existence of outliers and other issues within the data such as heteroskedasticity (variation in regression errors across our observations) and provide a small sample correction. Note that if we did not use robust standard errors with a small sample and clustered observation correction, the standard errors of our estimates would be smaller, so the standard errors and subsequent hypothesis testing are conservative.100 We observe a positive association between approval steps and timeframes. Interpreting the results of this simple regression, an additional approval step is associated with approximately a four-month increase in timeframes. While this positive association exists, our data suggests that observations with little to no local land use steps can take a long time. From this simple regression, we expect a development requiring a discretionary building permit only to take 32 months. Further, out of the 64 observations with less than a single local land use approval step, 23 observations (~36%) are above the mean (~38.6 months) and 26 observations (~41%) are above the median (~34.9 months) timeframe in San Francisco. While this positive association exists, timeframes are variable, regardless of the number of approval steps. Even if such a relationship between local land use approval steps and timeframes exists, the magnitude of the relationship is, arguably, small. Meaning, the impact of approval steps on timeframes is small. From this simple regression, an additional approval step is associated with an additional ~3.7 months for approval. Given that the mean timeframe for all 111 observations is ~38.56 months, the impact of an additional approval step on timeframes is minimal. 99 We define local land use approval steps as any discrete approval step required for entitlement under local law, not including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance pathway step. 100 In regression analysis, the errors are defined by the difference between the observed values of the dependent variable (in this case, project timeframes) and values predicted by the regression specification. Accurate estimation of the uncertainty of OLS-predicted values generally depends on constant errors across observations. However, in this study, we do not assume that error is constant (homoscedasticity). For instance, model error might be larger for observations with substantially longer timeframes (i.e., where projects take two to three times longer than the median timeframe). When we use robust standard errors, we no longer assume that errors are constant across all observations, which can mitigate the impacts of this regression analysis being based on observational data. Further, we are using a small sample correction to mitigate the fact that our universe of observations is relatively narrow and to account for the natural clustering in timeframes that occurs at each local land use approval step. 68 Figure 6: Regression 2018 - 2021 Observations (No Controls) Figure 6 depicts the simple regression of time frames on local land use approval steps. In this graph, the translucent bounds represent the confidence interval for the regression line. Several observations, however, fall outside the bounds of the confidence interval for the regression line. The confidence interval indicates the uncertainty in our regression estimates. This uncertainty could suggest model misspecification.101 More specifically, the number of approval steps does not adequately capture the variation in project timeframes. This model misspecification could suggest that there are unaccounted variables that influence the existing relationship between the number of approval steps and timeframes. 101 A large confidence interval is also often a function of sample size. In other words, because of a limited amount of data, our regression estimates are uncertain. However, we capture a complete dataset of all discretionary, non-ADU entitlements greater than five or more units in 2018 - 2021. Because of this, we are not making statistical inferences based on a sample, but rather generating quantitative analysis on an entire population (and interpreting our results within the context of this population only). Therefore, theoretically, there is no statistical uncertainty through sampling uncertainty. 69 We controlled for project characteristics that based on interviews and meetings we assumed might influence the relationship between timeframes and the number of local land use approvals. One such example is affordability thresholds. We heard from planners, Commissioners, and Supervisors that the city wants to prioritize 100% affordable development. To control for affordability, we placed the 111 observations into three categories: market-rate, mixed-income, and 100% affordable. To avoid perfect multicollinearity, we did not include the indicator variable which controls for observations that are market-rate. However, due to the model specification, we are still controlling for all affordability classifications in our regression. Below is the distribution of all 111 discretionary observations, by affordability classification: 1) Market-Rate (N=55) 2) Mixed-Income (N=52) 3) 100% Affordable (N=4) We also controlled for local process characteristics related to the intensity of the approval process<U+2014>which is distinct from whether an approval process requires more steps. What we are referring to here is how a project proponent may seek only a Variance, or only a Conditional Use Authorization (CUA), or only a Large Project Authorization<U+2014>and each may require one approval step, but these approval processes are quite different in terms of what we describe as process intensity. A Variance in San Francisco usually requires approval from the Zoning Administrator without a public hearing (though the public may request a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission through the exceptional Discretionary Review process). A Conditional Use Authorization and Large Project Authorization always requires a hearing in front of the Planning Commission. Interviews reveal, however, that the Planning Commissioners interpret the Housing Accountability Act as not applicable to Large Project Authorizations<U+2014>and that they have the discretion to deny the Large Project Authorization. Therefore, we wanted to explore whether the type of approval process<U+2014>not necessarily the number of local land use approval steps<U+2014>is what influences increases in timeframes. We identified five distinct process categories: Discretionary Building Permit, Variance, CUA & PUD, Large Project Authorizations and Downtown Project Authorizations, and Legislative Actions. We want to explore whether observations with a more intense process are associated with longer timeframes and, theoretically, more approval steps. Below is the distribution of all 111 discretionary observations, by process category: 1) Discretionary Building Permit (N=23): The building permit category represents a group of observations that are only discretionary by virtue of the Business & Tax Code provision that renders all government approvals discretionary. 2) Variance Only (N=17): These are observations that required a variance for approval. The observations do not require any Conditional Use Authorizations, Large Project Exceptions, or Legislative Actions. 70 3) CUA & PUD (N=49): These are observations that required a Conditional Use Authorization or Planned Unit Development (PUD) Approval. The observations do not require any Large Project Exceptions or Legislative Actions. 4) Large Project Authorizations and Downtown Project Authorizations (N=15): These are observations that required either a Downtown Project Authorization or Large Project Authorization. Interviews and meetings indicate that Large Projects face significant hurdles<U+2014>because they are disfavored. The issue here though is that these large projects may only require one step, and they theoretically seem to be no different than a CUA if we only consider the process in terms of both the number of approval steps and the approval body. However, the procedural step allows for waivers or exceptions to allow for a large project under the planning code. Though these do not appear to require legislative action, interviews suggest that the Planning Commission eschews these approvals, believes that they are not covered by the Housing Accountability Act, and will deny these approvals. That the Planning Commission interprets the Housing Accountability Act as not applying to the LPAs is something planners dispute, as they think this is a faulty interpretation of state law. 5) Legislative Actions (N=7): These are observations that required a local legislative act (Planning Code Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, General Plan Amendment, or Development Agreement) for approval. To assess the impact of process intensity on approval steps, we translated process intensity and incremental numeric ranking in the following order: Discretionary Building Permit (least intense), Variance Only, CUA & PUD, Large Project Authorizations and Downtown Project Authorizations (referred to collectively as Exceptions), Legislative Actions (most intense). After running a simple regression of the number of approval steps on this numeric ranking, we find increasing process intensity is associated with an increase of one approval step (rounded).102 A project that requires a local legislative act or a development agreement for approval is expected to have three to four more approval steps than a discretionary building permit project. This makes sense, as Development Agreements are often associated with proposals that require multiple approvals. This association is statistically significant at the 1% level. While process intensity and the number of local land use approval steps are related, they are not multicollinear. The correlation coefficient between the numeric translation between process intensity and local land use approval steps is 0.63. In an additional section of this report, we run a correlation heatmap between all independent variables to identify any possible sources of multicollinearity. We also calculate the variation in the number of approval steps for all process categories. Below is a table that breaks out the quantile distribution of approval steps, by process intensity. 102 The slope coefficient in the simple regression 0.856. 71 Table 16: Variation in Number of Approval Steps, by Process Categories, Non-ADU Discretionary Observations 2018 - 2021 (N=111) Process Min. 25th Median 75th Max. Mean Standard Categorization Steps Percentile Steps Steps Percentile Steps Steps Steps Steps Discretionary Building Permit (N=23)103 0 0 0 0 2 0.13 0.46 Variance (N=17)104 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 0.59 CUA & PUD (N=49)105 1 1 2 2 4 1.96 0.96 Exceptions (N=15)106 1 1 1 2 5 1.60 1.12 Legislative Acts (N=7)107 1 3 5 7 9 5 2.94 We highlight this variation to show that process categorizations are not just a categorical grouping of the number of local land use approval steps. For instance, all process categorizations have observations that require a single approval step. However, an observation that requires only a variance is significantly different from an observation that requires only a Large Project Exception. It is because these single approval step processes are so different that we control for process in our analysis. Finally, we also control for project size and whether the observation was in a vulnerable area. Interviews suggest that larger projects are disfavored. We control for project size (instead of just an LPA or DPA) because some proposed developments benefit from State Density Bonus Law, increasing their size, but they do not necessarily require an LPA or DPA (which is determined in part by location as well). Lastly, we control for location within a priority equity geography because interviews suggest political bodies are sensitive to proposals to build in these areas. These project and neighborhood characteristics can also impact the relationship between local land use approval steps and timeframes. We completed several regression models to explore whether there is a relationship between number of approval steps and timeframes. Or in other words, does increasing the number of required approval steps create longer entitlement timeframes? The regression models show that when we control for affordability characteristics, project size, location within a vulnerable geographic area, and intensity of the approval process, there is no 103 Out of the 23 discretionary building permit observations, one observation had an additional administrative approval. Another observation required an additional administrative approval and a Certificate of Appropriateness for approval. 104 There are 13 observations that require only one step or only a variance for approval. 105 There are 18 observations that require only one step, or only a CUA or PUD for approval. 106 There are 10 observations that require only one step, or an exception (Downtown Project Authorization or Large Project Authorization) for approval. 107 There is one observation that required only a legislative act for approval. 72 statistically significant association between the number of approval steps and timeframes. This outcome supports what stakeholders say to be true in San Francisco<U+2014>factors outside of law influence timeframes, and there is a lot of uncertainty of how entitlement will unfold in San Francisco no matter what a developer proposes to build. This outcome does not prove that there is no causal relationship between timeframes and approval steps; we cannot account for all confounding variables that influence this relationship. OLS identifies associations within our data only. And we are using observational data, as well. Thus, the data and methods do not allow us to prove or disprove that there is no relationship between number of approval steps and timeframes. But importantly, the regression findings are consistent with what descriptive statistics and interviews both show<U+2014>there is no easy entitlement pathway in San Francisco, and factors outside of law appear to influence entitlement outcomes. This tells us that reforms that focus on simplifying discretionary review by reducing the number of steps to approval may be insufficient to address uncertainty and lengthy timeframes to approval. 73 Discretionary Non-ADU Observations 2018 - 2021 with Controls Table 17 below shows the association between local land use approval steps and timeframes was numerically smaller and no longer statistically significant after we controlled for affordability, process intensity, and project size. These results indicate that there are factors outside of what the planning and zoning law requires of developers that strongly affect the relationship between approval steps and timeframes. What Table 17 illustrates is that project size may impact the relationship between approval steps and timeframes in our dataset. When controlling for number of approval steps to understand the relationship between project size and timeframes, an additional unit increase in project size is associated with a 0.021 month increase in timeframes. This relationship is statistically significant at the 5% level. Another factor that may impact the relationship between approval steps and timeframes is the intensity of the process. An observation requiring a variance or CUA/PUD is associated with an increase in timeframes, relative to a discretionary building permit observation. This relationship is diminished (in terms of significance) but is still present when we add controls. Further, an approval requiring a Large Project Authorization is associated with an increase in timeframes, relative to a discretionary building permit observation<U+2014>but this association is no longer statistically significant when we add all controls (including project size). 74 Table 17: All Discretionary Non-ADU Observations 2018 - 2021 Variables No Controls Affordability Neighborhood Size Controls Process All Controls Controls Controls Controls Dependent Variable: Timeframe (denoted in months) Num. Approvals 3.693*** 3.681*** 3.743*** 2.794** 2.761* 2.360 (1.244) (1.353) (1.260) (1.117) (1.637) (1.755) Market-rate 12.706 4.160 (9.493) (8.372) Mixed Income 12.934 6.833 (9.242) (8.970) Vulnerable Area 1.584 1.307 (3.860) (4.331) Project Size 0.021** 0.028** (0.011) (0.013) Variance 19.468** 20.488** (8.799) (9.149) CUA & PUD 12.286*** 11.115** (4.092) (4.547) Exceptions 9.987* 6.653 (5.317) (6.152) Legis. Acts 6.467 0.558 (9.207) (11.431) Constant 32.580*** 20.246** 31.714*** 32.369*** 23.930*** 17.656** (2.653) (8.889) (2.854) (2.587) (2.567) (7.260) Observations 111 111 111 111 111 111 R-squared 0.075 0.088 0.076 0.094 0.157 0.197 Adj. R-Squared 0.066 0.063 0.059 0.077 0.117 0.126 Notes: *** indicates coefficient is significant at the 1% level. ** indicates coefficient is significant at the 5% level. * indicates coefficient is significant at the 10% percent level. Table presents robust standard errors in parentheses. 75 Regression Analysis Using 2014 - 2017 Data After running a simple regression on approval steps and timeframes using the 2014 - 2017 dataset, we find a positive association between approval steps and timeframes. This association is not statistically significant. In terms of magnitude, the association between local land use approval steps within the 2014 - 2017 dataset is weaker than in the 2018 - 2021 dataset. Figure 7: Ordinary Least Squares Regression 2014 - 2017 Observations (N=140) 76 We also run our regressions on observations that received a Community Plan Exemption (N=100). We did this to further explore whether local approval steps impact timeframes for projects that satisfy CEQA in the same way. Table 18: Regression Using 100 CPE Observations 2014 - 2017 Variables No Controls Affordability Neighborhood Size Process All Controls Controls Controls Controls Controls Dependent Variable: Timeframe (denoted in months) Num. Approvals 3.295 3.521 3.009 4.097 4.062 2.515 (2.740) (3.802) (2.731) (2.615) (7.615) (6.105) Market-rate 15.159*** 22.226 (5.177) (19.833) Mixed Income 12.443* 23.791 (6.614) (19.983) Vulnerable Area -2.478 -1.423 (3.184) (3.265) Project Size -0.019 0.002 (0.022) (0.028) Variance 4.305 3.071 (9.589) (9.902) CUA & PUD -5.188 -6.306 (10.667) (10.416) Exceptions -4.053 -3.885 (19.060) (17.804) Legis. Acts 10.918 20.784 (34.670) (35.476) Constant 24.966*** 11.406** 26.813*** 25.232*** 25.700*** 6.351 (3.513) (5.124) (4.363) (3.667) (2.779) (19.031) Observations 100 100 100 100 100 100 R-squared 0.055 0.086 0.061 0.061 0.119 0.196 Adj. R-Squared 0.046 0.057 0.042 0.042 0.072 0.092 Notes: *** indicates coefficient is significant at the 1% level. ** indicates coefficient is significant at the 5% level. * indicates coefficient is significant at the 10% percent level. Table presents robust standard errors in parentheses. 77 Regressions Using 2014 - 2021 Data We ran our regression models on the entire 2014 - 2021 dataset. We find no differences in our main findings above. Figure 3 depicts the simple regression of time frames on local land use approval steps. We found a positive association between number of approval steps and timeframes that is statistically significant. In this graph, the translucent bounds represent the confidence interval for the regression line. As was true in the regression of 2018 - 2021 data only, several observations fall outside the bounds of the confidence interval for the regression line. The confidence interval indicates the uncertainty in our regression estimates. This uncertainty suggests that there are other unaccounted variables that influence the existing relationship between the number of approval steps and timeframes. Figure 8: Regression All Non-ADU Discretionary Observations 2014 - 2021 (No Controls) 78 Our results using the 2014 - 2021 dataset also show that when we control for affordability characteristics, project size, location within a vulnerable geographic area, and intensity of the approval process, there is no statistically significant association between the number of approval steps and timeframes. We also add an additional model where we only exclude process controls. We find that there exists a positive, statistically significant association between approval steps and timeframes when we only control for affordability, project size, and area characteristics, but this relationship is numerically smaller and decreases in statistical significance when we add these controls. Table 19: Regression All Discretionary Non-ADU Observations 2014 - 2021 With Controls Variables No Controls Affordability Neighborhood Size Controls Process All Controls All Controls Controls Controls Controls Except Process Controls Dependent Variable: Timeframe (denoted in months) Num. Approvals 3.328*** 3.363*** 3.149*** 2.882*** 2.998** 2.643** 2.263 (1.019) (1.034) (0.990) (1.043) (1.470) (1.046) (1.453) Market-rate 14.441*** 13.854*** 11.718** (4.756) (5.168) (5.446) Mixed Income 12.003*** 11.610** 10.510* (4.539) (4.933) (5.497) Vulnerable Area -3.878 -3.577 -3.798 (2.494) (2.574) (2.588) Project Size 0.009 0.012 0.016 (0.010) (0.010) (0.011) Variance 10.836* 10.407* (5.620) (5.763) CUA & PUD 4.266 3.413 (3.793) (4.122) Exceptions 0.859 -0.183 (4.628) (5.428) Legis. Acts 5.815 4.783 (8.056) (9.030) Constant 29.094*** 16.346*** 31.460*** 28.968*** 26.008*** 18.847*** 17.794*** (2.013) (4.357) (2.548) (2.026) (2.466) (4.943) (5.063) Observations 251 251 251 251 251 251 251 R-squared 0.052 0.070 0.061 0.055 0.080 0.082 0.109 Adj. R-Squared 0.048 0.059 0.053 0.047 0.062 0.063 0.076 Notes: *** indicates coefficient is significant at the 1% level. ** indicates coefficient is significant at the 5% level. * indicates coefficient is significant at the 10% percent level. Table presents robust standard errors in parentheses. 79 It is not typical for a development to have eight to nine steps to entitlement in San Francisco. Because it is possible that the relationship between approval steps and timeframes is driven by atypical projects in San Francisco (or observations that require eight or nine steps for approval), we also analyze the impact of outliers (in terms of the number of approval steps) on the relationship between approval steps and timeframes. Any observation in our discretionary, non- ADU dataset from 2018 - 2021 with more than four approval steps is considered an outlier.108 We dropped these from our dataset and reran our regression models in the table below. Table 20: Regression Results, Dropping Approval Step Outliers (2014 - 2021 Data) Variables No Controls Some All Controls Controls Dependent Variable: Timeframe (denoted by months) Num. Approvals 1.987* 1.685 -0.756 (1.133) (1.309) (1.928) Market-rate 17.294*** 14.218*** (3.723) (3.982) Mixed Income 15.522*** 12.450*** (3.397) (4.428) Vulnerable Area -1.829 -2.090 (2.666) (2.683) Project Size 0.006 0.010 (0.012) (0.013) Variance 13.440** (6.072) CUA & PUD 6.949 (4.802) Exceptions 7.935 (5.780) Legs. Acts 9.840 (7.396) Constant 30.585*** 15.720*** 15.110*** (2.205) (3.880) (4.142) Observations 229 229 229 R-squared 0.010 0.041 0.075 Adj. R-Squared 0.005 0.020 0.037 Notes: *** indicates coefficient is significant at the 1% level. ** indicates coefficient is significant at the 5% level. * indicates coefficient is significant at the 10% percent level. Table presents robust standard errors in parentheses 108 We calculated the bounds for large outliers (based on the number of approval steps) with the following formula: 1.5 * [75% Percentile <U+2013> 25% Percentile] + 75% Percentile. For all 251 observations, the 25% percentile is one approval step and the 75th percentile is two approval steps. Using this formula, 1.5 * (2 <U+2013> 1) + 2 = 3.5. Meaning, any observations with more than four approval steps are outliers. 80 We observe a positive association between approval steps and timeframes when we discard outlier observations, although this association is numerically smaller and decreases in statistical significance. When we exclude process controls in our regression<U+2014>and only control for affordability, project size, and neighborhood characteristics<U+2014>we find no statistically significant association between approval steps and timeframes. This suggests that the observations which required significantly more steps for approval play a role in the association between approval steps and timeframes. In other words, when we discard these observations to generate a dataset of more typical developments in San Francisco, we find no statistically significant association between approval steps and timeframe, controlling for factors outside of planning and zoning law. This also suggests that a more typical observation (an observation with two or three steps) would likely see no substantial difference in timeframe if it have been approved with fewer steps. 81 Robustness Checks for Analysis We generated correlation heat maps to understand existing associations between the independent variables in our models. If high correlations exist between our independent variables, it could lead to imperfect multicollinearity. In the following correlation heat maps, the only variables that are highly associated with each other are indicator variables that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. As a result of these heatmaps, we feel comfortable using these variables as independent variables in our regression. Figure 9: Correlation Heat Map for 2018 - 2021 Regression Data (N=111) with Affordability, Neighborhood, and Process Characteristics 82 Residual Plots for Regressions We also run residual plots for some of our models for assessment. First, we use the residual plots to assess our model<U+2019>s functional form (e.g., is the association between the number of approval steps and timeframes linear?). We also use residual plots to assess the effectiveness of our control variables. We are interested in understanding if the introduction of these control variables help capture the underlying associations within our data. Figure 10: Residual Plot and LOESS Line for Simple Regression (<U+201C>No Controls<U+201D> in Table 1) Using All 111 Non-Discretionary Non-ADU Observations 2018 - 2021 83 Figure 11: Residual Plot and LOESS Line for Simple Regression (<U+201C>All Controls<U+201D> in Table 1) Using All 111 Discretionary Non-ADU Observations 2018 - 2021 In Figure 10: Residual Plot and LOESS Line for Simple Regression (<U+201C>No Controls<U+201D> in Table 1) Using All 111 Non-Discretionary Non-ADU Observations 2018 - 2021, there is clustering in this plot. This indicates that the simple regression model is missing information to properly explain the relationship between the number of approval steps and timeframes. It strongly indicates that there are factors outside the number of approval steps that impacts the linear relationship between timeframes. Figure 11: Residual Plot and LOESS Line for Simple Regression (<U+201C>All Controls<U+201D> in Table 1) Using All 111 Discretionary Non-ADU Observations 2018 - 2021 shows the residual plot of the regression specification when we control for process intensity, project size, neighborhood vulnerability, whether the project received an administrative appeal, and affordability. The clustering in this residual plot is less pronounced, which indicates that the controls are effective 84 in capturing sources of variation that influence the relationship between the number of approval steps and timeframes. Also, observe that there is no clear, consistent pattern in the residual plot. This indicates that a linear regression is most likely the best functional form for our model. However, observe that the LOESS line is not a linear line at zero, but is rather slightly sloping downward. This indicates that there may be other omitted variables that impact the relationship between timeframes and approval steps, which may bias the magnitude of our regression estimates. Future regression work can test the use of interactive effects between independent variables or assess the impact of new control variables. 85 Appendix B: Spatial Distribution of Developments Affordability and TCAC Category Cross Sectional Table (N=144), 2018 - 20211 Highest Resource Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 10 352 - 29.38 30.91 Market-rate(ADU) 1 5 - 6.41 6.41 Mixed Inc.(Discretionary) 3 150 38 28.21 31.34 100% Aff.(Discretionary) 0 - - - - 100% Aff.(SB 35<U+2013>Began as Disc.) 12 135 135 15.39 15.39 High Resource Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 9 328 - 39.81 38.15 Market-rate(ADU) 6 47 - 9.63 17.20 Mixed Inc.(Discretionary) 6 242 43 53.51 53.48 100% Aff.(Discretionary) 2 19 19 9.53 9.53 100% Aff.(Always SB 35) 2 228 228 4.47 4.47 Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing to higher resources) Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 4 47 - 32.74 37.44 Market-rate(ADU) 1 7 - 21.99 21.99 Mixed Inc.(Discretionary) 3 237 81 32.08 28.48 Mixed Inc.(ADU) 1 24 3 41.19 41.19 100% Aff.(Discretionary) 0 - - - - 100% Aff.(SB 35<U+2013>Began as Disc.) 23 268 267 26.20 26.20 Moderate Resource Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 18 1,555 - 40.41 40.30 Market-rate(ADU) 6 38 - 26.50 24.38 Mixed Inc.(Discretionary) 21 2,564 520 41.03 40.67 100% Aff.(Discretionary) 1 178 176 28.04 28.04 100% Aff.(Always SB 35) 2 175 173 4.65 4.65 100% Aff.(SB 35<U+2013>Began as Disc.) 14 63 63 41.39 41.39 Low Resource Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 14 1,982 - 38.45 47.15 86 Mixed Inc.(Discretionary) 19 1,153 191 27.58 33.47 Mixed Inc.(Always SB 35) 2 720 294 6.84 6.84 100% Aff.(Discretionary) 1 15 15 55.96 55.96 100% Aff.(Always SB 35) 3 400 400 2.40 2.40 100% Aff.(SB 35<U+2013>Began as Disc.) 35 394 393 32.58 30.70 High Segregation & Poverty Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 0 - - - - Market-rate(ADU) 2 13 - 19.04 19.04 Mixed Inc.(Discretionary) 0 - - - - 100% Aff.(Discretionary) 0 - - - - 1 Observations that are student or group housing developments have been categorized as market-rate. We confirmed that group housing beds are not deed-restricted affordable. 2 This is 1360 43rd Ave, originally proposed under 1351 42nd Ave. This project began as a discretionary entitlement. We use the earliest file date to calculate timeframes. 3 The two SB 35 projects in this category of Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) began before SB 35 was signed into law, which influences timeframe calculations in this neighborhood classification. We logged one project, 2340 San Jose Ave, as having an earliest file date of 9/21/2017. We logged a second project, 4840 Mission St, as having an earliest file date of 9/21/2016. Further, 2340 San Jose Ave does not have an eligibility determination date, though we know it received a building permit. But we excluded it from timeframe analysis. 4 This is 2205 Mission St, which began as a discretionary project. 5 Three SB 35 projects in this category (Low Resource) began before SB 35 was signed into law. Affordability and 2021 TCAC Category Cross Sectional Table, 2014 - 2017 Highest Resource Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 3 69 - 89.98 79.68 Mixed Income 1 41 6 38.70 38.70 100% Affordable 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 High Resource Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 6 120 - 23.79 24.77 Mixed Income 5 287 27 18.94 20.92 87 100% Affordable 0 0 0 - - Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 4 100 - 19.50 21.48 Mixed Income 3 527 171 34.26 32.10 100% Affordable 0 0 0 - - Moderate Resource Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 29 2415 - 26.37 34.31 Mixed Income 25 3071 415 31.59 35.11 100% Affordable 0 0 0 - - Low Resource Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 20 1600 - 23.98 27.17 Mixed Income 39 5472 982 31.23 30.30 100% Affordable 4 400 400 13.73 14.16 High Segregation & Poverty Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 0 0 - - - Mixed Income 0 0 0 - - 100% Affordable 1 167 167 34.49 34.49 88 Affordability and Priority Equity Geographies (PEG) Sectional Table, 2018 - 2021 (N=144) Vulnerable Area, Denoted by PEG Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate(Discretionary) 26 2,377 - 36.85 43.54 Market-rate(ADU) 6 37 - 21.70 22.56 Mixed Inc.(Discretionary) 35 2,424 468 32.09 34.97 Mixed Inc.(Always SB 35) 1 270 109 6.05 6.05 Market-rate(ADU) 1 24 3 41.19 41.19 100% Aff.(Discretionary) 1 15 15 55.96 55.96 100% Aff.(Always SB 35) 42 512 510 2.91 3.31 100% Aff.(SB 35<U+2013>Began As Disc.) 6 725 723 32.58 31.94 Not In a Vulnerable Area, Denoted by PEG Projects Units Affordable Units Median Time Mean Time Market-rate 29 1,88773 - 36.00 36.40 Market-rate(ADU) 10 - 9.71 18.07 Mixed Inc.(Discretionary) 17 1,922 405 42.44 45.09 100% Aff.(Always SB 35) 1 450 185 7.63 7.63 100% Aff.(Discretionary) 3 197 195 11.31 15.70 100% Aff.(Always SB 35) 3 291 291 2.76 3.90 100% Aff.(SB 35<U+2013>Began As Disc.) 1 135 135 15.39 15.30 Distribution of Affordable Units (Inclusive of 11 Observations From Updated APR) 2014 - 2015 Affordable Units, by 2021 TCAC Distribution (N=351 new affordable units) Neighborhood TCAC Category Total Affordable Units in Category Percentage (of Total Affordable Units) Highest Resource 0 0.00% High Resource 3 3.70% Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) 0 0.00% Moderate Resource 194 55 .27% 89 Low Resource 144 41.03% High Segregation and Poverty 0 0.00% 2016 - 2017 Affordable Units Distribution, by 2021 TCAC (N=1,817 new affordable units) Neighborhood TCAC Category Total Affordable Units in Category Percentage (of Total Affordable Units) Highest Resource 6 0.33% High Resource 14 0.77% Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) 171 9.41% Moderate Resource 221 12.16% Low Resource 1,238 68.13% High Segregation and Poverty 167 9.19% 2018 - 2019 Affordable Units Distribution by 2021 TCAC, Expanded by SB 35 Affordable Units (N=1,390 new affordable units, SB 35 affordable units=896) Neighborhood TCAC Category Total Affordable Units in Category Percentage (of Total Affordable Units) Highest Resource Total: 22 SB 35: 0 Non SB 35: 22 Total: 1.58% 90 High Resource Total: 17 SB 35: 0 Non SB 35: 17 Total: 1.22% Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) Total: 336 SB 35: 267 Non SB 35: 69 Total: 24.17% Moderate Resource Total: 321 SB 35: 0 Non SB 35: 321 Total: 23.09% Low Resource Total: 694 SB 35: 629 Non SB 35: 65 Total: 49.93% High Segregation and Poverty Total: 0 SB 35: 0 Non SB 35: 0 Total: 0.00% 2020 - 2021 Affordable Units Distribution by 2021 TCAC, Expanded by SB 35 Affordable Units (N=1,649 new affordable units, SB 35 affordable units=1,057) Neighborhood TCAC Category Total Affordable Units in Category Percentage (of Total Affordable Units) Highest Resource Total: 151 SB 35: 135 Non SB 35: 16 Total: 9.16% High Resource Total: 273 SB 35: 228 Non SB 35: 45 Total: 16.56% Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) Total: 15 SB 35: 0 Non SB 35: 15 Total: 0.91% Moderate Resource Total: 611 SB 35: 236 Non SB 35: 375 Total: 37.05% Low Resource Total: 599 SB 35: 458 Non SB 35: 141 Total: 36.33% 91 High Segregation and Poverty Total: 0 SB 35: 0 Non SB 35: 0 Total: 0.00% Distribution of Affordable Units, by Priority Equity Geographies 2014 - 2015 Affordable Units by Priority Equity Geographies (N=351 new affordable units) Total Affordable Units in Category Percentage (of Total Affordable Units) Vulnerable Area, Denoted by Priority Equity Geographies 154 43.87% NOT in a vulnerable Area, Denoted by Priority Equity Geographies 197 56.13% 2016 - 2017 Affordable Units by Priority Equity Geographies (N=1,817 new affordable units) Total Affordable Units in Category Percentage (of Total Affordable Units) Vulnerable Area, Denoted by Priority Equity Geographies 282 15.52% NOT in a vulnerable Area, Denoted by Priority Equity Geographies 1,535 84.48% 2018 - 2019 Affordable Units by Priority Equity Geographies (N=1,390 new affordable units, SB 35 affordable units=896) Total Affordable Units in Category Percentage (of Total Affordable Units) Vulnerable Area, Denoted by Priority Equity Geographies Total: 294 SB 35: 0 Non-SB 35: 294 Total: 21.15% 92 NOT in a vulnerable Area, Denoted by Priority Equity Geographies Total: 1,096 SB 35: 896 Non-SB 35: 200 Total: 78.85% 2020 - 2021 Affordable Units by Priority Equity Geographies (N=1,649 new affordable units, SB 35 affordable units=1,057) Total Affordable Units in Category Percentage (of Total Affordable Units) Vulnerable Area, Denoted by Priority Equity Geographies Total: 732 SB 35: 446 Non-SB 35: 286 Total: 44.39% NOT in a vulnerable Area, Denoted by Priority Equity Geographies Total: 917 SB 35: 611 Non-SB 35: 306 Total: 55.61% Number and Percentage of 100% Affordable Developments in Areas with a Higher Density of Vulnerable Populations, by Year. Year Number of 100% Affordable Entitlements Percentage of 100% Affordable Entitlements in Sensitive Geographies 2014 <U+2013> 2017 (N=5) Total: 5 Total: 100% 2018 <U+2013> 2019 (N=8) Total: 6 SB 35: 6 Discretionary Non-ADU: 0 Total: 75% 2020 <U+2013> 2021 (N=10) Total: 5 SB 35: 4 Discretionary Non-ADU: 1 Total: 50% 93 Appendix C: Analysis of Accuracy of Annual Progress Report Data on Entitlements and SB 35 Approvals We relied on Annual Progress Report data that we pulled over three periods. For the 2018 - 2019 analysis, we first built a list of observations from 2018 - 2019 APR data that we gained access to on May 18, 2020. We began collecting data on these observations for related research during the 2021 - 2022 academic year, prior to working with HCD on this study. We did not collect as much information as we did for this research during that period, however. We then downloaded San Francisco<U+2019>s Original 2020 - 2021 APR data on or around October 2, 2022, to construct our original observation list for data collection. We then downloaded 2021 APR data on February 18, 2023. Then we downloaded all four years<U+2014>2018 - 2021<U+2014>APR data on July 14, 2023, from the state data dashboard to do a final check to confirm if we had any additional observations that may have come in through corrected reporting for any one of these four years. We also separately reviewed environmental review determinations to identify any possible observations not included in any APR data. San Francisco reported 72 entitlements or SB 35 approvals in 2018 and 2019 on the report we accessed dated May 18, 2020. <U+2022> Of the 72 entitlements or SB 35 approvals from 2018 - 2019, we determined that 45 of these observations (~63%) were entitled in 2018 - 2019 and reported in the correct year. <U+2022> Therefore, 27 entitlements or SB 35 approvals (~38%) in the 2018 - 2019 APR (N=72) were incorrect reports. <U+2022> We found an additional seven entitlements or SB 35 approvals issued in 2018 - 2019 that San Francisco reported in another year (or the wrong year). <U+2022> The 2018 - 2019 APR Report also missed 33 entitlements issued in those years, which we found from reviewing San Francisco<U+2019>s Environmental Review Documents and Planning Commission Agendas. San Francisco reported 82 observations entitled in 2020. San Francisco reported 30 entitlements or SB 35 approvals in 2021. Combined, San Francisco reported 112 entitlements or SB 35 approvals across 2020 - 2021. <U+2022> Of the 112 observations from 2020 - 2021, we determined that 45 of these observations (~40%) were entitled in 2020 - 2021 and San Francisco reported the correct year. <U+2022> We found an additional 18 entitlements or SB 35 approvals issued in 2020 - 2021 that San Francisco reported, but reported as entitled in the wrong year. <U+2022> 67 observations (~60%) in the 2020 - 2021 APR (N=112) are incorrect reports. <U+2022> Most, or 62 (out of 67), incorrect reports in the 2020 - 2021 APR are from Reporting Year 2020. <U+2022> The 2020 - 2021 APR data also missed an additional 21 entitlements, which we found through reviewing environmental review determinations. In the inaccurate reporting across 2018 - 2021, we determined six entitlements that San Francisco incorrectly reported in 2018 - 2021 were entitled sometime in 2014 - 2017. We also used the July 14, 2023, download of San Francisco<U+2019>s Annual Progress Reports to HCD a final time to run a second audit of the 2018 - 2021 APR before completing all analysis. In total, San Francisco underreported on 69 entitlements or SB 35 approvals across those four years. 94show more

2023-11-30 · 3 comments · 1 / 1

Christopher Roach · spoken · 2023-11-30 · support

Supports all the recommendations and studies

Eileen Boken · spoken · 2023-11-30 · neutral

Proposal for zoning and housing clarification

(name not recorded) · email · 2023-11-30 · oppose · source packet

File No. 231142
Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning Department Staff, After many months of arduous work crafting a Housing Element that protects tenants from displacement and preserves our rent control ordinance, we<U+2019>ve witnessed an insulting failure of SF Planning<U+2019>s oversight process regarding the Mayor<U+2019>s Constraints Reduction Ordinance. Despite violating our Housing Element, this deeply f… Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning Department Staff, After many months of arduous work crafting a Housing Element that protects tenants from displacement and preserves our rent control ordinance, we<U+2019>ve witnessed an insulting failure of SF Planning<U+2019>s oversight process regarding the Mayor<U+2019>s Constraints Reduction Ordinance. Despite violating our Housing Element, this deeply flawed legislation won the recommendation of Planning staff and four Commissioners. Planning staff and Commissioners had a duty to analyze and present a fair and balanced review of the proposal, with special attention to whether it complied with the stated Policies and recommended Actions of our approved Housing Element. The process was an unmitigated farce. Planning staff knew the legislation was out of compliance with Policy NO. 26 and its recommended Actions 8.4.2, 8.4.8, 8.4.9, and 8.4.17 to specifically exempt Rent-Controlled units from the streamlining process, but neglected to alert the Commission in their report. During the first hearing, many advocates objected to the demolition of rent controlled units. Planning staff and the Mayor<U+2019>s office ignored them. All four Mayor-appointed Commissioners voted in favor of allowing demolition of rent-controlled homes to move this legislation forward. The Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition repeatedly pointed out racial and social equity stressors, but were ignored. By approving the Mayor<U+2019>s legislation, the Commission and staff not only violated the Housing Element<U+2019>s policies to preserve rent-controlled housing, but also betrayed communities of color and low-income families. After being stalled by its flaws, this legislation comes to you again. This could be an opportunity for Commissioners and staff to rebuild trust with the community. Tenant advocates deserve to hear Commissioners Tanner, Diamond, Braun, and Koppel explain why they voted to support the demolition of rent-controlled units <U+2013> despite the Housing Element<U+2019>s clear directive: <U+201C>do not demolish existing rent-controlled units<U+201D> <U+2013> and we deserve an apology for this misguided action. We also expect that all Commissioners should share our concerns about planning staff and City Attorney advisers choosing to withhold critical analysis that this legislation violated our Housing Element, and that Commissioners should demand transparency in the future. San Francisco renters <U+2013> a significant majority of our entire City <U+2013> deserve city planning that is accountable, honest, and mindful of housing security across all income levels. We should not be shut out of the process, and are due both an apology and amends. -The San Francisco Tenants Union 558 Capp Street <U+2022> San Francisco CA <U+2022> 94110 <U+2022> [phone removed] <U+2022> www.sftu.org Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning Department Staff, After many months of arduous work crafting a Housing Element that protects tenants from displacement and preserves our rent control ordinance, we<U+2019>ve witnessed an insulting failure of SF Planning<U+2019>s oversight process regarding the Mayor<U+2019>s Constraints Reduction Ordinance. Despite violating our Housing Element, this deeply flawed legislation won the recommendation of Planning staff and four Commissioners. Planning staff and Commissioners had a duty to analyze and present a fair and balanced review of the proposal, with special attention to whether it complied with the stated Policies and recommended Actions of our approved Housing Element. The process was an unmitigated farce. Planning staff knew the legislation was out of compliance with Policy NO. 26 and its recommended Actions 8.4.2, 8.4.8, 8.4.9, and 8.4.17 to specifically exempt Rent-Controlled units from the streamlining process, but neglected to alert the Commission in their report. During the first hearing, many advocates objected to the demolition of rent controlled units. Planning staff and the Mayor<U+2019>s office ignored them. All four Mayor-appointed Commissioners voted in favor of allowing demolition of rent-controlled homes to move this legislation forward. The Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition repeatedly pointed out racial and social equity stressors, but were ignored. By approving the Mayor<U+2019>s legislation, the Commission and staff not only violated the Housing Element<U+2019>s policies to preserve rent-controlled housing, but also betrayed communities of color and low-income families. After being stalled by its flaws, this legislation comes to you again. This could be an opportunity for Commissioners and staff to rebuild trust with the community. Tenant advocates deserve to hear Commissioners Tanner, Diamond, Braun, and Koppel explain why they voted to support the demolition of rent-controlled units <U+2013> despite the Housing Element<U+2019>s clear directive: <U+201C>do not demolish existing rent-controlled units<U+201D> <U+2013> and we deserve an apology for this misguided action. We also expect that all Commissioners should share our concerns about planning staff and City Attorney advisers choosing to withhold critical analysis that this legislation violated our Housing Element, and that Commissioners should demand transparency in the future. San Francisco renters <U+2013> a significant majority of our entire City <U+2013> deserve city planning that is accountable, honest, and mindful of housing security across all income levels. We should not be shut out of the process, and are due both an apology and amends. The San Francisco Tenants Unionshow more

2023-12-07 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2023-12-07 · support · source packet

December 7th ITEM No. 7 REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT
Dear President Tanner, Vice President Moore, and Commissioners Braun, Diamond, Imperial, Koppel and Ruiz: Good morning. If you read the hard copy of the SF Chronicle this morning you saw the lede story was about the increase in respiratory virus in San Francisco. This is reason alone to continue the Remote Public Comment, at least through the Winter months. The other reason includes maintaining the expanded democrati… show more

2023-12-14 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Sue Hestor · email · 2023-12-14 · oppose · source packet

Opposition to Item 7 - Remote Public Comment
Importance: High Without real prior discussion by this Commission, Item 7 on today's Planning Commission proposes to abolish remote public comment at all Planning Commission meetings. The "staff report" does not include the recent email sent by the Mayor's office to commissions and similar bodies directing them to change their rules and procedures to abolish the ability of remote public comment.… Importance: High Without real prior discussion by this Commission, Item 7 on today's Planning Commission proposes to abolish remote public comment at all Planning Commission meetings. The "staff report" does not include the recent email sent by the Mayor's office to commissions and similar bodies directing them to change their rules and procedures to abolish the ability of remote public comment. The Commission Secretary had been requested to include that in the staff report. It was not included. The only document in the staff report was a Board of Supervisors motion amending THEIR Rules of Order. WHAT PLANNING COMMISSION rules or other provisions are proposed for amendment? What exact language? Every other action item has WRITTEN language set out in packet that commissioners and the public can review in advance of Commission meeting. WHY IS IT MISSING HERE? Timing is also a problem. Planning is in midst of one month, now two months over the holidays, dispute with state over the adding more housing and the adequacy of SF Housing Element. Directives and responses are coming with short time spans before important hearings. Cutting off the public debate at this time is discriminatory and makes no sense. The Board of Supervisors was faced with challenging comments by public speakers, mostly using general public comment at Tuesday full Board meetings, where what was said violated Board rules. Public comment is not allowed at full Board meetings. The problem was minor at committees, where public input is encouraged. There was Board discussion for several weeks before they amended BOS Rules of Order. The small exception for disabled people - "except as legally required to enable people with disabilities to participate in such meetings" requires a person to formally request at least 48 hours in advance to request to speak. The BOS has staff to handle such requests. There has been recent order from mayor directing all departments to REDUCE staffing to cut their budget. How will this be handled at Planning? Others have raised question about whether people claiming disability have to provide proof of disability, HOW proof is provided, and length of disability. This also requires MORE staffing. Finally, a caller abusing phoned in comment can be disconnected immediately by Commission Secretary or at direction of Commission President. Without changing the rules to abolish Remote Public Comment.show more

2024-01-11 · 3 comments · 0 / 3

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-11 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-11 · oppose · source packet

Urgent Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated outcome, marked by an increase in luxury condos, threatens to overshadow the original goal of solvi… show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-11 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

2024-01-25 · 37 comments · 0 / 37

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my deep concerns about the doubling (and more) of building heights in San Francisco neighborhoods such as the Marina, Cow Hollow, Pac Heights and Russian Hill, that is contained in the proposed housing element for San Francisco. HIGHER DENSITY NOT HIGHER BUILDINGS: I strongly encourage you to adopt a plan to address the housing shortage through h… Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my deep concerns about the doubling (and more) of building heights in San Francisco neighborhoods such as the Marina, Cow Hollow, Pac Heights and Russian Hill, that is contained in the proposed housing element for San Francisco. HIGHER DENSITY NOT HIGHER BUILDINGS: I strongly encourage you to adopt a plan to address the housing shortage through higher density versus higher buildings. Higher density will result in smaller and more affordable units whereas higher buildings will result in luxury condos with views commanding million dollar prices. STAY WITHIN EXISTING ENVELOPS: Please adopt a plan within existing building envelopes so as not to compromise the unique character of our neighborhoods. High rises along Lombard Street, Union Street and Chestnut Street will create urban tunnels, shade residences, restaurants and cafes on the north sides of these streets and build a wall that disconnects Cow Hollow from the Marina and Pac Heights from Cow Hollow. REMOVE THE PROPOSED 14 STORY TOWERS ON LOMBARD: It is very important to limit the building heights on the corners of Lombard and Divisadero and Lombard and Filmore to the same building heights along the rest of Lombard. The current plan calls for outsized14 story towers on these intersections while 8 stores are proposed along the rest of Lombard. Massive 14 story towers on Lombard will shade homes and yards and result in a repeat of the Fontana Towers which are an eye soar that no one wants to repeat. 14 story towers on these intersections will also increase traffic on Divisadero and Filmore Streets which are already high traffic streets. The occupants of these luxury towers will likely not be taking public transportation. PARIS AS A MODEL FOR 6 STORIES AS THE MAXIMUM: San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. The other is Paris and what is remarkable about Paris is the consistent 6 story height limits throughout the city (except in designated newer areas such as La Defense) and the resulting high density of Paris. 6 stories (with the top floor set back) keeps buildings at a human scale and studies have even shown that taller buildings result in isolation of occupants above the 6th floor (especially more elderly occupants). Let's use the world's most beautiful city (and one of the most dense) as our example and not create a plan that will result in irreversible aesthetic and historic damage to our amazing and unique city. Thank you for your efforts and focus on building the best housing plan for all of San Francisco. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, John Bautista San Francisco, CA 94123 [email removed]show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I strongly oppose the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While aiming to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks compromising our neighborhoods' unique character. The anticipated surge in luxury condos threatens the topography and historic features of our neighborhoods, raising concerns about 'Manhattanization' and additional strain… show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am opposed to many of the changes in the proposed upzoning of San Francisco. The current plan risks damaging the neighborhoods of our city that are working. The changes in zoning would diminish the historic and iconic features of certain neighborhoods. In our efforts to promote new residential construction, we must preserve old San Francisco lest we become just another… show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, Dear Mayor Breed, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-establishe… show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, Dear Mayor Breed, distinguished Supervisors and Planning Commission Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury co… show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco, especially the Marina and Cow Hollow neighborhoods. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, As a 12-year Outer Richmond resident and homeowner, I am strongly opposed to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. And as a citizen who has paid thousands in San Francisco property taxes to date, it is inconceivable that a proposal of this magnitude could move forward without a single formal notification and a timely Public Hearing notice for all affected residents. Th… show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. As younger residents in the neighborhood, we anticipate and hope to live here for a very long time, and to raise our family here -- and we do not want to see the neighborhood lose its character, charm, and uniqueness due to these proposed changes. While the intent may be to address the… show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I strongly oppose upzoning for the Divisadero Corridor. Divisadero is an overtrafficked street, there is no way to make it possible for increased traffic that upzoning will bring to the peripheral streets which are largely residential, particularly the Alamo square park area which is full of children, pets and tourists. Scott St is already the preferred street for emergen… show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. The anticipated increase in luxury condos not only jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods. In addition, as my wife and I are hoping to raise our family here, it strongly affects how our future neighborhood … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. The current plan risks compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods, in particular that of Lakeside, where I reside. The proposal jeopardizes the topography and well-established, often historic and iconic, features of our neighborhoods. The increased traffic and strain on our infras… show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-01-25 · oppose · source packet

Urgent: Opposition to San Francisco Upzoning Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning in San Francisco. While the intent may be to address the affordable housing shortage, the current plan risks exacerbating issues and compromising the unique character of our neighborhoods.i didn<U+2019>t buy my condo on 14th Ave to live in or next to tall buildings. I chose to purchase in a charmi… show more