tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 3, 2019 8:00pm-9:01pm PDT
environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission for may 2, 2019. i would like to remind members of the public, the commission does not appreciate any disruptions and please state your name for the record. i would like take role at this time. (roll taking). >> i would like to extend a warm welcome to commission fund. we expect commissioner melgard
to be absent and there's a continuance, case number 2018 2018-32rd, item 2, case 2016 2016-44022 broadway authorization is proposed to mat 562 28th avenue the authorization is proposed for a continuance to july 28, 2019. items 4a and b for 2017 and ba bar 3140, 15th street and variance proposed for indefinite continuance. they will be renoticed. further, under your regular calendar, item 16, case 201-8838 grant avenue, lease
authorization, that application has been withdrawn. item 17, 000189-eighth avenue, conditional use authorization is being propose ford a continuance to may 23rd as is item 18 for 2019-00186innis avenue and i have to speaker cards. >> i would like to open up the public comment. would anyone like to public comment on continuance? >> good morning or good afternoon, commissioners. i am founder and of collectives and founded this collective in 2017 when it was time for thing questionttheequity programme toe
to help consolidate the equity programme that we would bring to the city. from there on out, i have continued to do the things to help the equity programme pioneer but unfortunately, we have not been offed any funds to help us do more and, you know, for equity people to be able to get more legal help or help to overcome problems that big companies have overcome. i am a native of san francisco and i was affected by war on drug. my mom died from crack cocaine and my grandmother, grandfather and all of my immediate family. my dad, he actually sold drug and he's in prison now and he was by the system kept going to juvenile and stayed in the system but he always great
values in me to work hard and never give up and keep going school. so with that said, i think i am the face of the equity programme and i think that when poshb & b open, i can show other people in the community because the community is filled with people like me with no hope and have not been anywhere. they see someone like them open a business, i would give hope. other programmes in san francisco, like the. bmr programme and children's council has helped me to be successful and i want to see the equity programme to be successful and because of the programmes you have created that were successful, i am here today. i have my son if the background with me. i used to work for the department of public health and help so i have been in the health department and health works before and i was a health worker to help create the syphilis programme and worked with the cdc and my son would
sit there everyday after school. i have been a pioneer for the community and wil have been hont and with that said, i think that i am the face of equity and what the it should look like and that people can be a part of this programme and i will continue to do my best and to bring the best to the city and community. >> thank you. >> commissioners? >> is there anyone else for public comment. >> whicwhich item are you refer?
>> i represent posh green and this my mom. >> this is for 828 innis, right? >> it's being proposed for continuance so we're receiving comment on continuance, whether it should be heard or continued to may 23rd. >> ok. >> just a point of order. >> michael, could you explain why it's being continued today? >> the item at innis has been under review as an equity programme for canvas retail at the site. recently, we learned that there was an issue with the master insurance policy for overall building which contains nine residential condos over three commercial condos for the existing insurance may not cover the building if it contains a
cannabis use. we've been requesting the sponsor with the help of cannabis and the planning department to find a solution to the issue. our understanding from the sponsor and with the office of cannabis was that there is an alternative insurance policy that has been found that would cover the building and the project sponsor has offered to cover the difference in cost in full. basically making sure that they're not harmed in any way. the difficulty is that we don't have a signed agreement today. so the sponsor -- i don't want to speak for the sponsor, but it is difficult for many people to come out, take time off work and come out to sponsor. they have told me that the worry is more that if we continue it, they're not going to be able to have the same people come out. people are already taking time off of work.
so we do recognise that and it's difficult but at the same time, we want to make sure the refresh united are made whole and it was a department request for a continuance. >> i want to comment on the insurance issue since you mentioned it. >> right now we're accepting public comment, whether it should be heard today or continued to may 23rd. any other public comment? public comment is now closed. commissioners? commissioner hil alslis. >> it's not necessarily whether
they have insurance or not, we're just opining on the land use here and is there any reason we can't go forward. obviously if they don't is insurance that's a business issue they have to make along with, it seems like the hoa or but is there any reason we need to delay this issue, which, again, is the land use issue because it sounds like a business issue. >> it's not a land use issue, as you did say. we did receive a request from the neighbour's association, as well, just citing concern that we want to ensure that the business doesn't have any negative impact, cost or policy-wise on the residential units. >> ok. we're proposing it for two or three weeks? >> to may 23rd. >> ok. three weeks.
i'll move to continue the items as proposed by the secretary. >> second. >> very good, commissioners. there's a motion seconded to continue all items as proposed on that motion, commissioners? so moved, commissioners and that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, this will place it under your consent calendar and all under the consent calendar are us routine by the commission and there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests, in which the matter will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. case number 2018-01279cua at pacific avenue, conditional use,
13395 at 10 29th street and 00101 at 1700 irving street and item eight 2200 market street, conditional use authorization. i have no speaker cards. >> commissioner richards? >> onwe'll open this up for pubc comment? would anyone like to comment on the consent items? please come up to the podium. there's a request to pull items 5 and 6 off of concept and therefore we shall hear those at
the beginning of the regular dal dar. calendar. >> i would like to hear them after the first two. >> they will be head after ite r items 13 and 14 on the regular calendar and that leaves item 7 and 8. any more members wish to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards? >> move to approve. >> 7 and 8. >> second. >> thank you. a motion seconded to approve items 7 and 8 under your consent calendar and commission fung? (roll call). >> that motion passes 6-0
unanimously. placing us under commission matters, item 9, consideration of adoption for april 1 18, 201. >> anyone like to comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, public comments are closed. >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you and on that motion to atonight the minutes for april 18, 2019. (roll call). so moved and that passes unanimously. questions and comments? commissioner moore? >> i would like to welcome commissioner fong to the plan commission and thank you for join us. >> commissioner richards? >> i second that.
i kay wait to work with you, excisioner and now you'll get to experience what it's like when we send something to the board of a peels and it gets altered. i do have other comments, tongue and cheek, of course. i mentioned last week about the quote by richard rothstein in the l.a. times about the fact adding more housing is not going to help expects of concern because the people in the communities can't actually afford the housing. i don't know if you recall that or not. i was a little bit floored this week on the sunday "new york times" on the front page, there was an article called the neighborhood's black, the new home buyers are white and it talked about diversity and the two kindses of diversity. they said unstable diversity and stable diversity. stable diversity is where minorities move to the suburbs and get a mortgage and they along with their peer groups in the suburbs earn the same amount of money. so they are rooted in the
community and they're invested in the community and they're equal. it's equitable because they all afford the same house. you all got a mortgage. however,s when white folks move into black neighborhoods, they create unstable diversity and interestingly enough from the article, there's a graph, if you look online and i'll send the link because there's an interactive link, saying it's far more rare in america that neighborhoods have become far more diverse shifting from the left of the distribution to the center, meaning white folks move into black neighborhoods. because white residents have moved into neighborhoods have african-american and hispanics live. our project is focus on the other hand small and growing number experiencing change and this are 1400 such census track. remember, we're dealing with, like, census tracks within the
mission. so you may have a census track to cross the street from a census track in the community of concern and some that are not. as i read the amendments and there are 1400 such tracks that have change ed thi changed thate year 2000 and that's a small share of all neighborhoods but they embody a deep tension at the geographic center of cities. white households show a growing willingness to live in those neighborhood and many scholars would say that's a mark of progress. but with the arrival of white households that have much highers it will release rapid change that can threaten long-time homeowners and especially rentsers. the economic reality rip runs head-first to build more equitable communities in many
neighborhoods and the market forces are more powerful. so this whole idea about global capital and market force ends ad how it shapes and affects folks moving into neighborhoods has been borne out by what the "new york times" actually had in on sunday and i would encourage anybody to actually have the time to take a look and read it and i know we'll be talking about costs later but in terms of taking a pause on communities or send discusor send discussoot counter them. >> we can move to item 11, department announcements. good afternoon, coming commissid
welcome back. secondly, a couple of hearings -- couple of the past hearings you've heard about a project on 18th street, castro and potential for enforcement action that we have found there's potential action on that project that the department needs to take, so we will be bringing that to you in the next few weeks to deal with that issue, as well. i can't remember the exact address. i wanted to tell you and related to an item shortly, the
committee is not taking a position but rather all comments are recorded and those comments will be passed on to the boards of the mtc commission to consider when they take a position on all of these bills which is coming up over the next month or six week or so. i can talk about the detailed comments but there was a broad diversity about the pieces of legislation and obviously sb50 listed a lot comments but many of the other bills did, too, particularly related to the affordable housing entity that is proposed no one of the bills we are having a final meeting to review changes to any of the bills and that concooed concludy comments. thank you. >> i know we'll review costs
-- to a number of legacy businesses and, unfortunately, i don't have the list in front of me today but i believe that they're between five and six businesses that were proposed and they all received unanimous approval to move on to the small business commission. >> i think that the one that you're interested in, the live an worth project -- live an levh project was approved. there's nothing further,
commissioners we can move to public comment. and they may address the commission. except agenda items, with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting and each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceeded 15-minute time frame it man moved to the end of the agenda. there are several cards. >> anyone else wanting to give public comment please line up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon and welcome, commissioner fong. i want to talk about something that you have talked about and that's the occupancy of buildings built in the last 10 years and thinking of the high rises in the south of market to understand whether or not these units are occupied full time. because i think that is an important issue to think about
as we go ahead with the bills. and in a similar context if i may have the overhead please... there it is. this is 26th street and this is the carl jenson building and i took this photo about a week or so ago and it's still underway but this is the four-plex next door. and what happened there is that in 2015, it was purchased for $1.392 million. and the people were removed and they must have left of their own volition and i'm not sure that there werethereevictions and itn for 2.4 after entitlements. so here it is when it was underway. and they're doing a nice job on the facade but the issue is that
this four units that have been off the market for over two years or longer. and they were rent controlled units, i don't know if they're going to be rent controlled once -- well, even if they are, they're still -- there's people that live there that are gone. they are flat, so it will be interesting to know -- i guess they weren't impacted by the flat policy. but it seems to have an update on the flat policy. and i just think that, you know, we've got a lot of buildings around the city like this and they're sitting empty for a number of years. and it would be interesting to understand what that market is in the market forces. and, obviously, this one was a subject of speculation because they sold the entitlement program for a million dollars once they got the people out. there and there were people there because some of them knew mr. jenson. so, thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon,
commissioners. my name is carolyn kennedy and i'm the chair and with doug delores park. and i'm here to talk about fp50s impact on our transit. something that i touched on a couple weeks ago when i was here and i requested an environmental impact study on the impact on san francisco. when i spoke to you last time two weeks ago i was especially concerned about the impact on our infrastructure. we have deficits in our operating and capital budgets on our transit systems. if i could have the overhead -- you can see a table here and also attached to my handout for you, that shows a summary of the needs of all of our transit systems around the area. and the sfmta has a billion dollar gap to fund its projected needs through 2045. the total gap is actually
$210 billion for all systems. these are published studies that were conducted by the agencies themselves. so we have a lot of work to do. and that was perfect there was an upzoning in our city. and, last friday we had a major incident in our muni metro tunnel for the service out for the a.m. and the p.m. commutes. a power line was broke which precipitated the shutdown. but what got my attention was the failure to have effective backup transportation for the riders. how do they get to work or wherever their next destination was if it was too far away to walk? what will happen when we build faster than our transportation plans have projected, if this is what can happen in today's current state. and we already all have experienced the slowdown in the traffic in the tunnel announcements that come during
most commute times. and it takes -- what i have been told by experts 10 to 20 years to build out our transit infrastructure. it only takes three to five years to add four-plexes or rather similar mid-sized housing for our city. so my question is will we have more transit infrastructure failures and what should we be doing to try to prepare for that, whether it's capital improvements or even being creative about using more... i see a number of the members of the building trades here today and i have to say to you all, full employment ahead if we take care of our transportation issues and our mass transit. so, please, again, ask for an impact analysis of senate bill 50 on san francisco's infrastructure and its future needs. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker, please.
>> good afternoon, commissioners and staff. danny campbell, on behalf of san francisco building trades council public policy committee. and i'm here today to -- i've submitted a letter here and it was submitted yesterday to the commission president and the city attorne attorney and the bf supervisors. in regards to the projects in the pipeline that want to utilize streamlining and a.d.73 streamlining processes. we're excited to see projects that want to utilize these streamlining processes that we, the san francisco building trades council passed. but the planning department so far has not addressed enforcement around the skilled d and provisions around these streamlining laws. in particular, specifically the calls for a skilled and trained workforce that developers are required to higher to ensure
that building and construction work is performed by state-approved apprenticeship programs. as the letter states the factory built modular housing is ineligible for provisions of sb35, and 8900 and 8073. and the reason is simple it fails to meet the workforce development and the economic benefit goals that are at the heart of the streamlining provision laws. in fact, factory built modular housing destroys apprenticeship training opportunities for local workers across multiple crafts, including framing, drywall, painting, sheet metal, plumbing, electrical, sprinkler fitters and finished carpentry. the factory built modular houses offshores housing and construction to low-wage areas outside of the city of san francisco and sometimes outside
of the state and the country. sb-35 does not provide any exceptions for modular construction. and it may be performed off-site but factory built housing is building and construction work that is subject to the california building standards code. that requires the same skills and factory training -- i mean the same skills and training if performed on-site or in a factory. factory built housing manufacturers, sure, they can hire apprenticeshi apprenticeshs but if they choose not to and the projects using their workforce to construct housing are not eligible for sb-35 streamlining procedures. it's important for the planning commission to remember this, that it is not an entitlement but a choice and a two-way street. the public gives up its right to a thorough review process while the developer agrees to minimum affordable housing and workforce standards. without both there's no deal and the developer must use the same
permitting and procedures required of all other projects. we look forward to working with the department to uphold both the spirit and the letter of these streamlining laws. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon and welcome commissioner fong -- or we welcome commissioner fong. sue hester. there was something at the last month's board of supervisors on tuesday and they had opted findings on 1052 fulsome street and overturning the conditional use on that project. and i think that there's something that will come to the planning department that will get something from the board of supervisors, but not today i believe. seconsecondary, the chart that'e
on the overhead, showing the rate of growth of jobs and housing in san francisco is sobering. i want to follow-up on what commissioner rich talked about in his presentation about "the new york times" study. san francisco led the country and the region by adopting housing requirements on commercial development in the 1980s. it really did, it's part of the planning code. and we've kind of fallen down in the past decade, and i think that the people really need to revisit what we do to increase the housing demand by changing buildings. it was in the early 1980s that the demand was that you're building a new office building and the office building has to
pay a housing fee and it was quite low at the time. and it was to accommodate the new workforce and we were assuming that the workforce was mostly in san francisco anyway. and they had housing in san francisco. and now it's a different kettle of fish. now a lot of the demand is being poured by conversions of industrial buildings to office buildings, which drives up the workforce of that space. and office workforce demand, the square footage per worker, is changed in the past 20 years because now we don't have paper files that you have to have. every office has to have space for the files for the worker. so it's time for the planning department to take initiative. i think that you have a
responsive board of supervisors. but the planning department should have a role in not just putting it over to the board of supervisors. let us solve the problem, start solving the problem in a planning commission level to build housing to serve the workforce. because the end result if we don't is that we will push out the workforce that is here and they will have increasing commutes and we will have immediate impacts. thank you. as well as people will lose their housing. >> thank you, miss hester. anyone else for general public comment? >> jacob eady, representing 38,000 men and women here in the city, and as well as in northern california. we are the representation for the factory workers that the brother before me had spoken
about as being unskilled and not part of the skill and trained workforce. i would ask you to look deep into the sd-35 and what that represents and the laws that govern the factory built housing that is essentially a cabinet that shows up to a job site. and, therefore, does not -- does not attach to that sb-35. sb-35 is a reflection of a work performed on a job site and deployed from another organization to restrict an organization who put a lot of thought in making sure they organized the workforce and we had union hands making union built housing to create career pathways for people to step into the trades. again, not only carpenters and electricians and plumbers and those part of the building trades. so i ask to you look deeper into sb-35 and make sure that the decisions that you make do not reflect what is actually being performed in the factory as a means to say they're not skilled and not trained. thank you. >> thank you.
anybody else for public comment? general public comment is now closed. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i'm a little bit troubled and i hear one union member saying that we're sb-35 and another saying that we're not comporting with sb-35 and being accused of having no enforcement. and i ask the director or the city attorney -- >> we just received the letter yesterday and we're looking into it now. >> commissioner richards: and maybe you can give us a private ruling on what qualifies and what doesn't. because i'm reading on page four of the casa thing under element 7, pay prevailing wages as part of sb-35 so i'm troubled with what i hear. >> there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move on on to number 13, the casa presentation. >> commissioners, i wanted to introduce you to ken kirby here. and ken is the director of planning for the joint organization and ken has been
with one or the other of the two organizations since 2007. and he was the director of planning at abag in 2007 and moved to m.t.c. in 2012 and two years ago when the two organizations merged, ken retained that role for the joint staffed organization. so we have been working with ken closely now for a number of years on regional planning issues and sustainable community strategies. and he graciously agreed to come to us and many parts of the region and spend his time to talk about these issues so we welcome ken to the commission. >> thank you, commissioners for having me here. this presentation has been in the queue for some time and my presentation will reflect that because the housing conversation continues to march forward. but i'm going to provide you with a little bit of background first. you have actually seen this slide already. but sort of how casa came to be, what the final product of the effort was and what is happening
now. so in terms of how it came to be, it came to be in part because of the housing crisis that you have all been living and dealing with for years now. and this slide shows all nine counties, including the city and county of san francisco. the relationship of job growth and new housing between 2010 and 2016, for the period coming out of the recession. if -- if one job should have -- there should be roughly a 1.5 to one ratio between jobs and housing and the entire region is way off track. you can see on this slide that it varies by county and san francisco is a county that has as you know tremendous job growth, despite pretty significant housing growth during this period compared to recent decades and still out of balance and generally speaking if you look at the three counties where there's a really significant spike and a disproportionate relationship between jobs and housing, they are the counties west of the
bay. san francisco and the peninsula and santa clara county that have experienced huge job growth during this period. which also puts a lot of strain on our transportation system. and that's part of how casa came to be and how the regional agencies came to support it. and this breaks down jobs and housing regionally in roughly that same period in terms of low income, moderate income, which is about 80% to 120% of the median income. and above that level high income. and i think that the easiest way to read this slide is to look that the on the right, the columns on the right that are labeled high income. this is the one income category where there was almost as much housing permitted in this period as the regional needs allocation called for, for above moderate, what is often called market-rate housing. however, if you look at the far
right bar, the gray bar for job growth, you can see how disproportionate it was to the huge growth of job growth that the region has experienced. those folks look somewhere else because there's not enough of that product and that type of housing and it may not be in the neighborhood that they thought they'd be looking in, and they tend to go to moderate or middle income neighborhoods. and despite the fact that the job growth for that category has been comparatively lower than the low income or the high income, the housing -- the housing growth for that -- for that category is really, really low. so you see the downward pressure across the region and how it plays out. arguably, most severely on the low income categories where we have seen high and low income job growth and there's been a lot of service job growth this this region to serve the economic growth that the region has experienced but very little housing being provided in this category. and this is where you see some the most extreme aspects of the
housing affordan affordability . and it's region-wide. so over the course of developing the regional plan, adopted in 2017, one of the things that became apparent is that nearly every issue that came either before the m.t.c. or the commission or the abag executive board, even issues that were transportation issues, became about housing affordability. what was also apparent was that there's a lot of people in the region, as you all know, who care a lot about this issue but tended to come at it from very different positions, sometimes in opposition to one another. and folks concerned about displacement might see certain types of development as the problem. and developers may say that the difficulty of getting anything built in california is the problem. affordable housing advocates say that there's not enough money to build affordable housing in this
region, in this state. so the idea of casa was to come up with a blue ribbon panel, bringing together people from very different perspectives who may not have agreed on much other than that there was a housing affordability crisis in this region. and to see if it might be possible to come up with a sweep the solutions that would address these issues together and create -- to create some consensus around some bold game-changing ideas. so the preamble for the casa compact which was ultimately adopted states three things. that the region failed to produce enough housing at all income levels. that it's failed to preserve the existing affordable housing. so the existing low-cost housing in the region that isn't deed restricted. and it has failed to protect the most vulnerable residents in the region from displacement. after an 18-month period that involved two committees, a steering committee that included
a number of policymakers including the mayor of san francisco, and a technical committee that included executive directors from a range of non-profit foundations and the business community, and technical staff, including staff from the city of san francisco, and the casa compact was developed and then adopted by the casa steering committee in december of last year. that includes a number of elements. the first three having to do with protection. number four related to kind of creating a standard practice for accessory dwelling units in the region. and five, six and seven are related to housing production and trying to make production occur more quickly and at a higher level in the region. and element eight relates to surplus public land and how it might be prioritized for affordable housing. and nine and 10 relate to how would you pay this. that's how to pay for all of this because there's no dedicated funding to do any of this right now.
and element 10 would create an enterprise to do so. to take in funding and distribute it region-wide based upon a formula. in december and then in january the m.t.c. commission and the abag executive board respectively authorized the share of m.t.c. and the executive board president to sign the compact. with a lot of caveats. a lot of discussion. one of the caveats is that there's a sense among the smaller jurisdictions that there had not been enough engagement at the local jurisdictional level in the casa development process. so staff, as john suggested, have been spending a lot of time going around the region and talking to various groups. and also the housing legislative working group has been convened to provide input to the m.t.c. and the abag committees and the commission and the board regarding various pieces of
legislation that are in sacramento currently. some which related back to casa in some form or fashion. and as you all know i'm sure that housing is the number one issue in sacramento this year. and our governor has made it a priority and prioritized funding for housing in the next budget year. there's currently over 200 housing bills in sacramento and there are about three dozen that are receiving a lot of attention. there are some that in particular are related to the three ps and that's the framework that staff is using to work with the housing legislative working group in the legislative committees providing as much information as we can to the local jurisdictions as well in terms of what is going on in sacramento regarding housing. and most of the bills are somewhat different than what was proposed in the casa compact and nearly all are state-wide bills. one of the things that the casa leadership and committees put forward is that they were aiming
for a regional solution. i think that the consensus was that the area is a unique place, though there's a housing crisis across the state, that really focusing on the region could be helpful and that politically it might be more workable as well. but the legislature for the most part has chosen to have state-wide bills except for nine and 10 that are focused specifically on the nine counties. so this is as it says a short list of the 2019 housing bills that are specific to the casa compact or at least related to it. all of these bills to my knowledge are still currently live. they are at various -- some have made it out of committee. some are in suspense. thus far the underlying goal of casa, which is to move forward on these fronts, and to some degree to get to some of the earlier comments about how protection should be related to production and so forth, and
also preservation and funding, the idea has been to try to move these forward together. there are a number of entities that were very involved in casa that are in sacramento and working to try to -- to try to hold it together in that manner. and i believe that's my last slide so i'd be happy to try to answer any questions that you might have. >> okay, we may have questions for you later. i'd like to open this up. any more staff presentations? no. i'd like to open up for public comment. i have two speaker cards, ann anastasia anaplouse and carolyn kennedy. and anyone else wishing to speak please line up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon, vice president koppel and fellow commissioners and welcome to
commissioner fong. thank you for scheduling this informational on casa. i am surprised that we don't have an analysis by our planning staff. i am anastasia anapowellous, a council member and you have received a letter from our organization opposing the casa compact. here's my take. the casa compact is not about building homes. it's about building incentives for speculators. the so-called elements or measures that are adopted to protect tenants are inadequate and too watered down to make any difference for the majority of san francisco's population, mainly the 64% plus who are renters. these watered down tenant protections are not going to address renters' issues. what's most concerning is that this casa advisory board that is heavily weighted by big tech and
big real estate interests, take away the decisionmaking from our city. and it gives it to a regional body with no accountability. dare i say that it's undemocratic? i'm wary that these are not representative of what is in our best interest and could potentially serve as a template to get incorporated into legislation that we don't have any say in and doesn't serve us well. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> thank you. my name is carolyn kennedy and i'm the chair of the neighborhood association west of delores park. and thank you for the hearing
and the planning staff memo with the casa compact. the casa group policy initiative has many elements that san francisco has already adopted and there's some good ideas in here. my concern, and i think that a big problem with casa, the casa compact, is how it's being implemented. your memo describes this emergency policy for our housing crisis and its 10 elements. but where is casa's strategy for getting local support? we're tackling a massive problem that requires significant change in all of our bay area communities, yet the casa compact's signature deliverable is this legislative agenda which lists 22 bills -- i just heard from director rahm, it's 36 bills, grinding their way through the state legislature. this feels like a done to, versus a done with change. if i was still working in corporate we'd call this kind of
top-down change a bohika, and if you don't know that one, well, you can google it. as i have attended these commission meetings i have seen that a big part of your role is change leadership. weekly you grapple with questions like, what are the most effective strategies to address our planning gaps and evolve our city's built environment. how do we educate people and get buy in to controversial ideas? you confront these questions every day. i do not think that your answer would be to introduce 22 bills in the same legislative session. 22 bills -- that's a massive amount of change for people to absorb at the local level. where's the analysis will how these will work together and what is the impact on our communities? we're trying to solve problems in our communities, and housing is a huge problem for our communities as we all agree, why don't we start closer to the source? let's think about involving community members and planning
for these changes in their own neighborhoods. let's pilot some of these ideas in selected areas or share lessons learned from san francisco's implementation of these ideas. what about phasing in some of the changes starting with the most vulnerable in the "protect" elements so that we do not displace more people or abolish needed housing as these 22 or 36 bills come rolling out of sacramento. and why is sacramento pursuing 22 bills when element number 9, the funding and financing does not have buy-in from localities. and i read that casa got pushback from limited community involvement and they announced area meetings with local leaders. are they truly interested in leading change or will that just be another bohika? i'd be interested in how you, commissioners, envision community involvement in this change for san francisco.
thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, peter pap dap louse with the commission development agency. i wanted to follow-up on some of those casa comments and, in fact, to start with that -- what we think is a very critical point. we still contend in our -- we're going to continue to point out that we don't think that casa was formed out of the equity framework and the representation was not meaningful enough of the folks working on the ground and the results show. there's significant deficits in this framework that create a pathway that is not going to produce the kind of equity outcomes that we need. and we think that we're already seeing it in the outcomes of the bills moving forward. so just to highlight a couple of the closing points that we delivered to the technical committee at the end, in addition to the overarching concern and these will be familiar to you as things not happening.
the definitions of sensitive communities, not reflecting what our true sense of the most vulnerable communities are. a meaningful investment in preservation as part of the three ps that are laid out. well, that truly needs to be taken seriously then. and net new inclusionary houses in all scenarios above baseline as we increase density. and community engagement in any increased streamlining processes. how do we not take away the voice of our most vulnerable members, especially if you look at communities like the mission that have become active in planning their own future and have been working closely with the city and the planning department and now some of these intended moves forward are going to actually create a lot more scenarios where there is no opportunity for voice. it's taken out of your hands and it's taken out of their hands. and that's going to directly produce things like less jobs in the neighborhood. and the kind of outcomes that you all regularly see us create together in this room and they won't even come to hearings
sometimes in the directions that we're headed with streamlining. how is it manifesting specifically? we see already in sb50 that we're just -- just as the most basic problematic structure the mission is still not even recognized largely as a sensitive community. it seems that any bill that doesn't recognize the mission as a sensitive community is a non-starter. it doesn't have an equity framework, something is off. and in casa there was i thought a pretty reasonable structure put forward by -- i think that it's called the equity caucus, with a map that had significantly more detailed and thoughtful mapping of who is most vulnerable. and that is, in fact, included in casa but it's not adapted and, thus, that's not adapted in sb-50, while offering many frameworks to the rest of the state specifically demands that the minimal m.t.c. map to be used for bay area. and that doesn't work for us. so i think that we want to look
at overall what are some potentially other equitable frameworks that are coming out that are not mentioned here and something like ab1279 might be a more equitable framework. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, laurie petty, i'm from district 5, and i'm a member of senior and disability action. much has been said by the previous speakers about the lack of community -- the community engagement. and the fact that events have completely overtaken casa and the bills in the state legislature which have swept its concepts through the legislature, they're making their way and i just wanted to draw your attention today to ab1487, introduced by assembly member david chiu, and that is the element for the regional government.
as the text reads now, its goal is affordable housing. if you take into consideration everything that the previous speakers have said, another flaw in this proposal is -- is the affordable housing -- there are no details. and we don't know exactly what they have in mind, and as it is san francisco is doing its utmost to create affordable housing already. i don't see any reason to create another level of bureaucracy, another level of government, to take away the functions that we are actually already undertaking. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is carlos bickranro and
i came to echo the comments made previously about how we feel that the unhealthy and inequitable impacts of casa will have on areas like the mission district. in casa the real estate interests are mainly focused on poor neighborhoods and hot market cities. the map that is used in casa is as mentioned before completely inadequate and it leaves out great portions of places within the mission district. it's a place that experienced a high amount of gentrification displacement. and i think that we should have communities to decide for themselves a market rate of zoning and streamlining incentives. casa should respect the existing plan areas that the communities have fought hard for and it's my extreme belief that the combination of casa and sb50 that uses the same map as well, those two bill alone are enough to displace the hard-working
blue-collar immigrant and latino families that have really made the mission district such a diverse and culturally important place within san francisco. these two bills will displace them and i think that it will see the complete cultural erasure of a lot of things that made the mission so special. i think that right now while we're looking at sb50, ab1279 would be a much better bill to look at. granted there's still a lot of amendments and changes that need to be made to that bill, but on the whole it provides us i believe with a better framework and a focus on high resource and affluent areas where upzoning and density could occur. and where those communities could bear the burden of market rate production. if that's the direction that we want to go. and so please take a look at ab1279 and i believe that we should look at reforming this casa map to make sure that communities that have already experienced gentrification and might not be on the map due to the high income inequality that has resulted, should be looked at and protected so that we can make