Plan Potrero Hill SF

I have to apologize for my frustration in these land use discussions. I have been going to the meetings in the Mission, where everyone is yelling at each other, and it is such a pleasure to deal with a group of reasonable people, who are basically on the same page. No one wants unregulated growth that ruins the small town character of the Hill. There is a charm to the isolation of Potrero Hill, but I think everyone can see the pressure building. A tsunami is upon us, so to speak

Everyone wants the best for this neighborhood. The industrial protection zone concept has some appeal to preservationists. I believe more open space and housing and less trucking are worth the trades-offs with increased density. I know others feel that we can avoid negative impacts by resisting market forces altogether. Unintended consequences of too many restrictions can back-fire (ie Kink.com in the Mission).

Unfortunately the environmental impacts of leaving aging, industrial sites as is, may be worse than the development plans. The health of our City and Bay Region, depends on San Franciscans finding appropriate land for urban infill of all kinds. San Franciscans play a huge role in the endless sprawl across California’s agricultural land, increasing greenhouse gasses, 2 hour commutes, dependence on foreign oil, etc. etc. For the last few decades City residents have resisted nearly every effort to increase housing.

Sharing our City with new comers is the environmentally correct thing to do. We should be able to find ways to be a showcase for environmentally sound products and design, that we can all be proud of. Increased density can encourage walking and biking if done right. We cannot depend on new MUNI lines to predate the increased population. Many of us would walk to Trader Joes from the Hill if the route were more pleasant. Mixed use housing above ground floor commercial will generate needed funds for open space, utility upgrades, and other community benefits.

But I wonder sometimes, if people in San Francisco are afraid of economic prosperity, because 2/3 are renters and have only a tentative hold on their homes here. It’s all fine and good to talk about wanting parks and planned developments, but there is a natural reluctance to make the area attractive to others, when you feel threatened by new-commers. It’s very hard to find the right housing solution for everyone. Try to think about what would be the ideal plan for someone you want to see move to Potrero Hill? Or a tenant you know, looking to buy something modest?

I would prefer to create new units behind and below existing houses, to minimize displacement of tenants, combined with shared ownership structures. This is where the real affordable housing can be created, without public subsidies or endless government monitoring. There is language in the City’s plan to allow additional units for existing residential without parking, which is a big step, but increased density on the big parcels at the bottom of the hill will need to provide parking somewhere. I hope we can find a place for a public garage, so we can save our street levels for something better like businesses.

I often speak about Potrero Ave and Franklin Park as a location for housing that would receive minimal objections from neighbors. It is not because I want you all to be concerned about a fringe area of Potrero Hill, but because I think it could be a win-win for everyone. Increased density should be directed first, to transit corridors that already exist like Potrero Ave. Taller developments would have less of an impact around Franklin Park than at the bottom of the hill. Smaller, more neighborhood scale buildings could be justified in Showplace Square, if higher density projects were placed elsewhere. It has to go somewhere. It is not out of line for Potrero Hill stakeholders to comment about Potrero Ave. along our border. There are many vacant properties there, an existing park and shopping center. My thinking is we should push the density where existing infrastructure already exists.

The lovely brick buildings along Kansas could become an “historic district” with regulations to preserve and enhance the existing architecture. I can’t see why we should dictate what people sell or do in their spaces. What we do not want to do is put so many restrictions on property owners that they do not make the seismic and handicapped upgrades of older buildings, that make the City sustainable into the future.

Thanks for listening.
See you Saturday.

Judy West

This entry was posted on Friday, April 13th, 2007 at 2:38 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.