Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 15, 2010 10:00pm-10:30pm PST

11:00 pm
reduce the m.t. and promote the goals of this land mark legislation six p 3w5e. this should be -- this should be an explicit value of the housing element. and then -- on the question of there was 11.4 prom poting -- promote egg neighborhood character is undeniably an important value. we feel it is abused in certain instances. the older draft is better. [no audio] >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm kathy, first i would like to say that the revised language in the second draft calling for a -- for neighborhood supported community planning processes is a step in the right direction. it should not retained, people who live in or own property in a neighborhood have an interest in maintaining neighborhood character. validation of their role is the
11:01 pm
only way to achieve the goal of the priority planning principle passed in proposition m and codified in the planning code that neighborhood character be maintained. organizations dominated by the building industry for profit or nonprofit do not have an interest in maintaining neighborhood character. they have their own agenda. also, to make the housing element consistent with proposition m, objective 11 should be changed to state to maintain instead of merely support and respect the diverse and distinct character of san francisco's neighborhoods. the court of appeals decision that led to the e.i.r. recognized that the word respect is a downfrayed from language calling for maintaining neighborhood character. the calling for a neighborhood liberal initiative should state
11:02 pm
that it would not support ballot initiatives because the planning department should not engage in political activity related to ballot initiatives. in addition this draft is incomplete and it lacks the work programs, the section where the work programs are supposed to appear as blank. that is supposed to indicate the area slated for development. in this regard, for a letter dated by september 9th, the state department housing and community development which reviewed this june 2010 draft has -- demanded further information and stated that this draft is not yet adequate. and specifically, they stated that -- while the element and attachment d 3 lists sites by parcel number and site zone and capacity, it should list sites by plan area or other designations guiding zoning implementation and development. attach. d 3 was not included in any copy
11:03 pm
of this draft of the housing element, or in the e.i.r. apen diss. it was not provided to the community advisory body. and i see no justification for the failure to provide this key appendix which specifies the parcel and capacity of each parcel, from the community advisory group or the public. in fact it warrants opening the community advisory body process and the e.i.r. process to permit comments on this document and all of the further information that is requested by the state. and lastly -- this is the foundational document the from which all rezonings are flow and its importance cannot be minimized. >> few comments and maybe questions. i guess the first one is in
11:04 pm
regards to the density question which has been raised and we're goc back and forth on that. as a -- you know, are -- a resident of the west side i can accept the fact there are place that is we could selectively add dense they on the west side where it is appropriate to help with our problem with housing of course. there would be solutions. we also have to be careful to preserve diversity of density in san francisco. oftentimes we drive most productive citizens, particularly those with families to san mateo county or playerin because of inadequate family housing. we want to make sure that we preserve those neighborhoods and that housing we do have -- we should probably be looking at there whole diversity of density type issue on a seven county basis and see well everybody should share in it too. not just san francisco but we're looking at our county specifically. i appreciate the charts that you
11:05 pm
gave us. they were very interesting as far as housing production and you know we certainly got to work on the middle housing which of course is the subject of discussion for most of the nine years i have bine on the planning commission. maybe we're moving in that direction, i have some ideas. and i don't see a problem with over 100% of market rate. the more you produce the better. you get tax revenues you gets people here rather than somewhere else and you get money toward affordable housing. the problem is not what you produce but what you don't produce. i think that's something we got to work on. we got a couple of kind of unique problems in san francisco. one is we have a high percentage of historically seismicly compromised dysfunctional housing in parts of the city. we have to somehow incentivize the recon fig ration and improvement of these properties. i think if we could figure out a way to trade the -- trade these for new affordable units, i think we can come up with a
11:06 pm
solution that might help the middle income problem. that may be a legislative thing, we -- they can't do that in the planning element, but i think we have to emphasize the fact that -- we -- we can't -- we aren't going to be able to meet our housing needs by, unless we solve this problem. and the other problem we have is we have a huge work force here. dive verse work force and unlike places like new york which has five burrows and places with --like henderson and other auksrilly housing around this, we're focusinging on just the city and county of fran san francisco. i think we have to look at the regional solution and the the lands that the city and county owns and santa clara county and alameda county and san mateo county, working with those counties as a way to meet some of our housing problems, you know, i received something recently about u some housing and units in san mateo for
11:07 pm
975,000. a block from bart. i mean now, this is the transit village concept that would work. it would work in some places in san francisco but it works in a lot of misss in other areas. so i think we have to -- you know be aware of those things and work in conjunction with other counties to figure out how to meet our regional housing needs. those are my main things. as i say, i think we have to also have an equal emphasis on home ownership, i know we have always -- the housing element has always spoken given, given a consideration or a heaning towards rental housing on the assumption that it is more affordable. i'm not sure in the long run if that's the case. if anybody that bought a house 20, 0 years ago and made the down payments and payments and their payments are still the same, and they own it outright where they have small payments, certainly it is a testament to the affordability of ownership where appropriate.
11:08 pm
it is not the only way rental is really important too. but i think we have to -- we have to look at affordable solutions on both sides. so those are the main things that -- at this time. i think you're doing a really good job dealing with some really difficult problems. thank you >> commissioner olague. >> yeah. >> i have my notes. well, one of the -- one of the other issues that i was wondering a bit about and what is -- and what is the rehab, the acquisition we have. i didn't see much in here but listen. >> this draft. draft two does have a policy on the rehas been. >> i left my pact at home. my packet at home. >> the chart. >> also to the chart again.
11:09 pm
i must have overlooked it. the new policy on acquisition rehab in draft two, is policy 3.2. promotes housing acquisition and rehabilitation. to protect affordability for existing occupants. >> okay. >> i don't know if you had specific questions or -- >> it got lost in the draft one and draft two. >> i think it is important to emphasize that. >> sure great. >> i guess the other thing is -- that many of the -- of the members of the cab approach -- many of us on the commission and i received letters from jason henderson and -- and talked to other members and many of them did seem to -- did teem to be dispointed in the second draft and felt that it really wasn't in this -- in the spirit of the original you know consensus, or whatever they -- they arrived at. at some point, i was wondering
11:10 pm
if i guess right now my concern has to deal a bit with the process. so, i was wondering if -- if any kind of after the second draft came, through, if the cab was approached again to get some kind of a poll, or some kind of a sense from them what they thought about some of these -- these changes because i'm hearing a loot of the same issues that were raised by -- spur and hack around like 1.5 and some of these other issues. so, i just was -- i know we have people also -- that represent some of the neighborhoods in the west side that share, maybe have very kind of -- what is the word i'm looking for? kind of differing maybe -- maybe -- what is the word? goals is for the what i'm looking for but values. that's not even quite right. but -- so i don't know how we
11:11 pm
get to a place where -- where there's the more healthy consensus around -- around language that we could adopt that would -- be in the spirit of some of these ideas around flked -- density is not the word i want to use. that tends. i think you're right, sometimes the language gets a little bit -- >> planries. >> yeah. then we get caught up in this real uncomfortable place. i think there has to be work done with both of those -- interests to see if we could get to a place where there is -- there might be more comfortable language that -- that would you know be in the spirit of what everyone was trying to achieve in the -- in the cab. i know there's a cab, i know
11:12 pm
there's other groups on the west side that might you know -- i've met. i have one set of one meeting with, for both -- where they were present and represented. it just seems like we're going to have do a lot more work before we could get to a place where -- this document is -- is at a place where it is going to be adopted. i realize we have certain mandates from the state that are connected to fundings. i know there's -- a desire on -- on yetch's part to see this. ultimately -- ultimately adopted and i think -- but it has to be at a level that -- that where there's some comfort on both sides with -- without -- you know, i don't know how we get there. i would like to hear more from some of the other.
11:13 pm
i'm hearing both -- not deep satisfaction on either side. i'm stuck in the process of how do we get there, and i don't know whether that means having more -- more meetings with -- whether it is ultimate thely that we have to rely on this form to try to get to a place we could adopt language that might be more comfortable for everyone. but i'm not sure how we get there. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i was going to say something else, but commissioner olague triggered smk in my 0 mind. it is the city's document -- the board of supervisors will have toultly adopt it. but, you know, we're in the front line. from that regard, i think -- we're not going to make everybody happy. we didn't -- it is -- looking at the eastern neighborhoods and market octavia and the process in japantown. you know, not -- we're not going
11:14 pm
to satisfy everybody and we're not going to -- make policies and goals and objectives that would make everybody happy. perhaps part of it, i think -- maybe what -- what commissioner olague is searching for is maybe some kind -- i think people have a discomfort because they're not quite sure how it -- it might be physically manifested so to speak in their areas. so maybe there might be some work -- i know that the general plan is a little different than neighborhood plans and that kind of stuff. but maybe some examples are -- or something. if we're talking about increased density near transit, which -- which has been expressed as a desirable goal and -- i think we all support that, i think when -- when people who have not confronted that and hear those terms they think there's going to be a -- a high-rise coming
11:15 pm
into their neighborhood for example. it doesn't have to be that drastic. something, when you think about increased density and you have a single family house, even if they're attached, there's a fear i think about what that really means. and where. obviously, we're not going to, i don't think we're suggesting that -- depositsity is going to suddenly plop down in the mits of a nice neighborhood. so some of the comments i think -- i think sara made with respect to where they might be in that -- that could be priorityized along rail lines. it doesn't have to be heavy rail, in my mind. so, that might be -- might be a way to -- to pain begin and educational program or however, you want to characterize it, i don't know if we want to get to the point where we we may want to avoid specific san francisco streets for example.
11:16 pm
buildings along geary from van ness to the beach. they were really pushing that concept, which was ridiculous in the extreme. i view the housing element as a policy document, and i like the fact that you have in there housing elements that provide the policy background, because that's exactly what it is. it is not implementation. goals, objectives, it is not
11:17 pm
regulations, not ordinances, not codes. it is not that specificity at all. i have been hearing from a number of people who either want or do not want that type of specificity. it doesn't belong in a policy document as far as i am concerned, and i will push not to have that in there. i don't think it belongs in there. it is a policy document for a very, very diverse city. it's diverse in its topography, it's diverse in its neighborhoods, and it's diverse in the history of its neighborhoods. san francisco is not density or otherwise what it was 50 years ago. it's not what it was 79 years ago when i was born. it's not what it was before that. it's not going to be that 50 and 75 years from now. and i think we have to realize that. but i think we have to have
11:18 pm
policies in place that will allow for logical changes. commercial corridors aren't the same as they used to be either. industrial, p.d.r., these are all changing, they're all moving. a policy document allows for a logical plan to be involved and allows for the specificity to come into being. and if we get beyond that, we're never going to have a document that works. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: just a follow-up mostly for mr. edelman, but you were all very happy with the successes of hope six and looking forward to the successes of hope s.f. i guess we kind of like to have a look at the whole public housing issue regionally, and i don't expect an answer today. but as part of the whole presentation, i mean, we have to look at this thing and see which direction it's going. i'm sure that because i think a lot of progress is being made and hopefully we can continue to
11:19 pm
move in that direction and making sure that needs throughout the bay area are also being met by other municipalities and other counties to deal with housing problems in their areas regarding public housing and section 8, which they talked about a little bit in the presentation that we had. so i really don't need an answer for that today, but i'd just appreciate it if you have anything. but i know that's a big question. just wanted to bring it out there to see where you were on it. >> specifically on the regional approach, or regarding -- well, let me start with san francisco. i think you know we were before you a few months ago. commissioner antonini: yes, it's very promising. >> it's under way now. hope s.f. has five active projects, two of which are at the planning department and have begun their environmental review process. that's sunnydale and pa trer row.
11:20 pm
the two largest sites. dd sunnydale is in, i believe, with an environmental application for somewhere in the range of 1,700 total units, and patrero around 1,600 total units. very substantial increase in housing. most importantly, i will point out including one-for-one replacement of the public housing and new affordable housing. so we are excited. alice griffith is likely to be the next site to actually move after hunter's view, because financing is specifically tied to the candle stick point development. the alice griffith plan, i believe, calls for approximately 1,000 new units of housing, including a replacement of the 250 units that are there currently. so we're very excited about what we're doing in san francisco around public housing. it's a real model that we think
11:21 pm
there's a lot of lessons learned, both positive and negative from our history and the history around the country, making sure that we stay true to the public housing assets that are so critical in a high-cost city such as san francisco, and make sure that we replace those units themselves, not just vouchers, number one, but take our opportunity, which is somewhat unique to san francisco, and the fact that we have additional development capacity on the sites that are so poorly planned historically and use that to, number one, create better neighborhoods, mixed income neighborhoods, and actually use that additional capacity as a financial mechanism to stimulate the revitalization and actually pay for some public housing replacement. regionally, h.u.d. continues to kind of drive the train on that. and there are two really critical pieces of -- or
11:22 pm
critical programs that have been proposed by this current administration. the first is choice neighborhoods, which the administration foresees as the next generation of hope 6. interestingly enough, it's extremely well-aligned. i think not coincidentally, with hope s.f. a lot of the problematic concepts we've come with in hope s.f. so we're very excited about that. in fact, my friends at the redevelopment agency are hard at work as we speak working on an application for $31 million of choice neighborhoods funding for alice griffith, which would be a very important kick start to getting that project moving. so we're excited about that. we will be going for a $22 million hope fix grant that we're be applying for in november for hunter's view for the second and third phase of hunter's view. so i mentioned the choice neighborhoods program from a
11:23 pm
policy perspective. second, another very significant proposal that will have big impacts nationwide is called t.r.a., or transforming rental assistance. and the intent is to allow housing authorities with public housing to convert the -- both the real estate and financial structure of the existing public housing to something akin to project-based section 8 financing. so it would allow for capitalization and refinancing of those sites and touching on what i mentioned before, the leveraging of existing other financing programs, such as tax credits and tax exempt bonds. a model that has worked very well. six developments and in limited opportunities elsewhere around the country and trying to figure out a way to move beyond the chronic underfunding of the capital and operating of public housing. and use creative market-driven disciplines that have existing track records such as the
11:24 pm
section 8 program, which for some time now conventional lenders have been willing to lend against. so it's a little bit of the landscape that's going on regionally within the bay area. i can't speak so much to -- i mean, we're continually having conversations with our sister agencies across the area. and unfortunately, continually competing for the same dollars as well. commissioner antonini: that's true. but since housing is a regional problem, i'm hoping that they're all moving forward in the same direction on this. i think what's really significant with hunter's view, patrrero, and griffith, is the blend of the public housing with other affordable housing with market rate housing, and it's going to help to finance that. but it's also going to make it the kind of thing we try to do with inclusionary housing, kind of doing it in the reverse direction, but what we're doing is taking something that was not inclusionary and making it
11:25 pm
inclusionary. i think that's going to be a big success. so i appreciate that concept, and it sounds like this t.r.a. where there may be some tenant ownership involved in it, i'm not sure if that applies, is another good concept. thank you. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would hope that draft one and draft two do move more closely together, and i hope that in response to what the state is asking for, some of those questions can be answered. there's a physical component to it. that is identifying sides and specific locations. overlaying that, planned transportation and other improvements. we can then go back and answer questions which mr. edelman very eloquently outlined. somehow plugging numbers and facts into something which everybody only hears as words, but not as specific physical manifestations of what's already going on. so if you would have clarified physically manifest what's really going on, many of the
11:26 pm
unanswered questions perhaps can come closer together and drafts one and two can stand more closely with each other. and then indeed i would think it is a policy-driven document, but perhaps we can bridge the gap between policy and actual physical doing in a better way. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i actually feel a little bit different. i think that the problem with the document is that it says everything and it says nothing. i mean, i think why don't we look at it like the better streets plan, or even like the mission street escape plan. we have to have -- we have to choose -- we have to take a position on those priority principles that are most important to us. it doesn't mean that we have to zone a spot in the richmond or 70 feet or something. it doesn't mean that. we need to decide what our most important principles and values are and make the document about that. this is not a rezoning document. and it shouldn't be a rezoning document. it should be like our better streets plan and so many of our other apology -- policy plans
11:27 pm
and statements about what we want to see and envision for san francisco and get away from trying to take everybody's input and make this giant document that honestly doesn't really actually speak to what our priorities are because they conflict each other throughout because we, on the one hand, want to support ccnr and on the other hand we don't. we have to take a position. and maybe you can work with the community action board that was convened, but we just have to figure out what our highest priority values are as a city, but make it clear that we're not imposing anything on any particular neighborhood. we're saying that when we're looking at a project -- i mean, we've never had a project up here that i can remember that we've said, oh, well, this project, you know, priority principles says we must take it higher. i mean, we didn't do that. there were other considerations for how we arrived upon supporting or not supporting a project. the priority principles were part of it, but it wasn't
11:28 pm
everything. i think that people have to remember that, that part of this is we all will make decisions and the neighborhood context on the project will happen. zoning will happen, yes, all that sort of stuff. but again, taking into consideration transit, development, all those sort of things, our priority principles. i think we need to be really clear about what those are. so anybody who picks up this document from any of the other 57 other counties in california or even in the other counties in the bay area that we want to influence, so that we're just clear. president miguel: director? >> thank you. sara asked me to kind of wrap up on what we heard here today and make comments about where we're going to head. because clearly, i think as commissioner sugaya pointed out, not everyone is going to be happy with what we do. in fact, if everybody is, i'm not sure we did the right job. i do think the two issues that
11:29 pm
kirsten started out with are very important to reiterate. the kind of conflicts, if you will, or the balance that we're trying to strike. one between community planning process and growth, and one between neighborhood preservation and growth. and the thirds is a format issue which is how specifically does it get versus how general does it get. and we are frankly getting pulled in both directions. san francisco is the only place i know where the general plan reads like code. i think that gets us into trouble. everyone assumes that it's code. i think that is a real dilemma that we face in this city, when we do develop these kind of policy documents. frankly, i think the housing element should be two pages. that isn't going to happen. so what we are challenged with is figuring out how to balance those two things between a level


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on