tv Government Access Programming SFGTV November 29, 2019 10:00pm-11:01pm PST
nited educators of san francisco and the other is from mid-penn housing. the department recommends that the commission approve the proposed ordinance. the department supports the overall goals of this ordinance because it will allow for the construction of future educator housing projects. it will also ensure dwelling unit mixed requirements and it will benefit the educators meant to occupy the housing. additionally the dwelling unit mixed standards proposed in the ordinance are in closer alignment with the own requirements, in zoning districts that regulate those bedroom mixes. this concludes staff presentation. i'm available for questions as is kate connor. thank you. >> thank you audrey. we will now take public comment on this item. i don't have any speaker cards. oh, wait. yeah. anastasia has a speaker card. anybody else who wants to speak you can do so now. hi. >> hi. good afternoon everyone. legislative aide for supervisor gordon mar. we are really excited about this
legislation. as you all know, we have the first educator housing project in our district. so we're really excited by the results of prop e the overwhelming support to streamline both educator housing and 100% affordable housing. in the past year, we've been working really closely with mid penn, the affordable housing developer, and really closely with the community. we've really seen a cultural shift and really support for this kind of housing that's just gotten so urgent. we are also, you know been following the lead of educators and trust in the educators that they know what kind of housing is needed. so we've been in close communications with uasf particularly on this project. we really support this legislation. we want to ensure that this francis scott key project qualifies for this prop e streamlining we're excited to bring the housing projects online in many months, if not a year earlier. as my colleague ian mentioned
we'll continue our commitment to find the funding to secure the funding for this project and the future project for educator housing. this really does represent a big turning point. so i urge you to support this legislation. thank you very much. >> thank you miss kwan. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. we represent over 6500 educators throughout the district. i believe that i speak not only -- for not only educators about you for san franciscans, with overall the most recent elections in which 70% of voters said that affordable housing needs to be a priority. and this is really exciting for us exciting for uasf. in particular that we're moving into the next phase. we're meeting with potential partners throughout the -- at the state level to bring in
funding and develop funding sources to ensure that this project happens. and that we do have educator housing. the approval as i said, was overwhelming. and what it means also for us and what it means to our community, this community in san francisco they want educators not only to teach, but they want them to lead in this community. because we understand if we don't have a stable working force, we understand the cost that it will happen at the school level, the instabilities that it would have. we see it happening day in and day out. and in terms of the effects of the affordability crisis that has impacted ourseducators and our schools. we want to be able to stabilize we want to make sure that our schools have stable schools, so our teachers can be able to provide a good, quality education. and to this we ask you to support this trailing legislation. thank you.
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners with the council of community housing organizations. in support of this legislation. it's a great moment coming out of the elections. and with the overwhelming support that voters had for proposition e 75% of voters not only supported proposition e but i think showed san franciscans that the city as a whole the west side, the entire richmond district overwhelmingly over two-thirds supported proposition e supported increasing density, supported seeing educator housing in their neighborhoods. this particular piece of legislation allows a little bit of greater flexibility. i think one of the things that's important as background one of the first projects that we're seeing as educator housing francis scott key was
metropolitan to be a project to attract new teachers to come to san francisco and to become educators here. that particular project has a lower amount of three-bedroom units than i think what many of us contemplate in the long-term. one of the things i wanted to thank the city for having such great open data. i love going into the open data s.f. and finding out, you know, what we've actually built in san francisco as affordable, family housing. so when you look at that data set and commissioner melgar probably knows some of this from her o.c.d. days. over 60% -- i think it's 65% of the units built as affordable family housing are two bedrooms and larger. 35% of the units that we've built are three bedrooms and larger when we're talking about families, when we're talking about wanting families to remain in san francisco, we have to look long-term and not just
design those smaller buildings that, you know, frankly often times make sense for market-rate developers who have a different agenda. so i think it's important to both be flexible, but also think about what we're trying to build in the long-term. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. martine. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. san francisco labor council. on behalf of the labor council i'm happy to say we strongly support this legislation. working families are getting squeezed out of san francisco every day. this legislation will allow for real affordable housing to be built in san francisco. and it will be built for the union. we absolutely support this legislation and encourage you to support it as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the action coalition.
officially obviously in support of this legislation here as well. and i think the thing that we're most excited about is how much the conversation usually shifted really over the last two or three years specifically about the density in this case on the west side of san francisco. and what it actually means for every part of san francisco to do their fair share. and so for all of the people that were involved in this, not only this piece of legislation but everything else in just increasing that conversation, making people more aware and making sure that everybody understood what our current zoning actually allows us to do and not do in san francisco. so, you know we want this to be successful. we want to continue to look for more things to make equity density -- the other way around maybe. yeah. you mean what i know, across the city. we're just enthusiastic about it. thank you to everybody involved. and to supervisor fewer's office for their leadership. thank you. >> thank you mr. smith.
any other public comment on this item? >> hello commissioners. peter cohen, council community housing organizations. since fernando came up, i feel i need to come up, too. we really are excited about the passing of proposition e. you heard from folks in the labor community housing sponsors, from the supervisor's offices. this is -- this is a whole new opportunity. i know we're here talking about a very, very specific piece represented just to educator housing. but taking a moment for you all to consider in many ways how your jobs just got easier. because all of the rezoning foresight throughout the entire city for affordable housing has been taken care of. [ please stand by ]
when we find the opportunity sites we match that with money and we have projects coming forward. i hope we are going to have commission rooms full of people who are wanting to push these projects forward over the line in their neighborhoods. very confident that is where we are headed. and this measure makes it easier for us to do. i know you are big champions of this
measure. i'm talking to the choir here. but thank you for that. and there will be more coming for sure. and thanks for supporting this little fix-it legislation. >> thank you mr. cohen. any other public comments on this item? with that, public comment is closed. >> thanks very much to the supervisor's office and thank you very much to supervisor mahr's office. i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> seeing nothing further. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this planning code amendment. on that motion. [roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. item 14 for the plan bay area informational presentation.
>> good afternoon. joshua with planning staff. i'm here to give you a brief informational presentation on plan bay area and more specifically potential updates to san francisco's designations for priority development areas priority conservation areas and priority production areas. so if i could have the slides up. so just in brief plan bay area is a long-range regional plan. it covers a span of 30 years. it covers the entire nine county bay area. it's conducted by agencies that san francisco is a part of called the san francisco association.
the regional plan is a requirement that meets -- it's required to meet various state and federal laws and must be updated every four years. and it basically has to project how the region might grow over the 30-year period in terms of housing and jobs and specifically to meet state mandates ab32 to address greenhouse gas reduction targets and how we are going to do that by linking land use and transportation and accommodate the housing needs of the region over the next 30 years. and so from a land use standpoint, the premise of this plan is the goal is that we probably all share is to make sure the region doesn't sprawl outward further doesn't gobble up more greenland and open space and continues to consolidate around the part of the region. we ask for three designations to support the efforts. priority development areas, which are areas that are good at a local level for additional
housing and job growth. priority conservation areas the flipside of that wild lands areas the region auto to prioritize at a regional scale for conservation and recreation and a new category they introduced this year called priority production areas which really reflect a lot of the work we've been doing to preserve pdr areas as important places to continue to build blue collar jobs where they pay good wages and support the region's economy. here's a map showing as it stands now the priority development areas and priority conservation areas around the region. the map on the left, the dark gray areas are the areas that local jurisdictions have submitted as priority development areas and the flipside you can see the conservation areas are the large slots of open spaces around the region. the priority development areas are concentrated around the inner bay. this is a map of san francisco's currently
did i go nateed priority development areas. the map hasn't changed much over the last couple eight years. the designations are nominated by the board of supervisors and then forwarded on by the planning department to the regional agencies. as you see our current designations basically cleave clearly to an east-west bifurcation where the east side is designated priority development and only the southwest corners around sf state is designated as a priority development area. these largely follow where we have adopted plans over the last 20 years. but it also includes other neighborhoods that have not been rezoned. you can see the northeast quadrant is designated pda as well as the mission corridor all the way down to the county line there. so what is a pda? it's an urbanized area that's good for housing
growth. the region created a couple distinctions areas that are transit rich that have the best transit access but a new emphasis that the region is high-resource areas areas that have grown a lot of jobs, have a lot of jobs, maybe haven't built a lot of housing. and also have good access to good schools and parks and other neighborhood amenities that people ought to have the opportunity to live. but first and foremost they are a local signal to the region that we are having conversations about planning that we are taking local action to think about housing in these areas. we are not a top-down imposed designation by the region. the region has no land use control over any local jurisdiction. the way this is implemented from the plan is through incentives primarily. the regional agencies provide grants to support planning in these areas. they provide grants for transportation investment. and they generally structure the region's
financial resources around supporting housing these areas. this is a good segue from the previous conversation around finding money to build housing and support housing in all parts of the city where we think it's important and these are the kind of resources we want to be able to tap into. and with these designations we can do that because it's a signal that we are supporting housing in these areas but pdas are not an override of local control. it's not a decree about what zoning in certain areas should be issued and shouldn't be. and it doesn't bind the city to do any particular thing in an area that the board and the region recognize as a pda. specific growth targets for pdas and there are certain mandates. we can plan as we choose to plan. as long as we are showing a good-faith effort to accommodate housing growth to some extent in these pdas that's what the region wants to see. all zones treated equally.
what's good for one part of pda doesn't have to carry across the entire pda or even between different pdas. so the region is trying to get local governments to step up more and recognize more of these highly accessible parts of the region in terms of transit and jobs for pdas. this map is something the region produced showing which really transit parts of the region have been designated as pd as and which have not. san francisco has the largest acreage of any city that is transit rich that we haven't recognized as pdas. you can see part of the south bay and san francisco, we have a lot of jobs in these parts. we have a lot of good amenities. they are places of opportunity that aren't being recognized as good places for housing, and the region would like to see more housing equity across the region and across san francisco. so why extend pdas?
just to reemphasize some of the points i just made it provides us access to funding if we want to support housing growth in all parts of the city it gives us access to planning, to transportation money. and there's not a lot of downside to that. it's also a signal that we are having these conversations. we are taking local action, we are doing ground up planning and not waiting for the state or someone else to give that to us. and lastly equity, this is something you've been talking about a lot today in both the previous items. all parts -- housing is an interest we all share and is a responsibility all parts of the city share in finding the right solutions to meeting our housing needs. and right now the map we have in san francisco shows it's only the east side's responsibility. but that is changing. attitude is changing. and there's an awakening to the responsibility that all parts of the city all supervisor districts all quarters have a responsibility
to figure out a housing story that works in those neighborhoods. and so the map before you is a proposal to expand the pdas in san francisco that will come before the board of supervisors in the next couple months. for their consideration. it shows expansion of pdas to include significant parts of all supervisor districts including the three or four that aren't included today include pdas in district two district one, district four that include areas near all the major transit corridors in the city. but again these boundaries aren't binding to us and where we might adopt plan or zones there's a signal that these areas generally of the city are places that we are going to be having ongoing conversations about housing, and we can tap into resources to support the planning conversations and ultimately housing growth and
transportation investment. the priority conservation areas we don't have a lot of priority conservation areas in san francisco. we are not napa. we don't have large slots of undeveloped land but we have regionally significant open spaces we ought to recognize and need investment. there's a number of areas particularly along our shoreline both the bay and ocean shoreline the city is looking to invest and increase open space and at a significant level including along the central waterfront india basin lake merced, golden gate park is going to be an ongoing investment as we build housing. golden gate park is the open space on that side, as well as planning opportunities to increase connections in parts of the city that maybe don't have a lot of open space like the southern parts of the city. but we've increased better access to the park. this is a map of where those priorities might
be. lastly priority production area and sort of buried on this map. the area around the creek and just south of that that's colored blue on this map is the bayshore industrial area, stretches into the central waterfront. it's the city's most significant contiguous pdr area. it's our most important industrial area. we are proud to nominate this as our priority area. and i think we want to recognize as a leader in pdr preservation around the region. so we would like to nominate that area. so just closing out the process, this is a nomination the board of supervisors would submit by resolution to the region. there's a planning department sponsored resolution that's been introduced at the board of supervisors and they'll be taking it up in the next month or to. and by mid-january we would need to forward the board's final action to the regional agencies. so that concludes my presentation.
i'll take my questions. >> thank you. we will now take public comment on this item. if anyone wishes to provide public comment, please do so now. i have one speaker card. ilene. but anyone else who wishes to speak please come up. >> ilene from the west side, also known as the outside lands. i have attended two presentations by staff on the development of priority areas. the presentations contain what appear to be questionable statements. both presentations went to great lengths to applaud the benefits of pdas for the city. however it was stated that other cities were not nominating pdas so mta would begin, quote, unquote, to, quote, unquote, pressure cities. other statements were that pdas were, quote unquote, a symbolic suggestion and were, quote unquote, theoretically suggesting where to put
development, that the city had, quote unquote, baggage from its job growth and has, quote, unquote, an extravagant quoting need. most questionable were statements made regarding inside information about the new sp50. the pdas would protect the city from state legislation through a, quote unquote local plan alternative position. these statements were deleted from the subsequent presentation. the current proposal seeks to perpetuate pdas without any in depth analysis of their effectiveness. the mission district, for example has had a pda for 12 years. it is my understanding that there are activists who believe the pdas are a failed concept and their pda designation should be removed. rather than defending local control, i would dare the city to reassert local control by removing all current and proposed pda designations. >> thank you.
next speaker please. >> peter cohen counsel of community housing organizations. i may take a different perspective on this than the previous speaker and others. but i think this is relate to proposition e and what we just talked about. and we are quite familiar with pdas and what they do and don't do and what signals they send and what signals they could send. i think the experience of a lot of communities on the east side of san francisco when pdas were first created was it sent a signal we are open for market rate development business. and that's one of the things that really accelerated the gentrification cycle without any mitigations or thoughtfulness. it was just a big green light. and i don't think anybody wants to repeat that for other neighborhoods of the city. that was a failed signal. but it could be done constructively very smartly, which is this is a signal
that's between planning and change that's locally driven. and i quote from staff and i'm going to take them on their words, pdas are a signal that we are taking local action, that's the word local. it is not a top down designation. it is not an override of local control and it is not a decree of what zoning should beware. if they are a signal that the city with the communities that are there and the leadership from the elected level leading are going to figure out how to plan new communities to grow and change and welcome things, that's great. if we are going to look at through an equity lens and affordability lens and parties pa tory process, great. if it's a signal we are open to market, it's a big mistake. the second thing related to that is you have a
position as a department of supporting sb50. and it would seem to be highly contradictory to want to support the expansion of pdas into the same areas that are going to be the most affected by sb50, which is sending a very different signal. sb50 is about top-down designation. it is about saying by decree what zoning goes where. it does move control and participation from the local to the state. like it or not some people in this room love sb50. but it is an entirely contradictory message to what you just heard from staff and the resolution sitting before you. i suggest you consider supporting this as the right approach to doing community planning and change and take a position frankly opposing sb50 in the ways that it doesn't embrace this proposal. this should be amended into sb50 as the city's position. i think you would have a win/win. >> thank you mr. cohen.
next speaker please. >> rick hall, cultural action network. i'm a bit confused about this whole thing especially after peter because i thought we as a city were opposing sb50. [off mic] that we as a city are opposing sb50. and that's sort of my reason that we should oppose this thing too. this thing that's being presented here is sort of like what they are doing to us. they are saying oh top down, and maybe if you do it to yourself, we won't have to do it to you. so i would suggest that planning do exactly what peter cohen said, do a very good job of defining what this is going to be before the
supervisors go forward in approving expansions of pdas. maybe we need a few expansion of pdas. we need to withdraw some too. this is a signal. we sent a bad signal last time. the mission and east side of the city got decimated with market rate housing and gentrification et cetera. let's not do the same thing to the other side of the city. equity isn't geographic equity, we'll kill that side of the city too. equity is building a plan that fits with the equity stuff you talked about this morning and gets built what needs to be built for this city. and that is not market-rate housing tons of signals tons of market-rate housing to attract more and more techies to come here and gentry if i the rest of the city. so this really needs thinking and work by the
planning department before the city even considers sending the signal. this as it's being presented is the wrong signal. this could be used to set the proper signal. one piece of that signal may be withdraw the mission from pda. maybe we put a whole new category, you know? maybe we reimpose the priority production area. because we talked this morning with the equity stuff about jobs and building jobs for those folks. well, they also have to have a place in the city to do those jobs and the mission historically was until this and eastern neighborhoods plan and umu displaced our pdr. so we made a big mistake in the mission.
let's not make it elsewhere. and let's bring back some priority production areas. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. certainly excited to see the city looking at our western and outlying neighborhoods, seeing where the transit infrastructure currently exists, signaling where we need to continue to make investments both operationally and in terms of numbers of tracks out on the city and actually begin to expand and say okay what does smart growth look like on the west side of san francisco, where can we add housing. and just as a reminder, market rate housing in and of itself is a public good. another word to describe that are homes for people. the significant majority of people in san francisco live in market-rate housing. the significant majority of low-income
people in san francisco live in market-rate housing. and the more market-rate housing we build the more affordable housing we can build at the same time. they go hand in hand. it is not an either or strategy. and fortunately nobody in san francisco argues that what we should be doing is blanket zoning everything without having a conversation about what sort of additional community benefits need to be driven through affordable housing or additional fees we can have to increase our transit infrastructure and make sure we have money for our schools and sewer systems. it has to be a comprehensive approach and that's the strategy we want to have. about four years ago there was a council member in minneapolis minnesota as they began their conversation about eliminating single family homes that said something that resonated with me that there are a ton of places that it makes sense not to add density. there are rural communities. we have farmland we need to protect.
but to expect san francisco california, to be that place it just doesn't make any sense. and so while conversations will continue to happen at the state, i think the reallocation process going on now is fascinating. it's fascinating what happened in southern california when you have bedroom communities having allocations going from 15 to 1500 over the next cycle. what that means for people who haven't done their fair share, because this is not a san francisco problem. this is a bay area problem, a california problem, frankly it's a problem we have in our country. i know some of you are excited to see the housing was asked during the debate last time for the first time something we need to talk about. we are excited this is progress. and we will absolutely be here trying to emphasize the urgency with it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i know some of you -- a couple of you i have
seen 2015 through 2017, i was here frequently with a bunch of artists. we were trying desperately to get the commission to acknowledge that there was almost a complete wipeout of artists from the mission. and our governments were being illegally occupied by office space. and they still are. we repeatedly reported them to enforcement. and nobody was able to do anything to stop the illegal displacement and the replacement of many blew-collar businesses and artist spaces with offices in the mission in turn and a result of triggering mass displacement of families who have been here for generations. and san francisco is a city of communities as we all know. i hope you all live here. >> we have to. >> those of us who live here live
here because of our communities and because of our local businesses. and offices filled with people who are transient and single and not intending to make homes here in terms of displacing the people who are here to make a life here seems like a bad use of resources. and if anybody has looked on craigs list or any of the listing services, there are plenty of available market-rate housing in this city. there's a lot. if you drive through, you'll see a lot of for rent for lease, for sales, and nobody i know can afford them. my husband is a professor at san francisco state. they can't hire people, because they can't afford to live here. the students are living 25, 28-year-old students who come back to school are living six to an apartment and they are living in their cars. my new studio space, which i was able
to create one few new studio spaces near a transit hub is going to be next to the site of people living in their cars area. you can't just stick pdr and blue collar work over in areas of the city that are barrel served by transit. i don't have a car. you guys don't want everybody to have a car. we need to start keeping moving people back into the mission into soma who can afford to live there. you have to start moving these blue collar businesses and small local businesses and artist group studios. that's what makes communities right? and we can't say let people from the outside say build taller white-out communities of small long-standing neighborhood communities that are served by transit. thank you. >> thank you.
next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm with the council of community housing organizations. back when mta and planned bay area were originally looking at priority development areas they also looked at what they called communities of concern. and they like to remind me it took us two years for those agencies to actually create a map that overlaid the two together. they were very resis tent to doing that. and lo and behold what happened was the priority development areas and the neighborhoods of communities of color that were facing displacement were exactly the same. and so as you look at these maps, i would ask you to ask your staff to also look at the maps of where evictions are happening, where displacement is happening, where people
of color are living. so one of the things that i see in the map that is provided, the draft revised pda september 2019, is that it covers most of the city. it doesn't cover the marina. it doesn't cover dianne feinstein's house in pacific heights. it doesn't cover willie brown's house in the cliff house area. seacrest. it doesn't cover the house in parkside. doesn't cover parnasas heights or diamond heights but it covers a bunch of other areas. it leaves vernal heights off. so who is this impacting? you just came from an equity discussion. so i think it's very important for you to analyze how these two things work together how does sb50 and how do these pdas work together and how do they work together if there
is a planning process for these neighborhoods that sb50 or these pdas are going to be affecting or whether the entire planning process for those areas are signals, because that is i think what we are talking about unless you the planning commission and the planning staff and the board of supervisors decide that the way that we move forward is through a planning process, be it for the richmond or the sunset or other districts that are seeing the expansions of these pdas. the last thing i want to say is it's really cool there's now an analysis of priority production areas. those of you, and i believe director ram was around for the eastern neighborhoods they were very explicit in creating those plans that there would be areas that were pdr, protection areas and there were areas that were going to be the
mixed use areas, a lot of conversation as to how successful that was. those pdr areas were supposed to be production areas and should be considered here as well. thank you very much. >> thank you. hello. >> good afternoon, commissioners. and welcome to the public realm discussions commissioner diamond. i hope that your name will be indicative of the quality of your work and your contribution to the public realm here. [laughter] your background i've read your resume, mit, harvard and stanford so i hired quite a few people myself, mit people who were planning people as your background indicates. so best of luck to you. and i hope you still have a head of hair. i started with a head of hair 30 years ago when i started coming here. [laughter] but at any rate i'm here to speak
about the issue in front of you these pdr issues. i guess there are three or four important points that need to be made. number one, i don't think you should feel that it might trickle down from sacramento are going to compel you to not do good planning. you get a nickel or dime for infrastructure needs. if you want to work with sacramento, our senator up there assembly people should be sending us hundreds of millions of dollars for affordable housing. every time, unlike the gentleman who spoke a minute ago, any time you commit to allowing land to be used for market rate housing, you are allowing our city -- it might be too idealistic to say we should be doing 100 percent affordable housing. we should not have brought in tens of thousands of new jobs without having a jobs housing ratio
indicator but that policy was led by giving away all kinds of tax breaks to so-called start-ups amongst them the white house's favorite, twitter right here on market street. we've had people watch you on channel 26 doing calculations about how many tens of millions or even hundred millions of dollars was given away to those folks who brought in the jobs we could not aforward to squeeze into the sardine can of jobs where we have more than $700,000 job. why do we have a housing crisis? there are a lot of issues here. why do we let sacramento tell us how to run our city? we don't. it's important you send that message. i know your planning director will soon be moving onto other fields. and i wish you good luck.
thank you for quite a few years of service. i didn't think anybody would break the record but you did in terms of years of service. but please consider what happens to people who call themselves -- it's not their backyard. it's not their backyard. they use their own possessive adjective. other people live there and there was a quality of life. that quality of life and in a testy tess -- necessity to serve. the western side of the city should not be raped in order to somehow or other accommodate sort of an ideology that says those folks aren't doing their fair share. i've been involved for years in the eastern neighborhood. supervisor peskin is slugging it out. it was important to have the kind of balance we have over there.
and as a result the idea of housing options is very important for one particular piece of the demographic picture i want to speak to consider that's children. next year we are going to get another census and see what is the population of children in this city. what is the quality of life for children in this city? if you destroy the housing in order to pack in more people in the sardine of our housing stock if you are going to pack them in and have an opportunity to push out families as the mission district got destroyed please consider that you don't want that to happen would you? please consider the effect on children. >> thank you. >> would you please, on the western part of the city is one part of the city i want to speak for. i'm sorry, i didn't wear my hearing aid. i'm sorry. >> thank you very much. take care. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners.
i'm with neighborhood counsel and san francisco coalition. on top of everything else my colleagues who are pushing for equity and what has already happened in some of the gentrification areas some of the areas that have been subject to extreme gentrification what i would like to add is how -- you know, this is my question to the planning and of course our lawmakers and commissioners, how are we going to actually implement these pdas without having any plans for transit? particularly when i see areas like the sunset and the western part of the city that have been earmarked the question i can't escape this question how are we going to actually service the people that are going to be living in these additional homes? our transit system is broken.
and unless we are going to put transit first, we should not think about having more areas earmarked for further densification. and the thing that is so special about the sunset and the richmond the west side in general is that's where the families live. that's where the children the families with children that's where the young people, that's going to be the next generation of san francisco. so how could we be so unfair to these people, to these families, to these children, by not thinking about them and how they are going to be getting around. they need schools. they need hospitals. it's not just a matter of earmarking certain parts of the city and say oh, this is going to be our new pda. so that's what i'm hoping that you would consider and the planning department, you know
should actually look into. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm chris. local native san franciscan. and i wasn't going to talk on this, but i'm a surfer a kite border a city worker. and i'll tell you what if people who surfed at ocean beach saw the plan, i would have this room filled. you wouldn't even be able to fit people in this hallway. i'm a kite border. and a guy told me a story, his name is gather he used to be the warden and he said the governor duke said northern california is not doing their part. and you know what? he was like too bad. they wanted to build a big concrete structure so the tourists could come there and check it out. they fought it tooth and nail. it never happened. the guy bought martin's beach down there it
didn't happen. they threw him out. there's a lot of people that want to do a lot of things but we say no. that's the way the west side of the city says no. so you can say and do whatever you want but the west side of the city says no. thanks. >> thank you next speaker please >> hello again commissioners. carolyn kennedy from dolores heights improvement club. i don't think i can top chris' comments. surfer and kite border. thank you chris. but i am very impressed by the conversation that's been happening all day today. i think this commission has an openness to listen and to do things that are in the best interest of our city, not easy. it's not easy to figure out what the future of our city will look like and how we will get there. and i would say to you that in addition to identifying the priorities i think we also have to think about the how we get there. i was fortunate enough to be at a
community meeting last night in district 4 in sunset. and among the other presenters, the supervisor stood up and talked about district 4's community planning process. and i think it's something this commission should really look at. you've probably had things, i understand the planning is putting together some resources to help with this. but how we make change happen in this city, how we help it to happen is so important to ensuring that this is a place that everyone wants to live and it's a place where we can live, where we have equity, where we have the opportunity, where we have the housing and the resources that are needed for citizens of our city today and in the future. i grew up in the richmond district. richmond district and sunset have a vast mix of residents, many of whom are going to be leaving their homes. what should that look like? how do we get there?
i would advocate the community-based planning gives us a good chance to really ensure we've heard the voices of all and we are coming up with a plan that best meets the needs of everyone. so thank you very much for hearing us today. >> thank you ms. kennedy. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. bruce bowen from dolores heights. i apologize for taking up the time and speaking out without having been at this presentation and having heard everything so i'll make it very brief. this may have been brought up before but i was otherwise engaged within city hall. my concern about the process leading to the development of pdas and how this will be implemented is two-fold. one is will the development of pdas we place the need for community-based planning process, which is something that was being addressed and i hope this came up earlier. and also the interaction with the development and implementation the use of pdas, interaction with sb50. will pdas be used to help manage the
effect of sb50 were it to pass? or will pdas be used as an accelerator and targeting function for sb50? so the ways in which pdas are being defined could seem to me to be a way to target san francisco in the way sb50 has been targeting san francisco and i would like to avoid that being the consequence of this implementation. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? okay. commissioner richards. >> so i think hearing this putting it in context it's really strange, the titanic is going down and we are fiddling on the deck and why is it going down, we have all this stuff going on at the state level that's not resolved yet, mainly sb50, so we are talking about throwing our hat in the ring, is this a deal with senator weiner?
who is the person who said no on the west side? you folks voted for senator weiner. he carried all of your districts and he's got the guillotine over your head so just remember that. is this a local alternative that we need the senator weiner? what is all this about? have we had conversations with senator weiner's office? >> this has been the third version of this. this predates senator weiner and sb50. >> the reason i'm mentioning this is mr. switzky was reported saying to the council this could be a sb50 alternative. that's been reported. i said reported. >> i can clarify. i think that's a little mischaracterization. i think the question was posed will this, quote unquote, protect us from sb50. and the sort of apples and oranges this has no relation to sb50. what this -- what pdas would do is provide
essentially provide the city opportunity for funding to do planning in these areas or provide funding for transportation investment or other things. who knows what sb50 will look like or whether it will pass. if it does come forward again and has some sort of local plan alternative, we will be well-positioned to be ahead of the game and be in conversation with the region to fund local planning to do that. if it doesn't come to pass, then we are still -- we still have opportunities to do -- >> so the board would express the desire to include these areas but it would be the board's responsibility to do the up zoning with the planning commissions? >> yes. as i said, it doesn't try suppose any specific zoning changes or any mandate any land use changes. >> okay. then i heard wrongly. and i apologize. the question i have -- i mean, with sb50 looming, you know we need to be very
judicious around up zoning anything at this point. i don't think there's anything in the works right now like before january we are going to be up zoning. but my fear is sb50 may not pass. we may go through this process. and then another sb, some other sb50 comes and we already up zoned and we get the 3.5 times when our up zoning turns into a monster. so that's one of my worries. the other thing is let's take a look at the stock of what we've already got in zone capacity for these yet to be determined pdas. we just had legislation last year. and then we had another adu legislation this year that adds yet another -- we have triplexes all over. i got the e-mail from carla. let's triplex the state. what is the zone capacity already at in all these areas? do we know at this point?
do you know? what the addition of the two adus now? >> not off the top of my head. but i presented in the past, i'm certainly happy to bring back again. >> great. thanks. as we are looking at this through an equity lens and making things work in terms of more money for transit more money for affordable housing, et cetera. sb330 prevents us from doing that. we can't add anything to the mix that makes development more expensive. and if you have a different opinion on that than what i read in sb330 i want to hear it. so we can't do production areas. that's down zoning from areas that we actually were able to put housing in. we are pretty much frozen right now in what we can do in terms of local planning to do local things that help san franciscans and san francisco. and this is where somebody mentioned before, this is where the city attorney steps in and says, hold on, maybe we want to do
these things but it's going to create some things that goes against sb330 as it's been pass. we are going to have to sue the state and say look, this shouldn't apply to us because we are trying to make this work in good faith. so i want to make sure you know that and your report is coming out. and i'll send you an analysis of what an attorney sent me on what they think is an sb330 brief. we can't add anymore fees and doing production preservation areas is down zoning. somebody had a good point about muni. the mta provided the mtc with muni's funding gap between now and 2045. it's $22 billion. so easy to create a job harder to create a house decades to get transit improvements done. we've got to figure out a way if we are going to do this how to harmonize that as much
as possible. i don't think this is a bad idea. i just think it's all in the implementation the devil in the details, in context with state. and that's what worries me. >> thank you commissioner. did you want to say something? >> just reflect on one thing that commissioner richards just said just to clarify, a priority conservation areas and priority production areas are not down zoning in and of themselves in the same way that priority development areas aren't up zoning. none of these designations affect land use controls or development per se. that's all up to the city city. they are designations that are putting these areas eligible for different kinds of grant programs whether in priority preservation areas grant programs to do environmental protection, doing rest vacation. >> sure. >> or even property recquisition, we can designate private property. >> one more question. we couldn't withdraw the mission from -- we couldn't down zone umu and say it's
now pdr. >> that's unrelated to these designations. sb330 issue that's not related to these designations. >> thank you. >> thank you. director ram did you want to chime in. >> i want to remind everyone there's been a lot of discussion over this table over the last two years about the west side doing its part. and many members of the commission have said that very thing. i would remind you the west side supervisors have actually put money in a their budgets to the planning department to start doing planning work on the west side. so the very thing this will allow us to do is complement those funds to look at appropriate areas of the west side to consider for potential growth or not. but the point is that this will allow us the staff to do that along with the supervisors who specifically asked us to take a look at their parts of the city. >> thank you director. so i will just say to mr. marty's comments that my house was not in the original pda
map but it is in the second map which i'm actually happy about. i live in the west side in an hr1d neighborhood. with my family. and there's lots of other families around me. and i think, you know, density with a good plan that is well-served by public transportation would -- i would welcome that in my neighborhood. and i say that because i see that my neighborhood is getting older and that the folks who can afford the houses around me are not the young families that attend the schools and that use the parks and open space that are in my neighborhood. and so i think that it is an equity issue to be able to have those folks be able to have access to the west side opportunities that my kids have had. that's not the entire city. so while i acknowledge that we do
have issues that we still have to resolve i can't think of a better way to start thinking about those issues and to plan for them, to plan for them, to get help in terms of funding the studies and to do it in a strategic way. now, i do still have some questions about how this is going to play out. it seems to me like we have looked at the priority development areas in terms of the transportation. i see that it goes along ocean car very well, juday and i'm not quite sure if that's the right thing. but i'm glad that we are having this conversation. and i welcome that. let me just also add that what i've observed along with the increasing lack of affordability in my neighborhood is that the commercial corridors on ocean avenue and taravel
which is closest to my house are suffer. they are suffering from a combination of amazon which has vastly changed the retail landscape. but also that the commercial corridors are getting older that those physical spaces don't have wi-fi, the electrical needs updating, the plumbing is bad they are not ada accessible. and in order for businesses to be able to pencil out they need to do so many improvements that to get through our process is just -- doesn't work. and so i worry that without density, many of our commercial corridors are not going to survive into the next decade. and so i do want to plan for it. i want to be intentional about it. i want to have data about the relationship between density and business,