Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eastern Neighborhoods topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff lays out Eastern Neighborhoods plan; residents and businesses press feasibility and displacement concerns
Summary
At a long workshop, Planning Department staff presented built‑form, open‑space, transportation, community‑facilities, historic‑resources and implementation proposals for the Eastern Neighborhoods. Public commenters raised feasibility, displacement, PDR definition, notice and funding‑gap concerns; the Commission and staff agreed additional targeted analysis and outreach are needed.
Planning staff delivered an extensive workshop on the Eastern Neighborhoods area plans, covering goals for built form, public realm, open space, transportation, community facilities, preservation policy, and a draft implementation and funding approach.
Staff described major plan ideas: an aspirational target of acquiring about one park per neighborhood (priority acquisition zones identified on conceptual maps), public‑realm improvements (green connectors, boulevards, living streets and targeted alley upgrades), transit and pedestrian corridors (Sixteenth Street as a key east‑west connector, transit preferential streets and proposed E Line historic‑streetcar extension), and built‑form tools aimed at breaking up very large parcels (mid‑block passages, alley‑sensitive massing controls, and a “San Francisco green factor” to encourage more vegetation and rooftop landscaping).
Staff also summarized implementation tools and financing: existing sources (open‑space fund, Proposition 1C/84 grants, a potential general‑obligation bond), plan‑level tools available to the Commission (zoning code changes, incentive rules and development impact fees calibrated to feasibility), and future opportunities (tax increment‑style mechanisms, assessment districts, and coordinated grant pursuit). Staff underscored a substantial funding gap between aspirational improvements (hundreds of millions for transit and parks) and projected fee revenues (tens of millions under current draft assumptions) and said the plan would require interagency and legislative work to secure additional financing.
The public comment period drew extensive turnout — residents, merchants, PDR operators, artists, nonprofit representatives and institutional interests. Speakers raised common themes: requests for higher heights and greater rezoning in select locations (to capture transit‑oriented gains), serious concern about displacement risks from upzoning and loss of small businesses, claims that PDR definitions and mapping are inconsistent, calls to prioritize middle‑income and mixed‑income housing rather than concentrating very low‑income housing in one area, requests for precise feasibility pro formas and nexus studies before adopting fee levels, and repeated requests that property owners and affected tenants receive clearer direct notice and more time to respond.
Commissioners and staff acknowledged the scale of issues and the need for further technical analyses: financial feasibility/pro forma work to test fee and inclusionary scenarios, corrected GIS and land‑use inventories for PDR mapping, a clarified approach to where housing and PDR uses should be permitted, and more robust outreach to property owners and tenant groups. Staff said it would return with the adoption package (zoning language, draft code amendments, and implementation strategy) and with more detailed feasibility studies and outreach results in the subsequent weeks.
Next steps: staff targets distribution of the adoption package (zoning code language, draft general‑plan amendments, and the final EIR) around March 1, with adoption hearings to begin in late March/early April; staff also committed to additional targeted briefings for pro‑forma feasibility, implementation funding, and affordable‑housing scenarios.
