Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  December 11, 2019 9:00am-10:01am PST

9:00 am
process. we are told by the legislators we don't have to worry because we have sensitive communities. we will have sensitive communities protection for a five year period during which time we have to revisit. this will include additional development. five years and eliminating existing plan to rewrite that i am possed by sacramento is not what we need. >> next speaker, please. peter with the economic development agency. i will address as many as i could get to of incorrect statements. as far as mission is concerned including what we just heard if you saw it from the gentleman
9:01 am
from chinatown's map he posted dozens of parcels within the latina cull surgical district. there is no public process. it doesn't limit. that resolution might be strengthened to say it eliminated it. we have a planning process before we mass up zone. that takes i it away. you are not allowed to create a area plan for the neighborhood. northeast zone is up zoned. we don't say we are doing massive building here so maybe the area in the cultural district might be under the height levels. that is not allowed. it is a buy right kind of zoning. that makes no sense, particularly in communities that have been targeted historically as well as right now.
9:02 am
right now the mission incorrectly at the 25% level we heard discussion projects are coming forward. land is bought, projects are developed and put into the pipeline. that is happening as well. i think i want to highlight this builds no housing. it starts by saying, give away billions of dollars to landowners and developers and hope they decide to build housing. in san francisco let's have almost zero value recapture. there isn't any. there is no increase over affordability. we have no more afford built, no transit infrastructure money. >> thank you. if there is anyone else that would like to speak on this item, please line up. >> thank you for holding this
9:03 am
meeting. i love to talk last. it is great to have the last word. i will register my support for sb50 and disappointment at those trying to run out the clock on this bill. i think the scale of the crisis in the bay area in california bears repeating. we have 30,000 people homeless in the bay area with a growing co-heart of -- cohort of those traveling 90 minutes or more to work. this is a huge crisis that demands a big solution. i think those who are seeking to obstruct, impede, run out the clock are complicit in letting this crisis continue. that is the bottom line, and those of you up there and out there who like to call yourselves progressive are the closest to reactionaries on
9:04 am
this. conservatives that think we can improve the housing condition in san francisco by turning back time. that is not going to happen. we need progress and we need a big combprehensive solution to make it happen. the make san francisco great again coalition isn't -- thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> before we go to the next speaker reminder to the other folks here. there is a prohibition in 1.3.1 into interrupting the speaker. yewe need to listen to the speaker. >> i am alice mosely, resident of district five. i want to point out that the history of all planning legislation has been an attempt
9:05 am
to make it more democratic, to increase public participation. this is very actionary in that respect. otherwise we are going to end up with the disasters in the 1960s where developments go forward without public input. we should not have a bill that is built to let market forces rip in san francisco. that is what will happen if we don't stop this bill. thank you. >> anyone else in the public to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to thank everyone who spoke out this morning on this. actually everyone who has been speaking out about this bold and in my opinion i think in most
9:06 am
people's opinion deeply flawed effort by supervisor wiener to impose one side fits all mandates on san francisco. over the past two years, actually. i did want to respond to a lot of the comments we heard today and we have received through e-mail and other communications. the board should take a position of opposing sb50 full stop without considering amendments. i sympathize with that. i agree with the deep concerns that people have raised about sb50, and the questions that whether it can be amended to be a positive thing for san francisco. i did want to say last week president yee and i had a chance to sit down with senator wiener
9:07 am
about sb50 and his intentions to bring it back in january. he did indicate to us he has heard the concerns we raised through the board resolution and the wide range of concern raised by residents in san francisco about the impact in our city in our affordable housing crisis. he was considering amendments in january that would address the concerns around allowing for community planning to address the needs of our communities, especially the affordable housing needs. he indicated he was considering amendments to address concerns of communities experiencing displacement and how they with be -- how that could be further
9:08 am
accelerated by sb50. he wasn't willing to go into detail last week about the specifics. we had to take him for his word on that. i think from that meeting we felt it was important to move ahead here with the board resolution that really specifies what amendments or changes need to be made in sb50 for the city and county of san francisco to remove opposition to the bill. that is why we are moving the resolution today. i have introduced the set of amendments that i have gotten input on from a wide range of stakeholders. i wanted to say we all about need to do our part to preserve and build afford ability housing
9:09 am
to meet the need of our community. including 18,000 units of affordable housing in the city with the next item we will talk about a proactive step to expand affordable housing. we are not waiting for mandates. while we work to move forward we must engage in good faith to represent the needs of our city. that is the intention of the resolution. i will submit a letter today requesting an open die long to engage in our community planning efforts. we want to build more and we want to do it with real protections against displacement and value. not just giving it away to private developers. >> supervisor brown. >> there was one amendment i had
9:10 am
given you eight months ago. on your amendment 5, which is tenant protections, it says ensure clear and strong tenant protections and anti demolition provisions with funding and protecting the tenants triggered by up zoning. one of the things i had worked with senator wiener on eight amendments that he said that he would work on when he comes back in january. the one that i thought that we should really look at and maybe you could really put this forward to him is a application cost to hawkins to allow greater protections. it would we see to see sb50 coupled with ab36 to loosen and
9:11 am
to allow cities to place represent control on buildings 10 years or older and certain homes with certain exceptions. >> we were able to have the cities are to control -- have more control of tenant protection. i would ask him if he would push for that and he said he would. i would put that. that will be more tenant protections that we can work within the city. >> thank you. we will include in the follow-up which we hope supervisor wiener will engage in us with. >> i would like to move that we accept the amendments that i presented today. can we do that without
9:12 am
objection? >> great. as these amendments are substantive i move we continue this until next week, december 11th. can w we do that without objection? >> thank you everyone for being here. mr. clerk please call item 3. agenda item 3 resolution authorizing the planning department to apply on behalf of the city and county of san francisco to confirm existing and create new and revised priorities development areas, conservation and production areas by the association of bay area governments and transportation commission. as part as the plan bay area update. >> to introduce this item. i am proud to sponsor this legislation along with supervisor fewer. it is important to plan for our
9:13 am
own future, to say where we want to see more housing andy sign it with community stakeholders for complete communities. state mandates aren't the only tool. they are an important way to direct planning for more housing and to accessory sources and funding. we have talked about community plans. i want to highlight the role pdas can play. it helped to lead $88 million. 75% of which were specifically only for pdas. a share of the other 25% went to projects within pdas. this is only local improvements. a larger amount of transit has
9:14 am
been designated. we have seen the planning grants supporting the planning efforts in san francisco including market octavia, central soma, treasure rye land. the rail yards, market street mobility, mission san jose study and by county the pda access study. they unlocked millions of transportation funds. gary blt. caltrain election. chinatown broadway improvements. masson nick improvements and long fellow safe routes to school. wwe want to expand and see
9:15 am
improvements to the west side of the city. we are doing the work locally to make it happen. we are doing it with the needs of the community at the center. i would like to welcome you. >> good morning. on behalf of the planning department we are thankful for the sponsor ship. if i could have the slides, please. just i will be brief. these designations are in the plan bay area. it is the 30 year regional plan conducted by the association of bay area governments and the met lynn transportation commission.
9:16 am
they are required under the state laws to produce this regional plan that is updated every four years to link transportation and land use and though how the region will house all of the population over the next 30 years. the last time it was adopts was 2017. they are called for renewed and revised applications by local jurisdictions for these designations. the growth framework is the plan and how we will house our population over 30 years. link that to transportation. there are three designations,
9:17 am
first the priority development. they are planning for housing growth and jobs. they are urban areas. pleases not green field but within the bay area. >> anybody sites are natural wild landings and areas that cities and counties and park districts are looking to conserve and preserve the open spaces for the environment and the population. then the priority production area, which is recognizing the role of industrial land in both supporting blue kolarian middle sage jobs. san francisco is a leader and we are happy to pick up on that as well. this is the current designations across the region.
9:18 am
you can see the pdas in the urban core and this is a map of the san francisco designated priority development areas. it is heavily concentrated in the eastern half of the city with the exception of the southwest corner of the city. it is a stark east-west divide. it covers the area plans the city adopted over the last two decades and the other denser neighborhoods in the northeast part of the city. what is it? it is an urban area cities are planning for job growth and housing growth. the region has tried to expand the definition of performe of pn
9:19 am
for more housing and not focused on only transit-rich areas. what you have called high resource areas, which are areas that have a lot of jobs and have other urban resources. >> schools and parks that are good to provide an opportunity where to live. it is just not about the transit association. >> the voluntary system is ground-up. local governments say we are planning for more housing here, trying to do the right thing. there is an incentive. there is no regional land use control. each development is controlled
9:20 am
by individual jurisdictions. the region has a series of carrots to offer to help influence and support development pattern that is most sustainable and meets the goals. as supervisor marmentioned there are grant programs. what are pdas? >> they are not an override of land use control, they do not bind the city to achieve any growth targetses or take zoning actions. those are up to the cities to determine for them, what it might look like. many how that would lay out. it doesn't require similar treatment across the same pda. they can be planned as we see fit that are appropriate for the context.
9:21 am
>> the transit priority areas. blue are the areas that cities have already designated as pdas. it is a minority of the well served areas. the red includes a significant share of san francisco and the south and east bay they haven't designated pdas and san francisco has the largest acreage not designated to date. high resource side this is a map slowing that analysis of areas of the region in very close proximity to jobs and urban infrastructure. san francisco lights up the larger shares of the peninsula.
9:22 am
they should be building housing. why should we expand in san francisco? it provides the ability to tap more resources to support community planning and planning and investment in infrastructure in these areas where we think housing is appropriate and san francisco has received over $60 million just for pdas in terms of planning over the last decade. it is also a signal. it is proactive signal we are undertaking these housing conversations. we are not just putting our heads in the sand. we are looking at how best to another meet the housing needs over the entire city and not just one point of the city. the last point is equity in terms of making this a city-wide conversation. what is each neighborhood's role
9:23 am
in providing housing for the city, not just east side responsibility. the planning department and sister agencies feel it is a good time to expand to have this conversation. the map that is part of the resolution that was drafted as a concept by the planning department in cooperation with our other sister city agencies, which have representatives here today, they are proposing a map that would expand to include all of the 11 districts including d1, d2 and d4 and mine other expansions in d5 as well. all major corridors would have some pda as well as additional areas. just to reiterate the colors on
9:24 am
the map are not indicating anything other than we need to designate the boundaries. it should be a planning district. that is for the board's consideration in terms what those exact boundaries should be. to reiterate the exact boundaries where the pda falls doesn't bind us to the entire pda or that exact geography but is a notion of the aspect where to undertake planning. on the priority conservation to switchgears. san francisco is a lot less rural than some other counties in the bay area. we have significant regional assets to continue to get resources for. we center limited amount of
9:25 am
pdas today and the hills and canyons around the twin peaks and glen canyon. the proposal before you is expansion to include the central waterfront, the basin, and effort to expand connection to parks, the ocean beach and golden gate park and northern waterfront and improvements to the bay trail as well as the island with environmental 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
9:26 am
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 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
9:27 am
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. 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
9:28 am
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 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
9:29 am
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 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
9:30 am
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 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
9:31 am
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 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
9:32 am
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 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.
9:33 am
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 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
9:34 am
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 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
9:35 am
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 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.
9:36 am
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% 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.
9:37 am
>> 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. 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.
9:38 am
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 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
9:39 am
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 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.
9:40 am
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. 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
9:41 am
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 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
9:42 am
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 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
9:43 am
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 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
9:44 am
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 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
9:45 am
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 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
9:46 am
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 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.
9:47 am
>> 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. 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
9:48 am
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 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
9:49 am
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 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
9:50 am
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 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?
9:51 am
>> 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 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.
9:52 am
>> 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. >> 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
9:53 am
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. 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
9:54 am
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. 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.
9:55 am
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 session? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to convene in closed session? we are now in
9:56 am
>> 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 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..
9:57 am
>> shop and dine the 49 promotes loophole businesses and changes residents to do thirds shopping and diane within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services we help san francisco remain unique and successful where will you shop and dine shop and dine the 49. >> my name is neil the general manager for the book shop here on west portal avenue if san francisco this is a neighborhood bookstore and it is a wonderful neighborhood but it is an interesting community because the residents the neighborhood muni loves the neighborhood it is community and we as a book sincerely we
9:58 am
see the same people here the shop all the time and you know to a certain degree this is part of their this is created the neighborhood a place where people come and subcontract it is in recent years we see a drop off of a lot of bookstores both national chains and neighborhoods by the neighborhood stores where coming you don't want to - one of the great things of san francisco it is neighborhood neighborhood have dentist corrosive are coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their own- that's
9:59 am
10:00 am