Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  December 5, 2019 12:00pm-1:01pm PST

12:00 pm
remediation that is going on. lastly, the priority production areas. the one area that is proposed to be removed, i will put it back to the pda map to be removed is the largest industrial area in the creek and bayshore area. it is the largest most important industrial area. we are proud to redesignate that, we propose that as the first priority production area, and we would hope that the board would support submitting that, and the program would also be put in place by resources designated to support industrial uses with transportation improvements and work force programs. there are other areas the city is supporting in other parts of the city that are more
12:01 pm
fragmented and less substantial. some are within a close proximity to regional rail stations, which makes them not meet the standards in terms of the region consideration. m.t.c. did say that any pdr areas we have in the pdas would share the access to resources made available to the priority production areas. that concludes my presentation. the timeline is such that is regional agencies asked for a deadline mid-january for the local jurisdictions to submit nominations, which includes the board of supervisors per visor's action endorsing these. we hope we can meet that deadline. with that i am happy to take any questions. >> thank you for the presentation and for your work on this.
12:02 pm
do you have any questions? before we go to public comment, i would like to offer amendments to the resolution just to highlight the spirit and intent of the de designations. you should have received the copy of the amendments and first in consultation with president yee, i would like to amend to separate proposed sunset corridors and sunset hills into two pdas, sunset and west portal station area with a noter south line down 15th avenue. to affirm or position affordability housing planning should happen within from structure planning with other community needs. it reaffirms or goal to establish the planning policy and the success in the plans and challenges and having goals for
12:03 pm
moderate and low income households. that specific challenges deserve community driven solutions. pdas are one tool to unlock funding to act on the challenges of our city. as executive board area of bay area governments overseeing the allocations i will make sure we are account annual to the intent of the designations today and urge you to accept amendments. we can move to public comment on this item. i have speaker cards. eileen, peter, catherine howard, barry and s susanna parsons. >> eileen broken. i am on my own behalf. i am strongly urging the committee to continue this item. this request is based on information from yesterday's
12:04 pm
meeting. at this meeting there was a presentation on priority development areas. additionally, there were discussions and presentations on possible changes to the arena for the current cycle, upcoming jurisdiction survey and new requirement housing elements contain equity provisions. based on statements at the meeting there could be statements to the method where priority development would have increased allocations. i am urging the board of supervisors soups and planning commission hold a joint meeting. the purpose to hear directly from the staff on the presentations regarding priority development areas and the current cycle method. i would strongly urge the board to require the planning department make a presentation
12:05 pm
to them which clearly demonstrates the current pdas have been effective. at this point in time i believe the committee does not have sufficient information to move forward on this item withouts a full and complete understanding what is going on and i am urging the committee to continue this item. >> next speaker. >> good morning. now it is afternoon. peter cohen. the pdas at a technical level, i would like to step back and think about this item in contrast to the last item sb50 and the conversation about local community planning. it is very encouraging to hear your planning department staff and i am thinking about supervisor brown's comments early about the staff being
12:06 pm
helpful. it is not a technical resource. you didn't see the planning department staff taking a position opposing sb50 based on the amendment the board put forward. frankly, that is what a planning department should be doing. unfortunately they were silent and it took the board to do that technical work. now the planning department is coming forward with a pda proposal saying this is not dictating zoning or telling you your process is taken away from you. this is the short of music to a lot of folks ears about doing the planning right. of course, all of the details matter much. it seems to be a contradictory narrative. the state knows what is right and the right process and knows where the geography is. i would encourage you to think about this, frankly, as a positive signal as the planning staff has used about how to do
12:07 pm
things right and how to have local participation that is grounded in local control. i think in san francisco we have used that term responsibly. in contrast to an earlier speaker that said the paternallism of the state telling the neighborhoods and leaders how to do your job. i support this in concept. it is a great contrast to what you heard earlier. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. susanna parsons with spur. we confirm to create new priority development areas, conservation areas and priority production areas as part of plan bay area 2050. we appreciate the proposed areas are in areas with high-quality transit. this is the right place to put
12:08 pm
new growth and helps the city meet its goals for sustainability and supports new transit investments. we appreciate the pdas are geographically distributed. all parts of san francisco are a role to play and to create an inconclusive city and region. >> next speaker. >> catherine howard. this is a summary of two page analysis i have submitted yesterday. i am very concerned about the impact of the proposed new priority development areas will have on the city. the public has had a short time to review this and i suspect these to come in during the christmas and thanksgiving vacations. i ask you to postpone a ves voto there can be further discussion by the communities affected. the planning department insists
12:09 pm
the areas are being designated for planning purposes, the factory mains they are called priority development areas, not priority planning areas. in october 2019, a memo from the planning department defines the pda as a signal from a local government it has considered planning for housing growth in that area. m.t.c. a planning document further states that quote the pda planning programming provides financial support for planning processes that seek to intensify land uses end ." planning processes with the greatest potential for resulting in land use zoning and policy changing leading to new development will be most competitive and emphasizing zoning updates to facilitate and streamline the development process. we want a community-based
12:10 pm
development process, and yet this and i will use the word paternalistic as imposed on the planning department. in the interest of full public process postpone a vote and schedule meetings in the impacted neighborhoods to let the neighborhoods give impact. i will submit a copy of my longer analysis for the clerk and the board. >> thank you. >> i am barry hermanson. i want to ask a brief question. priority development for whom? we need affordable housing. i am very clear that even with the requirement to build 25 or 30% affordable, it is exactly the reverse of what we need. we need 75 to 80 to 90 to 100%
12:11 pm
affordable. otherwise, we are facing massive displacement, gentrification. priority development for whom? i ask that be defined a little more before this goes forward. thank you. >> good afternoon. george wedding, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. just a couple of thoughts and comments, not a real ask. it can't override whether a citizens group does in the pda. planning can do that right now.
12:12 pm
the funding and grants are welcome for the planning for its sens, but they are also very minimalistic. i was told that from 2007 to now on transportation and that kind of thing, we spent about $12 million. you can do the math. you can see we are not talking about huge grants here. we are not fixing problems. i think what is troubles is to hear what irene said. we are in the process of planning on the west side. already it is slippery slope. definitions might be changing, we have no control over what is
12:13 pm
going to happen after we do a pda in terms of density. there is no parameters. we approve an area, but we have no idea how much density we are approving. we could be approving massive amounts of density. i do welcome that the citizenry is being asked to review this, but i also . >> next speaker, please. >> corey smith, san francisco housing action. i am in support of the planning department and thrilled to hear that supervisor mar and others are taking this on to move forward. i totally agree with peter earlier. this conversation in conjunction
12:14 pm
with the sb50 is interesting. the city of san francisco had the opportunity to do this for a long time and hasn't. if you are at the planning commission hearing for this item, hearing the vial comments in opposition. jake mcgold rick said vaping the west side. we couldn't do it because families live on the west side. insinuating families can't live in apartments. we encourage community conversations so people can figure out the best way for the city to grow on the western half of san francisco. we don't see that in conflict with the more homes act. sb50 says san francisco height limits 45 feet. we are not going to touch that but allow density controls.
12:15 pm
then the city can come in with a planning overlay and we can make our own requirements for demolition and everything else. you know, i wholeheartedly hope everybody that comes up here saying we need a local plan leads. if not, it is just talk, and it is spinning our wheels and saying things we don't believe we are going to fulfill and saying we need more affordable housing. i am exciting. thank you for your work on it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> rick hall. i would join what says we don't know enough about this yet. it should be continued. there should be a lot more involvement by the communities in what this is. you can see by the lack of
12:16 pm
turnout here, most communities don't really -- aren't engaged at this level. yet planning works with us in the mission a lot. this one even came up and surprised us. why, aren't there community meetings throughout the impacted communities east and west working with their supervisors to get in put on this before it is just, you know, sort of waved forward? what are the implications? what are we getting out of taking this bribe of a very small amount of money to send a signal we are open for market rate business? we need to consider these things. you guys need to figure out what are we saying and what are the implications when, you know, the next version of sb50 says and
12:17 pm
pdas we are going to do x? why aren't we taking out other pdas where we have on the eastern side of the cityover overdone and overbuilt. we haven't answered the questions that need answered. >> next speaker. >> . >> san francisco coalition. i want to make a comment about the startling difference that i notice between what the pda allocation is for san francisco and the areas in the suburbs. i think the slide was indicating that is 13,000-acres of pda designated versus the suburbs in
12:18 pm
the thousands. my only question here is, and not so of an objection, it is a good idea for us to plan for areas that will be developed in the future as long as we are not going to demolish what is existing there to displace to develop. my question is this. if we are increasing the pdas, does that mean the rena obligation is going to increase? if that is the case, what can we do to get the suburbs to pull their first share. that is it. thank you. >> thank you. anybody else to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to ask you to come up and
12:19 pm
respond to the points made during public comment, in particular, i think there were a number of people that were concerned about the lack of time and process for community input on the expanded pda designatio designations. and the request for more time for the community to weigh in on this. >> certainly. we have been -- this is a board action. planning department has talked to all of the supervisors over the last two or three months. to get feedback and outreach at the direction of the board members who shot it was necessary for their districts. i have been out at community meetings in g-7 and spokeker to d4 and d1 and the supervisors
12:20 pm
haven't asked for further outreach. i made myself available to answer questions as need be. we do have the timeline laid out. we all recognize it is a tight timeline. they have the process to undertake the regional plan within a certain timeframe and put this out giving cities a number of months to carry this out. that is what has been laid before us. >> i want to respond and say that i first got the first communication from you about this may be a month ago. i can't remember exactly when it was. i had to reach out and request a meeting about it. i do think a lot more work could have been done by the planning department to not just work with
12:21 pm
the supervisors on the expanded pda proposal but to make it more known to the public. given that we are facing a january 15th deadline for the board to pass the resolution and forward it? >> that's correct. >> i think we are under a realtime deadline on this. we need to continue this a week and not vote on it today. the amendments that the attorney or can you comment on the amendments that i proposed? are they substantive. >> deputy city attorney. they are not substantive. the committee could pass it out today or if you continue it, you could pass it out next week.
12:22 pm
then t to the full board on the 17th. >> can you respond to a number of comments raised of concern about how the expanding the pdas to the west side neighborhoods could lead to the kind of concerns that folks have been raising about sb50 and the west side. if you can respond to that. >> i would be happy to. there is not a direct correlation between the pdas and sb50s. the pdas is voluntary framework to tap into the resources for planning processes. it doesn't pre-suppose any
12:23 pm
particular outcome. ultimately, if the city chooses not to do planning in those the consequences are the pda by the region in the future if they don't see action by the local jurisdiction to take some action to increase housing capacity. it is a reflection of the fact that ultimately the land use controls are up to the city and not the region. it is really up to us to do something or not do something where these pdas. there is no real direct correlation between sb50. it doesn't reference this in any manner and the controls that would impose. the pda framework is bay area specific framework that was created a number of years ago. not something any oregon in the state uses. there would be no reason for
12:24 pm
sb50 to reference it in any manner. one of the previous public comment statements that other cities haven't stepped up to nominate pdas. that is why they won't recognize the pdas. that is as much or nor trying to get the cities to allow housing when they are not doing it themselves. the pda provides an opportunity to do planning and helping the city. those are the carrots available to influence what happens. >> do you have any questions, comments? i would like to move that we accept the amendment that i presented today without objection. i would like to move we continue this item since we will have a special board meeting -- special
12:25 pm
jo meeting next week to allow the publish to review. >> the more is to continue the item as amended to the special committee meeting of december 11th. >> can we do that without objection? >> yes. >> mr. clerk please call items 4 and 5 foreclosed session. >> agenda items 4 and 5 are for settlements of lawsuits against the city and county of san francisco. >> any members of the public who wish twish to testify on the ito be heard in closed session? public comment -- i'm sorry. >> sue hester. this is the settlements academy
12:26 pm
of art university of the first and only hearing the planning commission was right before thanksgiving. i believe that there is going to be a land-use committee meeting next monday to hear this. it has not been advertised, bullet i was told that. >> it is now advertised. >> well, i am here. i just want to tell you that sometime there needs to be serious discussion about the academy of art. if it is like last time, we will be through with the hearing in under two hours, and next monday. it will come to the board for the first hearing on the 17th, and the second hearing right after the first of the year. >> both hearings in january.
12:27 pm
>> i can't hear you. >> i will let you finish then i will respond. >> when people raise questions about housing buyout and price of housing in the development agreement, which was only made available at the very, very end of october, people had no ability to plow through the complicated thing because it was confidential. people raised questions about ad accessibility and people raised questions about transit and the concentration on van ness avenue. basically, the only people that were listened to buy the planning commission were the the immediate neighbors.
12:28 pm
housing, ada and transit were shit canned. we had no ability to get in put. >> thank you. next speaker. >> when you don't speak -. >> supervisor peskin. >> i want to clarify that on monday, december 9th, the land-use committee will hear this matter. that will not be forwarded to the full board until our first meeting in january for a possible first reading, and the second meeting in january for a possible second meeting. it is not going to the full board of supervisors on the 17th of december. >> thank you for that additional comment, supervisor peskin. i have been following the academy of art university.
12:29 pm
i think there is quite a bit more here about the proposed settlement be that needs to be sunlighted. too many parts of this complicated agreement haven't had public scrutiny, and a lot of it i am not sure that we can see even now. there seems to be some parts of it that you have to approve before there can be any amendment. then there can be no amendments. please, do what you can to help san francisco and the residents who have been evicted from their housing and who have gotten no compensation, but the city has also suffered. please do what you can to put more sunlight on this. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else in the public to speak on the items foreclosed
12:30 pm
session? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to convene in closed session? we are now in closed session.
12:31 pm
12:32 pm
12:33 pm
12:34 pm
12:35 pm
12:36 pm
12:37 pm
12:38 pm
12:39 pm
12:40 pm
12:41 pm
12:42 pm
>> we are now back in open session for government audit and oversights december 5, 2019. during the closed session the committee acted to first remember agenda item 4 to item
12:43 pm
four to the january 7th board meeting without recommendation for consideration on january 7th. agenda item 5 will be a committee report to the decembea recommendation. >> mr. clerk, any further business? >> clerk: no further business. >> we are adjourned. thank you.
12:44 pm
12:45 pm
>> hi. i am cory with san francisco and we're doing stay safe and we're going to talk about what shelter in place or safe enough to stay in your home means. we're here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco and joined by carla, the deputy director of spur and one of the persons who pushed this shelter in place and safe enough to stay concept and we want to talk about what it means
12:46 pm
and why it's important to san francisco. >> as you know the bay area as 63% chance of having a major earthquake and it's serious and going to impact a lot of people and particularly people in san francisco because we live on a major fault so what does this mean for us? part of what it means is that potentially 25% of san francisco's building stock will be uninhibit tabl and people can't stay in their homes after an earthquake. they may have to go to shelters or leave entirely and we don't want that to happen. >> we want a building stock to encourage them to stay in the homes and encourage them to stay and not relocate to other locations and shelters. >> that's right so that means
12:47 pm
the housing needs to be safe enough to stay and we have been focused in trying to define what that means and you as a former building official knows better than anybody the code says if an earthquake happens it won't kill you but doesn't necessarily say that can you stay in your home and we set out to define what that might mean and you know because you built this house we're in now and this shows what it's like to be in a place safe enough to stay. it's not going to be perfect. there maybe cracks in the walls and not have gas or electricity within a while but can you essentially camp out within your unit. what's it going to take to get the housing stock up to this standard? we spent time talking about this and one of the building types we talk about
12:48 pm
was soft story buildings and the ground floor is vulnerable because there are openings for garages or windows and during the earthquake we saw in the marina they went right over and those are -- >> very vulnerable buildings. >> very and there are a lot of apartment buildings in san that that are like that. >> and time to. >> >> retrofit the buildings so people can stay in them after the earthquake. >> what do they need? do they need information? do they need incentives? mandates? >> that's a good question. i think it starts with information. people think that new buildings are earthquake proof and don't understand the performance the building will
12:49 pm
have so we want a transparent of letting people know is my building going to be safe in it after an earthquake? is my building so dangers i should be afraid of being injured? so developing a ranking system for buildings would be very important and i think for some of the larger apartment buildings that are soft story we need a mandatory program to fix the buildings, not over night and not without financial help or incentive, but a phased program over time that is reasonable so we can fix those buildings, and for the smaller soft story buildings and especially in san francisco and the houses over garages we need information and incentives and coaxing the people along and each of the owners want their house to be safe enough. >> we want the system and not
12:50 pm
just mandate everybody. >> that's right. >> i hear about people talking about this concept of resiliency. as you're fixing your knowledge you're adding to the city wide resiliency. >> >> what does that mean? >> that's a great question. what spur has done is look at that in terms of recovery and in new orleans with katrina and lost many of the people, hasn't recovered the building stock. it's not a good situation. i think we can agree and in san we want to rebuild well and quickly after a major disaster so we have defined what that means for our life lines. how do we need the gasolines to perform and water perform after an earthquake and the building stock as well, so we have the goal of 95% of our homes to be
12:51 pm
ready for shelter in place after a major earthquake, and that way people can stay within the city. we don't lose our work force. we don't lose the people that make san francisco so special. we keep everybody here and that allow us to recover our economy, and everything because it's so interdependent. >> so that is a difficult goal but i think we can achieve it over the long time so thank you very much for hosting us and hosting this great exhibit, and
12:52 pm
12:53 pm
12:54 pm
12:55 pm
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
12:58 pm
12:59 pm
1:00 pm
>> secretary, role call, please. (role call). >> please be advised that director brinkman, director torez will not be with you today but you do have a quorum. item 3, producing devices during the meeting, please be advised the ringing of cell phones, pagers and other electronic devices are prohibited at the meeting and any person responsible for one going off may be asked to leave the room. please put them in the off position rather than vibrate