Thread by @_fruchtose

Hello San Francisco. I'm in Forest Hill at a meeting of the West of Twin Peaks Central Council. A couple land use items today:

• Downtown congestion pricing
• Priority development areas, area plans, and SB 50

We're getting started now. Secretary is calling the roll.

Quorum has been achieved. Board now approving the minutes. Motion to approve. Seconded. No opposition. Approved.

President Mark Scardina: at last meeting we voted to oppose the Edgehill/Kensington developer's proposal. WOTPCC sent a letter to Supervisor Yee. Mark reading it now.

Mark: "five enormous single-family homes" on this pristine hillside would destroy the mountainside. Kensington is a narrow street allowing 1 car at a time, so it would impede access and emergency vehicles. Area should be preserved as open space.

No response from Sup Yee so far.

SFPD is on the agenda but nobody is here. One member of the council says they want the police in their area. "I'll take a patrol car at this point."

Mark: we need help up keep the website current. So far one guy has helped out but here's been busy. Looking for a guy familiar with uploading files and writing a blog. No HTML experience needed.

Next meeting there will be a vote on Sherwood Forest rejoining WOTPCC.

Mark: a number of people are running for District 7. We need those running for council with business before WOTPCC to not speak as a candidate. Asking for people to manage their "dual roles" respectfully.

That concludes the President's report.

Q: there are some kids at the public library who are very talented. They might be able to help with the website.
Mark: good suggestion. If your member org has a good website, please help out.

Treasurer's report: we have over $5k in reserves. Dues forms for the year will be going out soon.

Apparently Forest Hill doesn't pay dues to WOTPCC because that org provides the space for meetings: Forest Hill Clubhouse.

Mark: orgs which don't pay by June lose their votes.

Public health report by George Wooding: a lot of potential people with coronavirus coming to the U.S. Mayor Breed held a seminar about it. Arrivals will be rigorously screened. One person in Alameda has it.

Advice from pub health officials: don't touch your face. Avoid sick ppl.

Q: is it airborne?
George: yes. Incubation period is two weeks.

Q: why is China sending people to SF?
Another audience member says it's changed today. They're going to Anchorage, then Ontario.

Mark: nobody here from SFPD. Moving on to congestion pricing advisory committee. Stephen Roditti went as representative in December.

Steve: two goals. To alleviate traffic and collect funds. Not known yet how it will be implemented. Idea is to specify an area around downtown, and all cars which go in are charged a toll. We don't know if it will be like FastTrak. No bounds set.

Steve: will this tollbooth create a queue of cars which will further cause traffic? This is something SFMTA has in their heads to solve traffic crisis. What about Tenderloin residents? Would they be exempted? Unknown. Commercial vehicles? Unknown.

Steve: last proposed in 2010 but there wasn't traction. This time it's a big study. Reps from other neighborhoods, BART, merchants, Democratic clubs, SF Giants, taxicab association. 40 groups represented. A lot of challenges—what are the logistics?

Audience member bringing up a Planning Director from the 60s, Jim McCarthy, who wanted to take all the cars off the road. "It rises and falls."
Steve: it's not known how Mayor Breed feels about it.

Steve: Mayor's Office is waiting for the study and people's reactions before they take a position on it.
George Wooding: any models for congestion pricing?
Steve: London has it. Seattle/LA/NY studying it.

Steve: this will not happen very fast. There will be lots of data collection. Last meeting diverged into question of, is congestion pricing the best way to reduce congestion? Charging tolls for going down is very complex and may not be legal according to state law.

VP: Market St is going car free. Let's wait for that to go into effect and see what happens.
Steve: I brought that up. They said they're considering it in their planning. Data collection for car-free Market St has been completed.

Prez Scardina: there was also a survey?
Steve: I told them that this would be a huge logistical challenge. If they're going to do it, they'd be wise to make sure the governor is on board. Otherwise it's pointless.

Steve: I was also concerned about how it would affect local businesses. Also, before we talk about congestion pricing let's talk about improving public transit.

[I think all the cars are getting in the way of the public transit, but that's just me.]

Scardina: over 80% of survey respondents were interested in reviewing existing condition analysis. Reviewing other survey results. There are plans to have at least 2 more meetings. Next meeting might be Feb 20/6 PM at 55 Van Ness. WOTPCC looking for someone who can go.

Q: nothing on the west side was considered? Traffic comes from downtown.
Steve: some people would love to rope off all of SF. [A few people laugh.]

Steve: best way to reduce congestion would be to improve public transit. People always say that what works in Europe must work in the U.S. But it's a different way out here in terms of street design.

Mark: a couple workshops are coming up in February for public comment.
Steve: my guess is that the current timeline for the project is going to slide. Many issues are popping up.

Mark: looks like nobody from Supervisor Yee's office is here. I was hoping to get an update on SB 50 from them.

😔

Mark: trying to get a meeting between Sup Yee's office Sup Mar's office Planning Dept, and maybe another group about local planning for the westside in response to SB 50. No meeting dates have emerged. Jen Low just had a baby, Planning Dept director leaving, Commissioners leaving

Mark: status of SB 50 update. No time to prepare slides. It's still alive and "actively amended." There has been a lot of pushback from the communities. Cities have asked for more time. Bill will delay implementation until 2023. For sensitive communities, 2026.

Mark: cities will be able to create "local flexibility plans" subject to Sacramento approval/requirements. One thing we know categorically not going to change: no local plan will preclude ability to build fourplexes. Bottom line, he's not negotiating on single-family zoning.

Mark: "they're not backing down from the four-unit minimum."

Sounds like a real hardship for Forest Hill.

Mark: sensitive areas defined. Could have high segregation/poverty according to California opportunity maps. "We don't qualify—not even close." Another metric is environmental quality. "We're not in the lower 25%. We're in the top 80%."

Mark: areas experiencing rapidly rising housing costs would also qualify. "We would not qualify as a sensitive community."

Me hearing this news:

Mark talking about fourplex law. You can't demolish 25% of an existing building's interior or add 15% to building size. You can't build a mini mansion.

Mark: Cities will still have objective zoning standards, but they can't cannot preclude density of minimum four units.

Someone from Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association: demolition rules might save single-family neighborhoods.

Mark: local flexibility plans must do three things:
1. Affirmatively further fair housing laws
2. Achieve standard of public transit
3. Zone for more homes

On or after July 2021, local govts can submit those plans for approval.

Mark: bottom line is, even though local government is being offered this olive branch, it's really not what we're asking for. "They're holding back on the ability to maintain anything resembling single-family homes." No CEQA. No conditional use. This is ministerial approval.

Mark: we don't know what it would do to CC&Rs for HOAs. It doesn't have language which trumps those.

Mark: it does have language declaring a state emergency, which lets the state override local zoning.
George Wooding: does this affect deeds of trust?
Mark: we're trying to get a definitive answer to that.

Q: if this passes, there's no such thing as single-family zoning?
Mark: yeah
Questioner: so you could just do four units wherever you want

Mark: word from Supervisors Yee and Mar's office: they want to create a flexible plan which puts homes near transit and leaves the single-family homes alone. We don't know if SF has the infrastructure to support this.

VP: this might take incentive away from small towns w/o public transit from building public transit. It just makes sense. If you're a small town and you don't want density, what are you going to do?

George Wooding: this bill doesn't donate a dime to public transportation. Where's the money coming from?
Mark: they say money from property development will fund services

Q: if you accept 25%/15% building modification restrictions, in my neighborhood there's not a lot you can do, except build an ADU—not that I'm saying you should

Q: in Miraloma, how do you create a 4-unit structure without a year down?
VP: if it's a big house it's possible

Mark: if you're looking at the Sunset with a 1,800 sqft home, you probably can't fit in four units. It's up to your creativity. The state has a separate building code for mini ADUs, which can be as low as 250 sqft

VP: Senator Wiener has staked his whole reputation on SB 50. He has to win this. He put in 25% demolition restriction to save face. But we'll be on the watch for anyone do it in our neighborhood.
Mark: we see serial permitters all the time. It will open the door.

Mark: we're still trying to get a meeting with Supervisor Yee outside of talking to Jen Low.

Mark introducing Joel Engardio of Stop Crime SF. Holding a judge forum next month. More important than other forums. Six candidates running for three seats. "Stark choices to be made." Two in each race. Joel part of a court watch program to see "when a judge drops the ball"

Joel: we're asking for $50 for sponsorship. Feb 5, 6:30 PM for March 3 election.
VP: SF Board of Realtors (I'm on legislative relations committee) has never weighed in on judges. But quality of life is now an issue and we interviewed the candidates. There are stark differences

Joel: we know have a DA who was a public defender. Two judge candidates are public defenders. It's good to have a balance. We could have public defenders "in all three branches"

Joel: it's a non-partisan election, you gotta look at clues to see who believes in what. Look at endorsements.

Q: how are we going to get judicial branch into proper role for mental health vote?
GWPNA makes motion to pay to sponsor the event. Seconded. No opposition. Passed.

Mark: future agenda items. There's interest in getting the new DA to come in for a meeting. He's committed to coming to the February meeting (unless something comes up).
GWPNA: it's not like he's gonna be busy prosecuting somebody. [Audience laughter.]

Mark: any other future agenda items?
An audience member is asking about an email they got with a list of of email addresses.
Mark: I think that was a Google Calendar invite a member created for themselves with everyone's email attached.

It's after nine. I'm heading out. Thanks for reading!