2019-03-14 · 61 comments · 21 / 40
Please OPPOSE SB50
Dear Supervisors: Please OPPOSE State Bill 50. This bill would harm San Francisco homeowners and those who enjoy San Francisco neighborhoods. It's critical to maintain local zoning and neighborhood oversight. Tom Packo 2566 Greenwich St San Francisco, CA 94123
I strongly support SB50Planning Commission, Supervisor Walton, I'm writing to express my support for SB50, the MORE HOMES Act.. Given the racist history of zoning laws, and the severity of the housing crisis, SB50 seems like exactly the kind of change that we need both in California and in San Francisco. We need to build more housing, and we should build that housing near transit and opportunity. Building more dense housing will hel… Planning Commission, Supervisor Walton, I'm writing to express my support for SB50, the MORE HOMES Act.. Given the racist history of zoning laws, and the severity of the housing crisis, SB50 seems like exactly the kind of change that we need both in California and in San Francisco. We need to build more housing, and we should build that housing near transit and opportunity. Building more dense housing will help address climate change and affordability. Legislating at the state level will help overcome existing challenges around communities passing the buck on building adequate housing. I appreciate how inclusive and progressive San Francisco is. I want it to remain inclusive; I don't want my friends to continue leaving the city and the state because they can't afford to stay. I love being a part of the San Francisco community, but lack of housing options makes it a challenge to put down roots here long term. I hope that SB50 will be a step toward keeping California and San Francisco livable for current and future residents (including myself.) Please support SB50! Thank you for your consideration, Julia Teitelbaum 2580 3rd St, San Francisco, 94107show more Letter of Support for: SB50 <U+201C>More Homes<U+201D> ActDear Members of the Planning Commission, San Francisco<U+2019>s affordable housing shortage threatens our city with crippling rents and irreversible displacement. The history of displacement in Japantown and the Fillmore makes the issue of housing abundance, affordability, and stability one of marked importance to District 5. Haight-Ashbury Neighbors for Density, a group of pro-housing and pro-transit neighbo… Dear Members of the Planning Commission, San Francisco<U+2019>s affordable housing shortage threatens our city with crippling rents and irreversible displacement. The history of displacement in Japantown and the Fillmore makes the issue of housing abundance, affordability, and stability one of marked importance to District 5. Haight-Ashbury Neighbors for Density, a group of pro-housing and pro-transit neighbors, demands solutions commensurate with the scale of the crisis. Senate Bill 50, called the More HOMES Act (Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, Equity, Stability), addresses these problems statewide by allowing low- and mid-rise apartments to be built near quality transit, like train stations and ferry terminals. Expanding access to our transit systems reduces costly and harmful commutes. It<U+2019>s also key to reducing transportation-sector emissions as climate change looms ever larger and more catastrophic. In the absence of changing land use patterns, of course car dependency and fossil fuel consumption have remained a problem. Transit- oriented development helps more people use cars less and helps us all by reducing pollution. Displacement of low-income renters is a crisis in our neighborhoods, across the city, and around the state. More HOMES provides the housing that low-income renters need with first-of-their-kind statewide requirements on affordable inclusion, new prohibitions on renter-occupied housing demolition, and special consideration for sensitive communities. A recent report, provided to your commission states that "(the bill would increase the) potential in the Bay Area sixfold (from 380,000 to 2.3 million units), while increasing the potential for affordable inclusionary units sevenfold." The More Homes Act would help our city progress tremendously to become more inclusive and more sustainable. I urge the Planning Commission to listen to the voices of renters across the city that are asking for you to approve more homes. Please support More HOMES.show more NO on SB-50To All it may Concern: It is upsetting that Senator Wiener cares so little for what the people in San Francisco think. He brought up this basic proposal and was met with great pushback and his response is to bring it up again with minor adjustments. Downtown San Francisco is a mass of high rises and at this point most of us realize that once that genie was let out of the bottle it couldn't be put back. So we … To All it may Concern: It is upsetting that Senator Wiener cares so little for what the people in San Francisco think. He brought up this basic proposal and was met with great pushback and his response is to bring it up again with minor adjustments. Downtown San Francisco is a mass of high rises and at this point most of us realize that once that genie was let out of the bottle it couldn't be put back. So we accept the endlessly growing heights of the endlessly built skyscrapers. However the parts of the City that still have light and green space like Pac Heights Cow Hollow etc. must not become another downtown with high rise buildings, few affordable units, little parking required, and the other issues that were so vehemently opposed the first time this bill was introduced. It is incredibly arrogant of Senator Wiener to assume he knows more than the people who live in SF about the way it should or shouldn't develop. It is a terrible bill now as it was a terrible bill the first time.Please realize that San Franciscans are very upset over this proposal and urge you to vote no. A representative of the people who has so little regard for what they say and think is representing only himself. Thank you, Beth Weissmanshow more Cow Hollow Association - Letter Opposing SB 50
Dear San Francisco Planning Commissioners, Please see the attached letter outlining Cow Hollow Association<U+2019>s opposition to Senator Scott Wiener<U+2019>s SB 50 legislation. Sincerely, Lori Brooke President, Cow Hollow Association
We Oppose SB 50Because we are unable to attend the SF Planning Commission hearing today, my husband and I write to inform you of our strong opposition to SB 50. My husband and I are residents and home owners on Green Street in Cow Hollow. We moved with our school-age children to the Cow Hollow neighborhood six years ago and even in that relatively short time have seen the devastating effect of mega development in our neighborhood.… Because we are unable to attend the SF Planning Commission hearing today, my husband and I write to inform you of our strong opposition to SB 50. My husband and I are residents and home owners on Green Street in Cow Hollow. We moved with our school-age children to the Cow Hollow neighborhood six years ago and even in that relatively short time have seen the devastating effect of mega development in our neighborhood. Scott Wiener's proposed State legislation SB 50 eliminates ALL local control over height, bulk and design guidelines within our neighborhoods. No Supervisors, Planning Commission, or Mayor can override if enacted. This bill will raise allowable heights from the 35/40 ft. to anywhere from 45 ft. to 110 ft. This law could be the single biggest threat to San Francisco's livability and property values. SB 50 will impact most heavily RH-1 and RH-2 zoned properties which are 72% of SF housing. Anybody with homes within a 1/4 mile of public transit or near "transit streets with specific widths" can expect new height allowance from 4 1/2 to 10 stories tall (counting bonuses heights and other factors per Planning Department's analysis). This would end the decades long protection of 40 ft. height limit in residential areas and most commercial corridors. Allowing building height limits to be increased in RH-1 zoned properties would create a catastrophic situation in our neighborhood. It would encourage and continue to support developers buying up residential properties and building monster projects with little to no regard for neighborhood character. It would mean the entire district in which we live could become a stretch of high-rise buildings with little or no open space. SB 50 is far from a narrowly tailored approach to creating additional residential properties in our city. We understand that there are currently 58,000 parcels of property that are currently purchased and entitled /approved for development, but are stalled because of the high cost of building. Instead of focusing on supporting ways to implement these projects and increase affordable housing, SB 50 simply turns the keys of our city to developers who have a demonstrated history of creating high-end luxury projects, not affordable housing in high density business areas. We love San Francisco and instead of leaving the City when it came time for our children to begin elementary school, we committed to raising them here. We are hoping we can stay, but if our neighborhood is destined to become a construction zone and then a high-rise dense district, we will be forced to reevaluate our decision. We appeal to our elected officials to represent the interests of the people who actually live, work and raise their families in their districts, rather than the interests of real estate developers and others, by opposing SB 50. Thank you, Jessica and David MacGregor 2460 Green Street San Francisco, CA 94123show more More Homes ActHello, I<U+2019>m writing to show my support for the More Homes Act, the time has come to show true leadership and bravery for representing ALL Californians, not just wealthy homeowners looking for protections on their incredibly successful investments. Please support the building of much more homes, 3.5 million homes are being withheld from the people who desperately need them because of crony <U+201C>lo… Hello, I<U+2019>m writing to show my support for the More Homes Act, the time has come to show true leadership and bravery for representing ALL Californians, not just wealthy homeowners looking for protections on their incredibly successful investments. Please support the building of much more homes, 3.5 million homes are being withheld from the people who desperately need them because of crony <U+201C>local control<U+201D>, history will judge the racist foundation of local control zoning restriction for what it really is, segregationist and serving the 1% class of homeowners. I hope history judges your position on this bill accordingly and your legacy reflects your true heart. Thanks, Kody Sent from my iPhoneshow more SB 50Dear President Melgar, Commissioners: Corbett Heights Neighbors is united in opposition to this ill-conceived bill. When paired with all of the other housing bills coming around, this will increase market rate housing, not low or middle income housing, at the expense of the livability of San Francisco. And with no requirement to increase/improve transit, police, schools, etc., life in the city will continue to… Dear President Melgar, Commissioners: Corbett Heights Neighbors is united in opposition to this ill-conceived bill. When paired with all of the other housing bills coming around, this will increase market rate housing, not low or middle income housing, at the expense of the livability of San Francisco. And with no requirement to increase/improve transit, police, schools, etc., life in the city will continue to erode. Thank you, Gary Weiss, President Corbett Heights Neighborsshow more No on SB 50 Too broad, and destroys community control
Let's manage growth, not let over-development choke our great City! -- Peter J. Logan, Esq. Peter Logan Law Offices 1532 Green Street San Francisco, CA 94123-5102 Phone: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] [email removed] www.peterloganlaw.com
I Support The More HOMES ActCommissioners, As a resident of Potrero Hill I fully support Senator Scott Weiner. We need better transit now and denser housing along transit corridors is an important part of that! Not all of us can afford single family homes in the countries most expensive city so please build more affordable options for us! Unfortunately I have to work during the in person meeting but please consider this a loud vote of sup… Commissioners, As a resident of Potrero Hill I fully support Senator Scott Weiner. We need better transit now and denser housing along transit corridors is an important part of that! Not all of us can afford single family homes in the countries most expensive city so please build more affordable options for us! Unfortunately I have to work during the in person meeting but please consider this a loud vote of support. Neighbors for more neighbors, Cassandra Rommelshow more WE OPPOSE 50OPPOSE 50 Go back to 1926 San Francisco, Italian immigrant Joseph Giampaoli comes to America to Make a better life. The American Dream. Right! Works 25 years in the produce Business in North Beach, and the Marina saving every penny. PAYING TAXES TOO. Marries the lovely Evelyn Corsiglia 1942. Running Victors Market on Chestnut Street and Evelyn working the checkout counter while baby Ronald born 1944 Is in the s… OPPOSE 50 Go back to 1926 San Francisco, Italian immigrant Joseph Giampaoli comes to America to Make a better life. The American Dream. Right! Works 25 years in the produce Business in North Beach, and the Marina saving every penny. PAYING TAXES TOO. Marries the lovely Evelyn Corsiglia 1942. Running Victors Market on Chestnut Street and Evelyn working the checkout counter while baby Ronald born 1944 Is in the stroller next to her. Again, saving now for that dream home with a view. In 1949 buys a beautiful lot in Cow Hollow on Filbert Street with a view of the wonderful Golden Gate Bridge and Alcatraz for $14,000.00. They work and save to build the dream home/flats for $32,600.00 Moving into the home 1950 raising a family, supporting San Francisco, family values, traditions, the love of America came out of this home. Joseph would speak Italian as he said, <U+201C>In our home we speak English.<U+201D> How he loved America and his San Francisco. And the view was what sold him on this lot. It sold his wife, two sons, 3 grandchildren and 6 great-grandchildren. Working until his death in 1998 and Evelyn<U+2019>s death in 2004. Fast forward to 2017, 2018, and 2019. Working over a year with the SF Planning/building and finally in 2018 getting all the permits to NOT build out or up but to improve the home to a safe and beautiful home with a Rental flat and spending almost $3 million dollars. Money that doesn<U+2019>t grow on trees but was saved and saved for years to keep the Cow Hollow neighborhood From becoming an eyesore. Only to see just one month ago a few monstrosities on Lombard street going up. People<U+2019>s views are being ruined, light taken away. Does SF not care about the generations and generations of families that made this town beautiful or do they only care about ruining the line of sight? JUST THINK ONE MOMENT ON HOW YOU WOULD FEEL SPENDING $3 Million dollars on a home and then months later that view is GONE. I know as they say views in SF are not protected but their light is gone. I just want all of you to sit back and think about this. Please do not let this bill 50 pass. There are thousands of apartments, homes, and condos out there that could be fixed and rented. Or is this just about the money! What happened to that American Dream? We don't want to look like NY city. We are that Beautiful City by the Bay. Don't cover the bay with all these awful high rises. NO ON 50. Thank you for your time. Diana & Ronald Giampaolishow more count me in as opposing SB 50
All, it's abhorrent to SF city dwellers. Please oppose! R Lucier 1552 Green St, SF
OPPOSE SB 50
Do not sell our city out to developers. We the people of San Francisco deserve a say in how our city is zoned. I AM OPPOSED TO SB 50! Homeowner. San Francisco resident. Voter Patricia Houden 2780 Filbert St. San Francisco 94123
Letter to SF Planning Commission re Planning Department's Staff Report on SB50
Letter to SF Planning Commission re Planning Department's Staff Report on SB50
Oppose State Bill 50
Hello, My name is Nadia Kilgore and I oppose State Bill 50. Thank you, Nadia Kilgore
Please support SB 50!Hi Planning Department, I live in San Francisco, and like everyone else, I find it ridiculous that 1Br rents are $3000+. I'm not going to naively say that supply and demand is the whole problem, but it's certainly part of it. And SB 50, the More HOMES act, is the legislation I'm most hopeful for in terms of increasing supply. We would have so much more housing here if we could build taller and build … Hi Planning Department, I live in San Francisco, and like everyone else, I find it ridiculous that 1Br rents are $3000+. I'm not going to naively say that supply and demand is the whole problem, but it's certainly part of it. And SB 50, the More HOMES act, is the legislation I'm most hopeful for in terms of increasing supply. We would have so much more housing here if we could build taller and build faster, without as many permits and delays. (Thanks for your recent memo about it, by the way; it was good to get confirmation that SB 50 would act as I thought it would.) So, please support SB 50! Thanks, Danshow more NO on SB 50
I oppose SB 50, an egregious ceding of local autonomy. The San Francisco Planning Commission, and the City and County of San Francisco, should as well. Leonard Fisher
Please support SB 50!
Hi there, I'm writing in strong support of SB50. Please support upzoning and real solutions to our housing crisis. Thank you Martin Bourqui Mission resident, San Francisco
Senate Bill 50Dear Planning Commissioners, As a native of San Francisco, I am beyond distraught by SB 50. Our elected representatives, Scott Wiener, Phil Ting and David Chiu, were sent to Sacramento to represent our beautiful city. Instead, it seems they want to destroy it. I have spent many hours educating myself on this bill in conjunction with SB 35, the HAA and the SDB (State Density Bonus). In no way does SB 50 solve th… Dear Planning Commissioners, As a native of San Francisco, I am beyond distraught by SB 50. Our elected representatives, Scott Wiener, Phil Ting and David Chiu, were sent to Sacramento to represent our beautiful city. Instead, it seems they want to destroy it. I have spent many hours educating myself on this bill in conjunction with SB 35, the HAA and the SDB (State Density Bonus). In no way does SB 50 solve the veritable "affordable housing crisis." Instead, it will only serve to create a massive new inventory of luxury housing for the thousands of new millionaires as described in the recent New York Times article.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/style/uber-ipo- san-francisco-rich.html Giving developers the a la carte ability to opt out of zoning requirements such as height, density, setbacks, lot mergers, parking, massing, exposure, rear yards, floor-area ratio, demolition, design standards and impact fees will do nothing short of decimate the charm and character of our neighborhoods. Having 8 story buildings rise from the demolished ashes of single family dwellings WILL NOT solve our moderate and low income housing issue. Turning San Francisco into a mini Manhattan (while sparing so much of the South Bay and the state), all the while allocating $0 to infrastructure needs from this population explosion, is sheer lunacy! Please vote to stop SB 50, and let's all work to find an alternative that actually creates affordable housing while allowing us to all continue enjoying this city we call home. Sincerely, Anne Boswell Bertrandshow more I Support The More HOMES ActI can't make it to the hearing tomorrow as I have to be at work but I want to make sure you at the Planning Commission know that I support the More HOMES Act and I encourage you to do the same. We need many solutions to fix our major housing issues and this is one of those solutions that can actually make a difference. I think it is so important to focus increasing housing along transit corridors. Also, I thi… I can't make it to the hearing tomorrow as I have to be at work but I want to make sure you at the Planning Commission know that I support the More HOMES Act and I encourage you to do the same. We need many solutions to fix our major housing issues and this is one of those solutions that can actually make a difference. I think it is so important to focus increasing housing along transit corridors. Also, I think it is imperative to legalize more inclusive housing options such as duplexes and triplexes. PLEASE SUPPORT THE MORE HOMES ACT! Thank you. Sincerely, -- Ali Moss (443)386-4378show more I support the More HOMES actHi Planning Commission, I can't attend the hearing this Thursday, but I want to voice my support for SB 50, the More HOMES act. We need more housing in San Francisco, the Bay, and all of California. Especially in transit corridors, this would really be a big deal - we need more homes where you don't need to own a car to get around. And, the statewide nature of it means that local municipalities couldn… Hi Planning Commission, I can't attend the hearing this Thursday, but I want to voice my support for SB 50, the More HOMES act. We need more housing in San Francisco, the Bay, and all of California. Especially in transit corridors, this would really be a big deal - we need more homes where you don't need to own a car to get around. And, the statewide nature of it means that local municipalities couldn't shirk on their housing responsibilities. Please support it! Thanks, Dan Tasse Resident of San Franciscoshow more Oppose bill 50!!!!! What a mistake!Dear Mayor London Breed, Supervisors, Planning Commission, SF State Senators. I a born SF native oppose this Bill 50 as it will not help the housing crisis. This is just going to make the rich get richer and only a few will be affordable. Why not put Salesforce up for low income housing. Keep those skyscrapers out of SF. They are ruining the city. We don<U+2019>t need another NY. There is too much traffic… Dear Mayor London Breed, Supervisors, Planning Commission, SF State Senators. I a born SF native oppose this Bill 50 as it will not help the housing crisis. This is just going to make the rich get richer and only a few will be affordable. Why not put Salesforce up for low income housing. Keep those skyscrapers out of SF. They are ruining the city. We don<U+2019>t need another NY. There is too much traffic now and thinking people will take transit is vey unlikely. Thank you for reading. Ronald Giampaolishow more OPPOSEd to SB 50!!!!!!!!!!!!!San Francisco, our beautiful, distinct city is beautiful and distinct because we have neighborhoods that are the backbone of the livability and tourist interest in coming to SF. SB50 will destroy neighborhoods with unsightly blights of tall buildings in the midst of historic neighborhoods. It will destroy the character of the city and poses huge issues of fire and loss of life in a major earthquake. In the 1989… San Francisco, our beautiful, distinct city is beautiful and distinct because we have neighborhoods that are the backbone of the livability and tourist interest in coming to SF. SB50 will destroy neighborhoods with unsightly blights of tall buildings in the midst of historic neighborhoods. It will destroy the character of the city and poses huge issues of fire and loss of life in a major earthquake. In the 1989 earthquake, it was taller buildings in the Marina that collapsed and caused the fires and destruction. We are vehemently OPPOSED to SB50!!!!! Kathryn and Richard Kimball Cow Hollow Residentsshow more Oppose State Bill 50As a citizen of California since 1977, and San Francisco since 1989, I vehemently oppose the abolition of local control of housing and development. California maintains many special communities, and tourism is built on the foundation of our unique communities, architecture, and environments. If we simply give developers free reign with no local input, we<U+2019>ll simply end up with high density suburbia. It&l… As a citizen of California since 1977, and San Francisco since 1989, I vehemently oppose the abolition of local control of housing and development. California maintains many special communities, and tourism is built on the foundation of our unique communities, architecture, and environments. If we simply give developers free reign with no local input, we<U+2019>ll simply end up with high density suburbia. It<U+2019>s already happening in San Francisco. Characterless buildings are flooding the landscape, but rents and housing costs continue to climb. We simply can<U+2019>t build our way out of high prices. Otherwise, Manhattan would be the cheapest place in the U.S. Loss of citizen input and control has lead to the destruction of SF streets, neighborhoods, and local businesses. It is clear that our elected representatives have an agenda of build-build-build without any new infrastructure, and even destroying existing infrastructure, without offering alternatives. With high density we need high-capacity RELIABLE transit, which we don<U+2019>t have, thereby ruining our quality of life. I understand now why America lost its collective mind in 2016. Do not take your super-majority for granted. Listen to your constituents! <U+2014>Jamey Frank San Franciscoshow more Opposition
I strongly oppose the SB50 upzoning bill in the state legislature. Linda Bacon 2944 Divisadero St. San Francisco, CA. 94123
SB 50 opposition & suggestionDear State Senators and Assembly Members, Dear San Francisco Mayor, Supervisors and Planning Commissioners, I have had the pleasure of speaking with several of you and your staff in person. Today I am writing to express strong opposition to proposed SB 50. A one-size-fits-all measure does no justice to the track record, realities and needs of California's very diverse districts, towns and neighborhoods. Ther… Dear State Senators and Assembly Members, Dear San Francisco Mayor, Supervisors and Planning Commissioners, I have had the pleasure of speaking with several of you and your staff in person. Today I am writing to express strong opposition to proposed SB 50. A one-size-fits-all measure does no justice to the track record, realities and needs of California's very diverse districts, towns and neighborhoods. There have been positive ideas around other supply/demand-related challenges before, such as water and greenhouse gas emissions management. Why not propose a state-wide housing goal and work with local government to manage targets that are tailored to their individual situations? I live in San Francisco and I love our beautiful city. Because our public transit is overcrowded and unreliable, I now use an electric skateboard to commute on streets that recently topped the list of the nation's worst. While France, Germany and Japan have had high-speed rail for 3 decades, tech workers here shuttle to/from Silicon Valley on a 1980s diesel train. Meanwhile we completed construction of the West Coast's tallest office tower and we are building a second stadium in the same congested area as the first one. How is it that one of the wealthiest geographies on the planet has such poor infrastructure? And why do we continue building on top of it? I respectfully ask that you please consider taking and supporting a locally tailored approach, and make it contingent upon serious infrastructure upgrades. Thank you for all the hard work that you are doing and thank you for your attention. Best regards, Dirk Aguilar --- 30 Ord Street, San Francisco, CA 94114show more Wisdom of SB 50Shall we reason together about the potential effects of SB 50 on SF neighborhoods? Although always a big fan--and donor--of Scott Wiener, this one strikes me as a well-intentioned but not well-thought out idea. Any of you: Tell me how I'm thinking wrongly, or let this be on the record as a NO to SB 50. And while I'm on my soapbox, the annual gouge for the SF street permit arrived today. One hundred-and… Shall we reason together about the potential effects of SB 50 on SF neighborhoods? Although always a big fan--and donor--of Scott Wiener, this one strikes me as a well-intentioned but not well-thought out idea. Any of you: Tell me how I'm thinking wrongly, or let this be on the record as a NO to SB 50. And while I'm on my soapbox, the annual gouge for the SF street permit arrived today. One hundred-and-thirty-six dollars? It was $24 when I moved here! Now, $136. Seriously? That's a day's wages for many of the service workers. What has happened to the City that Knows How? Make that Knew, Mayor Breed. We've lost our way. David Howell 110 Corbett Ave San Francisco, CA 94114 Tenant for 25 yearsshow more SB 50 Legislation - NoDear Commissioners - I am contacting you as a condo owner and as a citizen who votes in every election. I am opposed to the SB 50 legislation and its potential to destroy the character of my Corbett Heights /Castro neighborhood. I know there is a hearing tomorrow. There must be a way to provide more affordable housing without eliminating the current zoning restrictions that protect the residential character of our… Dear Commissioners - I am contacting you as a condo owner and as a citizen who votes in every election. I am opposed to the SB 50 legislation and its potential to destroy the character of my Corbett Heights /Castro neighborhood. I know there is a hearing tomorrow. There must be a way to provide more affordable housing without eliminating the current zoning restrictions that protect the residential character of our beloved neighborhoods. Please take my opinion with good cheer and I thank you for your efforts on behalf of the neighborhoods of SF. Katherine Zinsser 40 Ord Street San Francisco CA 94114show more Please Oppose the "More Homes Act."Dear Planning Commissioner, As a long term resident of San Francisco, and one who actually cares about more issues affecting this city than ONLY the current housing shortage, I want to express my alarm and disgust at the current proposed state bill called the <U+201C>More Homes Act<U+201D>. If one wanted to create the essential tool to over time gut and destroy the very things that make the Bay Area and … Dear Planning Commissioner, As a long term resident of San Francisco, and one who actually cares about more issues affecting this city than ONLY the current housing shortage, I want to express my alarm and disgust at the current proposed state bill called the <U+201C>More Homes Act<U+201D>. If one wanted to create the essential tool to over time gut and destroy the very things that make the Bay Area and San Francisco so great, this bill would be a good place to start. The logical and only result that would eventually occur should such a bill actually become law would be a SF landscape no different than what can be currently found in Kowloon, Hong Kong, among other super-high density cities. Crammed in high density housing that would be more hell-scape than any place actually attractive to live. The full speed ahead, other concerns be damned, build baby build, YIMBY folks have yet to articulate beyond their myopic focus just how the city expects to thrive, and remain beautiful, with so much more housing and no (at least as presently proposed) concomitant increases / adjustments / improvements related to public transit, open space, etc. etc. To date, the people who run SF have yet to credibly show that they can even adequately address the long-term pending problems, including but not limited to, homelessness, poor transit, city-wide filth, some of which have been exacerbated by population growth. (e.g. have you tried the <U+201C>N-Judah<U+201D> ride during the morning commute any time in the last decade ??). Now, some people want to turbo-charge unfettered development. From a <U+201C>planning perspective<U+201D>, this is insane. Please have someone explain how even one of these areas of concern, e.g. increased transit use on an already overstretched, under-developed, and pretty much overwhelmed system is going to be adequately adjusted to factor in all the new proposed housing. Instead of gutting local zoning and over-riding the legitimate concerns of the people who actually live here, please appreciate how unique and special SF is and try to preserve some of that instead supporting the development community<U+2019>s wet dream, or such analogues as the <U+201C>More Homes Act." Please oppose this bill. Sincerely, Lynn Grano 1848 Page, SF 94117show more SB 50 is a disasterThis bill would bring San Francisco into a tailspin. It is not the way to provide additional affordable housing without making those of us who already live here suffer tremendously. We are the people who have made the city one of the most beautiful places in the world and we consider ourselves lucky. I am 76 years old and feel grateful to have sun in my windows and birds in my beautiful yard. SB 50 would let it be po… This bill would bring San Francisco into a tailspin. It is not the way to provide additional affordable housing without making those of us who already live here suffer tremendously. We are the people who have made the city one of the most beautiful places in the world and we consider ourselves lucky. I am 76 years old and feel grateful to have sun in my windows and birds in my beautiful yard. SB 50 would let it be possible to rip apart the fabric of our city that is the envy of the country. We don<U+2019>t need to sacrifice what history has left us in order to create a more congested and inhumane environment. Certainly there are better ways to bring people to their jobs such as reliable and adequate transportation from nearby areas that do not have the historic value of many San Francisco neighborhoods. And please remember that many seniors don<U+2019>t do well with having to rely on walking and riding a bicycle. Joan Herron 1905 Broadwayshow more Victoria Giampaoli Oppose's State Bill 50Hello my name is Dr. Victoria Giampaoli and I OPPOSE bill 50. This is an absolute HORRIBLE idea. The reason SF is a city beloved by all is because it does NOT look like a skyscraper concrete jungle. If we increase the height this will destroy the beauty and be a HUGE mistake. PLEASE remember this is a HORRIBLE idea that will DESTROY not only views but the overall feel of the city. Please remember we are already … Hello my name is Dr. Victoria Giampaoli and I OPPOSE bill 50. This is an absolute HORRIBLE idea. The reason SF is a city beloved by all is because it does NOT look like a skyscraper concrete jungle. If we increase the height this will destroy the beauty and be a HUGE mistake. PLEASE remember this is a HORRIBLE idea that will DESTROY not only views but the overall feel of the city. Please remember we are already going to have enough congestion with 2 stadiums we do NOT need additional sky scrappers. Thank you for considering the damage this will make to our generation and generations to come. Dr. Victoria Giampaoli Filbert St (Cow Hollow) -- Victoria Giampaoli, DVM, cVMAshow more Supplemental Material to Be Included at Planning Commission 3/14
Hello, I wanted to submit a position letter from Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco to be included as supporting documents regarding SB50 for the Planning Commission Hearing today. Please let me know if any additional steps or materials are required from me. Thanks, James -- James Huynh Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco Community Organizer Phone Number: [phone removed] Sign up for our mailing list: http://eepurl.com/bUBrlb
SB 50
We are totally against SB50. It does not solve the housing problem and allows for no community input. Pat <U+2022><U+2022><U+2022><U+2022><U+2022><U+2022><U+2022><U+2022><U+2022><U+2022><U+2022><U+2022> Patricia B. Berkowitz 2750 Scott Street San Francisco CA, 94123 [phone removed]
Please do NOT pass Senate Bill 50
Hello I do not agree with Senate bill 50. I don't agree with the lack of local imput or height limits. There are not protections towards renters. Most of all therer is no guarantee of affordable units. Please take note thatt his email is against Sentare Bill 50. Thanks Martha Sanchez
SB 50 oppositionDear State Senators and Assembly Members, Dear San Francisco Mayor, Supervisors and Planning Commissioners, I am writing you today to express my strong opposition to proposed SB 50. San Francisco, as you are all well aware of, occupies the tip of a peninsula and is surrounded on three sides by bodies of water. As a result, this unique piece of land introduces enormous infrastructure challenges that the City of Sa… Dear State Senators and Assembly Members, Dear San Francisco Mayor, Supervisors and Planning Commissioners, I am writing you today to express my strong opposition to proposed SB 50. San Francisco, as you are all well aware of, occupies the tip of a peninsula and is surrounded on three sides by bodies of water. As a result, this unique piece of land introduces enormous infrastructure challenges that the City of San Francisco is already failing to handle appropriately. The transit centers are increasingly overburdened and the streets are clogged most of the day, which leads to incremental noise and air pollution for all of us. San Francisco does not have the proper capabilities to expand its infrastructure in a way that would accommodate a wave of new residents without having a detrimental affect on all of us living here. I am sure many of you are well traveled and have visited other dense populated metropolitan areas in the world. In comparison, San Francisco is a city, which stands out positively because of its neighborly feeling, amazing views and open land. If SB 50 was to be approved, the character of San Francisco and the quality of life would change for the worse. Please be smarter than Officials in other cities and states and focus on fixing the existing problems first before adding on top of it. Supporting SB 50 would lead to a disaster for San Francisco with unbearable consequences for its population, daily commuters and tourists alike. Let<U+2019>s be smart and oppose a one-size-fits-all measure, which will not work for a city with unique challenges like San Francisco. To change my opinion, City and State Officials like yourselves would have to successfully solve the existing problems first. Thanks for your interest in my opinion and your attention. Kind regards, Sonja Renner -- Sonja Renner [email removed] Cell: +1 [phone removed]show more Oppose State Bill 50I am a homeowner for 40 years in San Francisco. San Francisco can handle sensible and moderate growth but SB50 will destroy the city we all value and love. There will be no going back. Life is not just about profits and money. Vote NO on SB 50. Diane LeBow, Ph.D. Professor emerita, writer, President emerita, Bay Area Travel Writers, Inc. -- Diane LeBow, Ph.D. www.dianelebow.com Writer, Photojournalist Preside… I am a homeowner for 40 years in San Francisco. San Francisco can handle sensible and moderate growth but SB50 will destroy the city we all value and love. There will be no going back. Life is not just about profits and money. Vote NO on SB 50. Diane LeBow, Ph.D. Professor emerita, writer, President emerita, Bay Area Travel Writers, Inc. -- Diane LeBow, Ph.D. www.dianelebow.com Writer, Photojournalist President emerita, Bay Area Travel Writers, Inc. Winner of "Best Women's Travel Writing" Solas Gold and Silver Awards.show more In support of SB50Dear Planning Commissioners, and Supervisor Haney, I'm writing to you in strong support of SB50. I live in downtown San Francisco, one of the densest and most transit-rich places in California. There's a lot of housing here, and a lot of new housing being built here as well. Unfortunately, San Francisco has focused new construction almost exclusively in SoMa and the Mission by zoning only those areas to a… Dear Planning Commissioners, and Supervisor Haney, I'm writing to you in strong support of SB50. I live in downtown San Francisco, one of the densest and most transit-rich places in California. There's a lot of housing here, and a lot of new housing being built here as well. Unfortunately, San Francisco has focused new construction almost exclusively in SoMa and the Mission by zoning only those areas to allow density. This has led to gentrification in these areas, and to a shortage of new housing. SB50 will allow new housing to be built in other neighborhoods as well, addressing these problems. On a regional and statewide scale, SB50 will do the same. Many cities on the Peninsula have approved lots of new office construction but little or no new housing, leading to long commutes an lots of traffic since the number jobs exceeds the number of housing many times over. SB50 will solve the prisoner's dilemma of no city wanting to build housing while other cities build office, by allowing housing in all of them at once. Putting new housing in areas that already have public transit or are close to jobs will also allow more people to either use transit to get to work, or live closer to their jobs and drive shorter distances. SB50 will provide more much-needed housing, reduce transportation emissions, and open up exclusionary communities. I strongly support it, and I urge you to support it as well. Roan Kattouwshow more Please support the More Homes ActPlanning Commission members, As a San Francisco renter and environmentalist, I<U+2019>m urging you to support SB 50, the More Homes Act. I would provide public comment in person, but won<U+2019>t be able to take time off work in the middle of a weekday. Please consider this email as you would an in person speaker. Everyone knows that we have overlapping crises: the underproduction of affordable housing on… Planning Commission members, As a San Francisco renter and environmentalist, I<U+2019>m urging you to support SB 50, the More Homes Act. I would provide public comment in person, but won<U+2019>t be able to take time off work in the middle of a weekday. Please consider this email as you would an in person speaker. Everyone knows that we have overlapping crises: the underproduction of affordable housing on a massive scale, displacement of low income renters, and transportation emissions from car commutes that are a major contributor to climate change. More Homes addresses all three of these on a Green New Deal scale of ambition. It stops cities for banning low and mid rise apartments near transit, while respecting local design controls. Allowing more people to live near transit is crucial for our sustainable future. The report provided for your Commission indicates that the bill would add the potential for a 6x increase in housing and a 7x increase in affordable housing inclusion! This is what we desperately need. It provides the first statewide affordable housing requirements, ever! And protections for renters from demolitions and sensitive communities. It<U+2019>s sad and frustrating that many privileged homeowners fight modest apartment buildings. I<U+2019>m asking you to please equally consider the renters in SF that need your action to build more homes, especially next to our transit systems. Progressive values need to outweigh property values. Please support the More Homes Act at the SF Planning Commission. Phillip Kobernick SF rentershow more FSB 50> I urge you to oppose SB 50. > > This bill will not create, nor are there any guarantees for, affordable housing. > > Our overburdened infrastructure is unable to support this level of development. > > Gridlock and congestion on our streets will be crippling. Public transit is deficient and inadequate. > > This will greatly contribute to climate change in the Bay Area. We should be enhanci… > I urge you to oppose SB 50. > > This bill will not create, nor are there any guarantees for, affordable housing. > > Our overburdened infrastructure is unable to support this level of development. > > Gridlock and congestion on our streets will be crippling. Public transit is deficient and inadequate. > > This will greatly contribute to climate change in the Bay Area. We should be enhancing our green environment rather than paving every available square foot. > > Please reject this awful bill, Scott Weiners latest attempt to exploit the housing crisis to benefit his developer friends and contributors. > > Risa Teitelbaumshow more Re: Please support the More Homes ActAll, In person public comment is inherently undemocratic by amplifying the voice of people with the means to show up at a hearing in the middle of a work day. Since I<U+2019>m unable to leave work for this important hearing, I<U+2019>m hoping that you<U+2019>ll take my email below with the weight as you would an in person public comment. Many of the working renters that would benefit the most from m… All, In person public comment is inherently undemocratic by amplifying the voice of people with the means to show up at a hearing in the middle of a work day. Since I<U+2019>m unable to leave work for this important hearing, I<U+2019>m hoping that you<U+2019>ll take my email below with the weight as you would an in person public comment. Many of the working renters that would benefit the most from more housing are in the same position. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 8, 2019, at 9:02 AM, Phillip Kobernick [email removed]> wrote: > > Planning Commission members, > As a San Francisco renter and environmentalist, I<U+2019>m urging you to support SB 50, the More Homes Act. I would provide public comment in person, but won<U+2019>t be able to take time off work in the middle of a weekday. Please consider this email as you would an in person speaker. > > Everyone knows that we have overlapping crises: the underproduction of affordable housing on a massive scale, displacement of low income renters, and transportation emissions from car commutes that are a major contributor to climate change. > > More Homes addresses all three of these on a Green New Deal scale of ambition. > > It stops cities for banning low and mid rise apartments near transit, while respecting local design controls. Allowing more people to live near transit is crucial for our sustainable future. > > The report provided for your Commission indicates that the bill would add the potential for a 6x increase in housing and a 7x increase in affordable housing inclusion! This is what we desperately need. > > It provides the first statewide affordable housing requirements, ever! And protections for renters from demolitions and sensitive communities. > > It<U+2019>s sad and frustrating that many privileged homeowners fight modest apartment buildings. I<U+2019>m asking you to please equally consider the renters in SF that need your action to build more homes, especially next to our transit systems. Progressive values need to outweigh property values. > > Please support the More Homes Act at the SF Planning Commission. > > Phillip Kobernick > SF rentershow more I Support The More HOMES ActGreetings Planning Commissioners, I am writing to offer my support for Senator Weiner<U+2019>s SB 50, popularly known as the More HOMES Act of 2019. I hope to be able to attend the informational hearing tomorrow afternoon, but my work obligations may interfere. As a practicing architect (here in the City at Page & Turnbull), an SF native, a life-long Bay Area resident, a recent citizen of Petaluma, and… Greetings Planning Commissioners, I am writing to offer my support for Senator Weiner<U+2019>s SB 50, popularly known as the More HOMES Act of 2019. I hope to be able to attend the informational hearing tomorrow afternoon, but my work obligations may interfere. As a practicing architect (here in the City at Page & Turnbull), an SF native, a life-long Bay Area resident, a recent citizen of Petaluma, and a Board member of the SFHAC, I am acutely aware of the region<U+2019>s housing shortage that has driven the affordability crisis, and its impacts upon the middle class of which I am a part. What I like best about the More HOMES Act, is the direct linkage between the geographies of job creation, transit access and home production that will start to move these three vital elements of a healthy economy into a better balance across Coastal California <U+2013> and particularly across Marin County, the Peninsula, and the west side of the City. I think the healthiest aspect of SB50 in San Francisco proper is its ability to empower the owner- occupants of single-family dwellings to decide their own best interest of highest and best use <U+2013> planning power is thereby distributed to the individuals with the most at stake. In this way, incremental change over time can happen naturally, occurring parcel by parcel, and reflecting that family<U+2019>s unique contribution to the whole City <U+2013> just like the City we know now was created. Although no action is yet required on your part, I ask that you continue to keep San Francisco the leader in regional planning by strongly supporting SB50. I appreciate your time and service, Steven Aielloshow more SB50 NO!NO!NO!We as residents of San Francisco have been battling this proposal for years. Please tell me how destroying the neighborhoods in order to increase density in our city is a good thing? People move and live in San Francisco because it is a city with pockets of single family homes, duplexes, apartment buildings , condo complexes and office buildings. Allowing a removal of LOCAL control over the city is not why you were e… We as residents of San Francisco have been battling this proposal for years. Please tell me how destroying the neighborhoods in order to increase density in our city is a good thing? People move and live in San Francisco because it is a city with pockets of single family homes, duplexes, apartment buildings , condo complexes and office buildings. Allowing a removal of LOCAL control over the city is not why you were elected. REGECT THIS PROPOSAL TO DEED OUR CITY<U+2019>S DEVELOPMENT TO SACRAMENTO.show more Support for the More HOMES ActGood morning commissioners, I'd like to express my strong support for SB 50, the More HOMES Act. This legislation is incredibly thoughtful and well crafted. It's evolved significantly, for the better, since it's initial discussions last year. I'm excited by the state-wide floor for inclusionary units it would bring, and for the much-needed middle-class housing in the form of duplexes and tripl… Good morning commissioners, I'd like to express my strong support for SB 50, the More HOMES Act. This legislation is incredibly thoughtful and well crafted. It's evolved significantly, for the better, since it's initial discussions last year. I'm excited by the state-wide floor for inclusionary units it would bring, and for the much-needed middle-class housing in the form of duplexes and triplexes that it would allow to be built. I love San Francisco and feel so lucky to have become immersed in the community. But, as a 30-year on the brink of marriage and starting a family, I can't imagine a healthy or viable life in San Francisco unless something dramatically changes in the next few years. I believe the More HOMES act is the greatest opportunity for this change. I look forward to hearing your discussion today on the topic and ask you to show leadership in leading San Francisco to confront our greatest challenge. Thank you -- Danny Sauter President | North Beach Neighbors [phone removed]show more Miraloma Park Improvement Club_Opposing SB 50Dear President Melgar and Commissioners: Attached for your review from the Miraloma Park Improvement Club is our letter expressing strong opposition to California Senate Bill 50 and urging you to do your utmost to oppose this legislation and to protect San Francisco's land use management authority. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joan van Rijn President Miraloma Park Improvement Club 350 O… Dear President Melgar and Commissioners: Attached for your review from the Miraloma Park Improvement Club is our letter expressing strong opposition to California Senate Bill 50 and urging you to do your utmost to oppose this legislation and to protect San Francisco's land use management authority. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joan van Rijn President Miraloma Park Improvement Club 350 O'Shaughnessy Boulevard San Francisco, CA 94127 www.miralomapark.orgshow more Senator Scott Wiener's SB 50--hearing March 14Dear Mayor Breed, Supervisors, and Planning Commissioners, I am writing to you as a long time resident of San Francisco to urge you to do whatever you can to kill Scott Weiner<U+2019>s latest version of housing legislation. SB 50. This proposed legislation is so awful, I hardly know where to begin. First of all, if passed it is state legislation, so I presume it would trump local legislation … Dear Mayor Breed, Supervisors, and Planning Commissioners, I am writing to you as a long time resident of San Francisco to urge you to do whatever you can to kill Scott Weiner<U+2019>s latest version of housing legislation. SB 50. This proposed legislation is so awful, I hardly know where to begin. First of all, if passed it is state legislation, so I presume it would trump local legislation and ordinances, just the way that Federal law normally prevails over State law. Its provision focus on areas that are <U+201C>transit-rich<U+201D> and by his definitions, almost all of SF is transit rich. There would be no density controls anywhere in San Francisco. Developers could pick and choose properties and build high rises wherever they felt like, and everywhere claim there is a great view of something. You could basically forget San Francisco as a place to have children and raise a family. There would be no more RH 1, or RH 2. you might as well forget the concept of residential zoning. I mention the importance to me of San Francisco as a place to raise a family because that is what my husband and I did. Starting in 1978, we have lived in several different areas of the city, both ,sometimes as renters and sometimes as owners. Like Sen Weiner, I am originally from an urbanized area of the East Coast, and when I came to the Bay Area for education, I was startled the pleasant environment of regular homes in SF, real neighborhoods with a strong history, and the closeness of an outdoor environment. Our two sons were born and raised in San Francisco. Despite the expense of living here, and the modest salary paid by my husband<U+2019>s employer, We resisted doing what other families did, ie move to Marin or the East Bay. What is going on now in San Francisco, and what will be exacerbated by SB 50 reminds me of what happened to the Fillmore area under Justin Hermann and so called federal <U+201C>redevelopment<U+201D> The Story of the era is well told in a documentary film made for KQED by filmmaker Joel Stein, which was screened at the Western Addition Library recently The higher ups were free to ignore local inputs and just leveled and threw away vast portions of the old Victorian stock in the name of progress. The film is entitled Fillmore. I highly recommend this film. It so well documents what was lost. Even Willie Brown is interviewed in the movie about the area. I highly doubt Sen Weiner has seen the movie, or that he even cares about the issues raised. What amazes me is that he was elected to represent San Francisco in the State Senate, but he does not actually represent what is best for San Francisco In fact, if enacted it has the potential to ruin San Francisco as a good place for families to live. The hidden intent os SB 50 is to allow an unlimited number of units per lot. almost all of San Francisco would be up zoned. Over time this will forever change the character of the San Francisco. SB 50 does nothing to create a solution to the problem of the mismatch that has been going on in the Bay Area between employer workplace creation and employer housing creation. Wecan see this rbrty workfday in all the huge buses picking up highly paid employees in S F and driving them down the peninsula. The employers are building magnificent office buildings, but not housing. SB 50 does not force suburban communities to contribute their fair share and building more housing instead of office space, The tech employers pay their employees outrageous sums and money, give them free food and free rides. The condition of some young techies with tons of money is about to be increased as some new IPOs take off and new millionaires are created, This is about to create more upward pressure on prices, and it is the market that developers will build for. I am writing this letter to you today, because it is my understanding the issue of SB 50 will come before the planning commission tomorrow, Thursday March 14. Thank you for your attention to this matter.show more In support of SB50Planning Commissioners, Last year, after calling SB827 'a full-frontal offensive on local controls', your group did nothing. A year has gone by, and small apartment buildings are still illegal in the vast majority of SF. When will you take action to address our housing crisis? Luckily, our elected representatives aren't giving up. With SB50, you have a chance to right your wrongs of supporting the… Planning Commissioners, Last year, after calling SB827 'a full-frontal offensive on local controls', your group did nothing. A year has gone by, and small apartment buildings are still illegal in the vast majority of SF. When will you take action to address our housing crisis? Luckily, our elected representatives aren't giving up. With SB50, you have a chance to right your wrongs of supporting the historically exclusionary downzoning of SF. You have a chance to voice your support of legalizing new housing in SF, and recognize this as a regional issue. A recent report, provided to your commission states that "(the bill would increase the) potential in the Bay Area sixfold (from 380,000 to 2.3 million units), while increasing the potential for affordable inclusionary units sevenfold." The More Homes Act would help our city progress tremendously to become more inclusive and more sustainable. As a homeowner in SF, I urge you to support SB50 at your upcoming meeting. -Michael Ducker 1949 McAllister St 94115 [email removed] 6124145809show more Your support for SB50Hi, I'm sure you know all about SB50, Scott Wiener's "More HOMES" act, so I don't need to recap it. I just wanted to reach out as a San Francisco resident <U+2013> homeowner, public school parent, transit rider <U+2013> concerned that my children (among many others) will not be able to afford to live in San Francisco, and ask you to support the bill. Building more homes near pub… Hi, I'm sure you know all about SB50, Scott Wiener's "More HOMES" act, so I don't need to recap it. I just wanted to reach out as a San Francisco resident <U+2013> homeowner, public school parent, transit rider <U+2013> concerned that my children (among many others) will not be able to afford to live in San Francisco, and ask you to support the bill. Building more homes near public transit and jobs is critical for livability, affordability, inclusivity, and fighting climate change. As the SF Planning Department notes, SB50 would increase the potential for affordable inclusionary units sevenfold. There is simply no alternative to build a provide a comparable amount of affordable homes for San Franciscans. Thank you, Michael Siliskishow more Support the More Homes Act: Senate Bill 50Dear SF Planning Commissioners, San Francisco's housing crisis is a blight on the city, its residents, and the surrounding area. Given the recent report from your commission that states that Senate Bill 50 would have the effect of increasing the housing stock by a factor of 6, I urge the members of the planning commission to hear the cries of renters across the city and support more housing! Given the vast s… Dear SF Planning Commissioners, San Francisco's housing crisis is a blight on the city, its residents, and the surrounding area. Given the recent report from your commission that states that Senate Bill 50 would have the effect of increasing the housing stock by a factor of 6, I urge the members of the planning commission to hear the cries of renters across the city and support more housing! Given the vast scale of this problem, solutions at the state level are warranted. The transit oriented development created by the More Homes Act will help our city become more inclusive and sustainable, representing the values that so many of us hold dear. Thank you for taking the time to read this email and I implore you to support the More Homes Act! Best, Nikhil Sthalekar 1148 Masonic Ave Haight Ashbury Neighbors for Density [email removed]show more Opposition to SB 50Opposition to SB 50 Dear President Melgar and San Francisco Planning Commissioners: I urge you to oppose SB 50 and encourage the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Mayor to do the same. I am a resident of San Francisco and live in the Cow Hollow Neighborhood. I have served on the Board of the Cow Hollow Association and actively participate on its Zoning Committee. The proposed SB 50 would allow the… Opposition to SB 50 Dear President Melgar and San Francisco Planning Commissioners: I urge you to oppose SB 50 and encourage the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Mayor to do the same. I am a resident of San Francisco and live in the Cow Hollow Neighborhood. I have served on the Board of the Cow Hollow Association and actively participate on its Zoning Committee. The proposed SB 50 would allow the state to control local zoning. Each California community currently responds to the individual environment and needs of its citizens. Established zoning ordinances allow for growth while respecting the uniqueness of the individual neighborhoods. Dramatic changes to open spaces, blockfaces, setbacks, building envelopes, massing, and patterns will occur if SB 50 passes, resulting in the reduction of livability, especially in high density areas such as San Francisco. As does the Cow Hollow Association, I encourage municipalities across California to authorize housing near large employers, to rezone downsized shopping malls into mixed-use neighborhoods that include retail and housing, and to tax owners of vacant housing units. I, too, disagree with SB 50<U+2019>s premise that building density around transit corridors will increase the affordable housing stock. Again, I urge you to oppose SB 50 and encourage the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Mayor to pass a resolution opposing this Legislation. Regards, Brooke Sampson San Franciscoshow more Please Oppose SB 50 NowDear San Francisco Planning Commissioners: On Dec 3rd 2018 Senator Scott Wiener introduced SB-50 in an attempt to bring back most of the zoning legislation contained in SB-827, which was defeated last year. This is a one-size-fits all bill for California that without doubt will negatively impact 96% of San Francisco. San Francisco is my home. I have also maintained my businesses and multiunit residential property h… Dear San Francisco Planning Commissioners: On Dec 3rd 2018 Senator Scott Wiener introduced SB-50 in an attempt to bring back most of the zoning legislation contained in SB-827, which was defeated last year. This is a one-size-fits all bill for California that without doubt will negatively impact 96% of San Francisco. San Francisco is my home. I have also maintained my businesses and multiunit residential property here for 38 years. I am writing to inform you that I stand in direct opposition to Senator Wiener<U+2019>s bill SB 50. I ask that you read SB 50 for yourself and strongly oppose it in its entirety. There is no credible evidence to support the seriously flawed proposal that SB 50 will solve the California housing problem. Furthermore, it disproportionately hurts San Francisco. SB 50 rewards unchecked speculation, kills cherished neighborhoods and significantly worsens housing affordability. The Senator<U+2019>s overly simplistic, nave and sophomoric <U+201C>one size fits all<U+201D> approach to California housing will destroy California<U+2019>s renowned community diversity. Apparently, Mr. Wiener feels that 1960<U+2019>s area Soviet style high density urban planning is the solution for California in 2019. He needs to get to work for California instead of trying to jam his political sideshow down California<U+2019>s throat. The last thing California and especially my home town San Francisco needs is another bonus to the real estate speculators and that<U+2019>s exactly what SB 50 will do. State Senator Scott Wiener's SB 50 legislation, after last year's defeated SB 827, claims to help solve California's housing crisis and create more "affordable housing," yet this bill will actually do more for luxury builders than anyone else. Apparently, Senator Weiner thinks people will not read the large print: the primary backers include real estate developers and technology companies. Follow the money <U+2013> that is what SB 50 is about. SB 50 prescribes an overwrought, unnecessarily heavy-handed and unprecedented preemption of local zoning, all in a vain attempt to solve an affordable housing shortage. SB 50's usurping of local control over zoning laws is keyed to a property's proximity to public transit, and in San Francisco, that affects 96% of the parcels. SB 50 eliminates RH-1 and RH-2 designations; instead all properties will be zoned as RTO (Residential Transit Oriented). This means new projects will have no density controls or parking requirements, and there is an incentive to demolish, merge lots and rebuild with luxury condos with a few token tiny, affordable units. As you know, if a project includes these affordable units, it allows the developers to increase the height beyond current zoning limits and "pick and choose exemptions for themselves from the otherwise applicable local building limits": height, density, setbacks, lot mergers, parking, massing, exposure, rear yards, floor-area ratio, demolition, design standards and impact fees. Imagine if you live in San Francisco and the house next door or across the street to you is now replaced by a seven (7) story high-rise, densely packed with units, with no light wells, covering the entire lot, and offering no parking -- all in a building with a 75-foot width. SB 50 eviscerates local zoning rules by turning them over to Sacramento's legislated one size fits all preemptions. Additionally, what little light, air, privacy, view, rear-yard open space and parking remains surrounding San Francisco homes and apartments will be lost if SB 50 passes. As a tax paying citizen, California resident and businessman, I ask that you read SB 50 for yourself and strongly oppose it in its entirety. At the very least, please take a brief look at the addendum below for what lurks behind SB50. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Susan Spiwak San Francisco ADDENDUM: Nearly all of San Francisco is near transit and can be upzoned under SB 50. How much density, height and congestion increases can one city bear before they destroy what made it so desirable in the first place? 96% of San Francisco eligible for upzoning. Residential development that is either within mile of the Muni Metro, BART, Ferry or Cable Cars or mile from a frequently-serviced bus stop will be eligible -- SF Planning Department analysis of SB 50. The hidden consequence of this bill is the impact on our neighborhood from combining SB 50 and other existing housing bills (State Density Bonus and Housing Accountability Act). That would allow increased heights up to 70' in residential areas and up to 75' in our commercial districts SB 50 puts developers in charge of their own planning. Cities will have NO planning power and neighbors will have NO say. If developers include a certain percentage of affordable housing in the project, they can choose, in addition to increased height and density, three (3) exemptions from building codes. Here's a small sample of local development standards, design and planning tools they can choose from: Remove setbacks: No more areas for trees, green belts, and side yards. Reduce floor area ratio: Building size/density can grow 47% to 297%. Eliminate environmental sustainability: Any development standard adopted by a city that isn't state law can be ignored by developers. Remove onsite open-space: Courtyards and balconies can be omitted. Allow demolition: Developers can demolish all buildings not on the California Registry of Historic Places. Most city building are not eligible, and of those that are, most are not registered. Remove exposure requirements: Allow windows that inhumanely stare at a wall. Encourage lot mergers: Up to 150 linear feet of frontage and possibly no limit with the State Density Bonus. Eliminates single-family zoning. SB 50 overturns single-family zoning in areas that are "above median income, jobs- rich with good public schools" and lack major transit. Local RH-1, RH-2, RH-3 and many other residential zoning codes will no longer apply. Rewards construction of up to 75 foot towers next to single-family homes. SB 50 encourages 75-foot luxury towers in single-family areas that are either close to transit or close to jobs and good schools. The limit is NOT 45 and 55 feet, as Wiener falsely says in SB 50, due to its interface with other state legislation (State Density Bonus). Up to 7-story buildings will be in areas currently zoned 4-stories if multiple zoning laws are combined and applied. Cities can't stop a luxury tower unless the project hurts public safety. SB 50 is weaponized by the Housing Accountability Act of 1982, quietly amended by local politicians Nancy Skinner and Scott Wiener in 2017. It bans cities from rejecting any "density bonus" project unless the development "puts public health and safety at risk, or on any property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources." Therefore the onus is on the neighbors to claim and prove the risk. Otherwise the project proceeds. Demolition. Local anti-demolition laws are honored, BUT if the demolition of a home would result in even one more housing unit than what presently exists on the parcel, the demolition must be allowed. San Francisco's local demolition laws will be null and void. Zero parking requirement. This bill encourages severe density increases with no associated parking, on the assumption that everyone will ride public transit. There's been a decrease in public transportation ridership of 20%. In reality, the lack of parking will only clog the streets and highways with more Uber and Lyft cars. Turns developers into the fox guarding the rental hen-house. SB 50 utterly fails to protect renters. While it purports to temporarily prevent developers from razing "rental housing," only cities who keep a register of their renters can stop developers from misstating who lives there. SB 50 does nothing to address the infrastructure plans and costs that will be needed to accommodate all these new developments. How will California plan and pay for the increased needs of utilities such as sewer, water and power plus public transportation, schools, fire and police, parks, wear and tear on the the roads and all aspects of infrastructure from this dramatic increase in housing in the U.S.'s already most populated state? SB50 provides no funding whatsoever for all of this. Instead, it foists all those expenses on the cities and communities. Our San Francisco elected representatives Scott Wiener, Phil Ting and David Chiu are claiming to help solve California's housing crisis with a statewide, one-size-fits-all solution. Meanwhile they are pushing through legislations that hurts the very city they were sent to Sacramento to protect. There is a housing problem, but the issue is AFFORDABLE housing (low, moderate and middle income), and this bill does nothing to guarantee this type of housing will be built. In fact, on the contrary, it will encourage a proliferation of market rate, million-dollar condos that do nothing to address the problem, meanwhile seriously impacting the local character of our neighborhoods - the very reason many chose to live here and tourists love to visit. In San Francisco we currently have over 58,000 parcels of property that have been purchased and fully entitled/approved for development, but nothing is happening due to the high cost of building. SB 50 does nothing to provide funding for or subsidizing of housing. And with the estimated thousands of new millionaires from the IPOs of Uber, Lyft, AirBnB, Pinterest, etc. who want to live in San Francisco, there's added motivation for developers to use SB 50 to focus on luxury properties at the expense of the purpose of the bill -- affordable housing. There is no reason to expose 96% of San Francisco to virtually unlimited development just because the real estate developers and tech companies, their funded organization (YIMBYs) and our elected representatives Scott Wiener, Phil Ting, and David Chiu say so.show more SB 50Dear Commissioner Ionin, Please know that my husband and I, who reside in the Cow Hollow neighborhood of the city, are totally opposed to SB 50. Our neighborhood residents and our neighborhood association leaders have worked so hard to preserve the quality of life and the beauty of the space for all. We have strict neighborhood guidelines that we all abide by in building and remodeling to fairly share the space. This… Dear Commissioner Ionin, Please know that my husband and I, who reside in the Cow Hollow neighborhood of the city, are totally opposed to SB 50. Our neighborhood residents and our neighborhood association leaders have worked so hard to preserve the quality of life and the beauty of the space for all. We have strict neighborhood guidelines that we all abide by in building and remodeling to fairly share the space. This legislation throws all those carefully arrived at guidelines out. Please, do not try to add more housing by ruining the carefully thought out housing that is already here. Please. Sincerely, Katherine and John Cooper 2865 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94123show more Please support SB 50
To whom it may concern, As one of your constituents in district 11, I would like to ask that that San Francisco support SB 50, as well as every other legislation that increases supply of housing in the area. Thank you, Daniel Gonzalez
I miss my family :(I write you this email from sea tac airport. I am flying, returning to the state I miss dearly. I am going to visit to celebrate my moms 83rd birthday. I was born and raised in California and met my partner in SF. We left our family and friends, which we also consider family, in SF and beyond. We are in our mid 30s and it is so hard to recreate this family in another state. Please harness your power and support SB 50… I write you this email from sea tac airport. I am flying, returning to the state I miss dearly. I am going to visit to celebrate my moms 83rd birthday. I was born and raised in California and met my partner in SF. We left our family and friends, which we also consider family, in SF and beyond. We are in our mid 30s and it is so hard to recreate this family in another state. Please harness your power and support SB 50. Thank you. Norma Guzman Sent from my iPhone RECEIVED To: Planning Commissoners, Board of Supervisors Fr: Marti Kashuba Bernal Re: zoning laws and affordable housing. March 9, 2019 MAR 13 2019 CITY &COUNTY OF S.F PLANNING DEPARTMENT CPClHPC Commissioners: Needless to say I was disappointed in that height was not included in the recent provisional permit 432 Cortland. It would seem you and all the Supervisors feel building up is the answer for housing. What is true is the more affluent will have housing yet the working or lower middle class folks will not and lovely neighborhoods will be destroyed. THAT SHOULD MATTER Thank you Pres. Melgar for understanding and voting "no" on the provisional permit. We will continue to fight for maintaining our neighborhoods. It might be important to note that business that remain closed seem to get a tax right off and Supervisor Parkin is looking into this. The preservation of livable affordable communities is essential to a vital city. San Francisco is loosing its charm day by day. Neighborhoods will continue to fight for the right to be contributing members of our community and city. _ ~'/n ,. C ~~-~'/ l ,r, v WE'VE LOST. WHY? The grosvisional permit covers three areas (1. Work with staff on facade design 2. Add construction impact mirigation Plan 3. Remove roof deck, stair pent house). UNFORTUNATELY, the height limitation is not included therefore there is no way we might Appeal. Design Folks are putting up a good fight and need to be supported. All the Supervisors believe we have to buildup. Cortland is zoned business corridor with 3 stories (what is coming is 4 stories and more). SO, HOW TO CHANGE ZONING? HOW TO SAY 3 STORIES MUST BE AFFORDABLE? HOW TO WRITE, SPEAK &INFLUENCE SWPERVISORS SO THAT THEY UNIDERSTAND THAT LIVABLE AFFORDABLE COMMUlvITIES ARE BEING DESTROYED? HOW TO CONVINCE OUR FACADE DESIGN FOLKS THAT HEIGHT MATTERS? LOOK AROUND COURTLAND AND COUNT THE ONE STORY BUILDINGS. Supervisor Ronen CANNOT take a position since the matter of the provisional permit may be appealed to the Board. She like all Supervisors will support 3 stories with no ability to say "affordable". Nonetheless, I write saying that 2 stories are quite enough and that those stories should be affordable both for a small business and for affordable housing. OUR VOICES MATTER BIJT IT NEVER IS EASY. THANKS FOR SIGNATURES ON PETITION. KEEP WRITING AND SPEAKING AND ELECTING THOSE WHO WILL FIGHT TO KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOODS LIVABLE FOR ALL FOLKS! MARTI KASH[JBA 136 NEVVMAN STREET ~/ ~~ ~J To: Supervisor Hillary Ronen District 9 Fr: Marti Kashuba 136 Newman St. San Francisco, 94110 Hermai cr,aol.com Re: Building Height /Demolition/ 432 Cortland Street, Bernal Please note that at the Planning Commission meeting on Feb. 21, Commissioner Myma Melgaz voted "no" on "approval with conditions". She talked about the uniqueness of Bernal and mentioned the traffic problems going from Mission to the Bay Shore. Several Commissioners spoke on the building design be reworked again. A Bernal person spoke on how the 3 stories will impact her house in terms of sunshine. One Commssioner found it difficult to understand a roof patio and a deck on one of the condominiums. Another talked about dinning often at the Liberty Cafe and warring the uniqueness of the street not to change. I turned in over 200 signatures asking for two stories instead of three. Provisional permit means some changes are in order. I urge you to take a position on limiting the height*. By allowing two stories instead of three floors you would have one apartment underground, one business floor, and one condominium. I doubt that any of the rents will be affordable<U+2014>including the business. We do not want a Subway or McDonalds on our street. Those folks can pay the outrageous rents. My heart goes out to the many folks who are being moved out of Bernal-- working class folks janitors, cooks, waitresses, artists, musicians, teachers and retirees. Our diversity makes Bernal livable and enjoyable. I visited Copy Central -3181 Mission St.- where a young businesswoman has worked 9 to 10 hours a day 7 days a wk. for the past S yrs. She has been on a month to month lease. She is paying over $3,500 a month. She works herself for she cannot afford help. She is walking away and closing her business at the end of the month. She indicates she can't sell the business because she doesn't have a lease and can't continue to pay the new rent for the months it might take to find a buyer. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?! It is my understanding that many business spaces are kept vacant for a tau write off and Sup. Paskin is attempting to do something about that. How long will Copy Central be empty? One more note: a building at 317 Cortland was given a 3 story permit a few years ago. The business on the bottom went out of business and has been closed for over a year. I am trying to determine the cost of renting that space. The two apartments on top rent for $3,500 a month. It was on the market last March for 2.8 million. Please reconsider your position on "building up". Our neighborhoods are worth preserving. cc: Bernal Neighbors Memo DATE: 14 March 2019 TO: City Planning Commission FROM: Teresa Ojeda, Manager Information and Analysis Group, Citywide Policy Planning [phone removed] RE: 2018 Q4 PIPELINE Attached, please find a visual summary of the housing development pipeline as of the fourth quarter of 2018 (Q4). At the end of the fourth quarter of 2018, there were some 70,960 net new units in the pipeline. <U+2022> About 8,070 net units are under construction. An additional 8,780 net units are in pro- jects that have building permits to start construction and building permit applications have been filed for projects with about 6,250 units. These units <U+2013> about 23,100 in total <U+2013> are expected to be completed in the coming five years. <U+2022> Of projects that have received Planning entitlement, there are 29,360 net new units in major, multi-phased projects. Candlestick Point, Treasure Island and Parkmerced have all started initial phases and those units are counted in the appropriate construction development stages. <U+2022> About 14,380 net new units are in projects under review. These are projects that have filed for Planning entitlement or for building permits that have yet to receive Planning Department approval. Of these units, a total of 4,000 are in two major, multi-phased projects. <U+2022> There are 13,600 affordable net units in the pipeline, or about 19%. This number is expected to grow as projects under review, as well as some entitled projects, that are subject to the affordable inclusionary requirement have yet to determine the options and number of affordable units to be provided. This informational flyer also illustrates a ten-year housing production trend covering the first quarter of 2009 (Q1) through the fourth quarter of 2018 (Q4). <U+2022> Of the 26,760 net new units built in ten-year reporting period, 7,170 net new units or 27% were affordable. <U+2022> The ten-year annual average during this period is about 2,680 net new units. The 2018 Q4 Development Pipeline dataset can be accessed via DataSF at: https://data.sfgov.org/Housing-and-Buildings/SF-Development-Pipeline-2018-Q4/9kr6-dynr . 2018 Q4 Housing Development Pipeline 70,960 net new units TOTAL PIPELINE UNITS AFFORDABLE UNITS * 13,600 net new units 19% A ordable Entitled Net Units Under Construction 8,070 Building Permits Approved 8,780 Building Permits Filed 6,250 Building Permits Not Yet Filed 4,120 Major Multi-Phased Projects ** 29,360 Under Review Applications Filed 14,380 * Includes only units in projects that have already determined its affordability options (typically at entitlement) and in projects that are 100% affordable. Twenty percent of entitled projects are affordable. ** Remaining phases of project. This does not include net units in phases that have filed for, or have received, building permits or are under construction. 11% 12% 9% 6% 42% 20% sfplanning.org Candlestick Point 9,110 HopeSF 1,680 Treasure Island 7,680 Schlage Lock 1,450 Parkmerced 4,670 Potrero Power Plant 2,700 India Basin 1,575 Pier 70 1,875 Mission Rock 1,330 Balboa Reservoir 1,300 10 Year Housing Production 26,760 net new units TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION AFFORDABLE UNITS* 7,170 net new units 27% A ordable 2009 Q1 - 2018 Q4 UPDATED FEBRUARY 2019show more State Bill 50 -- Bad for San Francisco
As a resident of the Corbett Heights area for more than thirty years, and a San Francisco resident for more than forty-five years, I strongly oppose State Bill 50. It does not guarantee that property development will reflect the distinct qualities of our neighborhoods, nor does it fulfill San Francisco's need for genuinely "affordable" housing. No on SB 50! Sincerely, Ronald L. Ellis 315 Corbett Avenue, #1 San Francisco, CA 94114-1884
Please support the More HOMES Act!Dear SF Planning Commission, I am writing to urge you to support SB 50. This is the most critical piece of legislation California will take up this year and is a generational opportunity to move the state in a better direction. The job of the planning commission is to plan for the future of San Francisco in a way that supports our values, including equity and sustainability. SB 50 would provide much-needed help… Dear SF Planning Commission, I am writing to urge you to support SB 50. This is the most critical piece of legislation California will take up this year and is a generational opportunity to move the state in a better direction. The job of the planning commission is to plan for the future of San Francisco in a way that supports our values, including equity and sustainability. SB 50 would provide much-needed help on both fronts: your own analysis shows that it would increase the supply of affordable housing in SF. It is also needed so that we can stay on track towards our state climate goals, as SB 375 has failed to reduce vehicle miles traveled because it does not have enough teeth to attack the root cause of the problem, which is lack of housing near transit and jobs. I also urge you to consider the value of setting statewide standards. Yes, it means having less local discretion, but it also means that other cities throughout the Bay Area and throughout the state will have to do their part, lessening the burden on San Francisco of having to fight this crisis on its own. Sincerely, Zack Subin ___________________________________________________ Zack Subin 192 Caine Ave. San Francisco, CA 94112 [email removed] | [email removed] | [email removed]show more Cow Hollow resident Letter Opposing SB 50Thursday, 3/14/19 San Francisco Planning Commissioners 1650 Mission Street #400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: Opposition to Senator Scott Wiener<U+2019>s SB 50 legislation Dear San Francisco Planning Commissioners, My sons are the fifth generation to be raised in a moderate house in Cow Hollow. I work full time and also volunteer for both my neighborhood CHA board, the NAPP board in the Presidio, and as a … Thursday, 3/14/19 San Francisco Planning Commissioners 1650 Mission Street #400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: Opposition to Senator Scott Wiener<U+2019>s SB 50 legislation Dear San Francisco Planning Commissioners, My sons are the fifth generation to be raised in a moderate house in Cow Hollow. I work full time and also volunteer for both my neighborhood CHA board, the NAPP board in the Presidio, and as a docent in the Presidio Officer's Club museum. I love this City and cherish the unique neighborhoods. Cow Hollow Association has spent years helping neighbors carefully negotiate how to renovate or build in our neighborhood so that we retain the character, light, height limits, and open green spaces in the centers of the block, which we all love. Senator Scott Wiener<U+2019>s SB 50 legislation is not only an affront to all that we hold dear in Cow Hollow but also throughout San Francisco and the State. The issue in a nutshell is affordable housing. His legislation does nothing to address this and only provides developers with more ability to flaunt the rules carefully set down by the Planning Commission and the Cow Hollow Neighborhood Design Guidelines to increase their profit. This legislation will result in large expensive properties and not address affordable housing at all. Without a vision and funds to improve the transit technology and its reach throughout the City and Bay Area, this bill<U+2019>s claim of building that encourages use of public transportation does not have factual data to support it. I ask that the Planning Commission recommend the San Francisco Board of Supervisors pass a resolution Opposing SB 50. There are ways to solve our housing crisis and it will take hard work, discipline, and some thoughtful choices on the part of the state and the City of San Francisco to address the economic disparities that have arisen. This legislation does none of that. Sincerely, Cynthia Gissler 2727 Baker Street San Francisco, CA 94123show more SB50 Sensitive Communities Maps, Planning Commission 3-14-2019 Agenda Item #12Dear Commissioners: CCHO has not yet taken a formal position to support or oppose SB50. However, the definition of "Sensitive Communities" is of primary concern, as well as whether the policy will be an indefinite deferral giving self-determination for these communities that have faced decades of disinvestment and redlining, and now face a crisis of evictions and displacement, to decide for themselves o… Dear Commissioners: CCHO has not yet taken a formal position to support or oppose SB50. However, the definition of "Sensitive Communities" is of primary concern, as well as whether the policy will be an indefinite deferral giving self-determination for these communities that have faced decades of disinvestment and redlining, and now face a crisis of evictions and displacement, to decide for themselves on development incentives that exacerbate real-estate speculation. For reference, we include the Planning Department's own Community Stabilization Strategy Fact Sheet, which includes the definitive map of communities at-risk of displacement or facing ongoing and advanced gentrification. CCHO expressed before the CASA Steering Committee that any upzoning measures need to sort out the definition so that one way or another they cover the areas of San Francisco that are experiencing gentrification, displacement, and high rates of evictions (this question also affects other at- risk communities in the Bay Area not covered in the MTC map, such as the Canal District in San Rafael). The analysis developed by UC Berkeley's Urban Displacement Project, which is now incorporated into the SF Planning Department's Community Stabilization Strategy, should be the basis for any "sensitive communities" deferral. The latest MTC/SB50 map greatly differs from SF<U+2019>s own Community Stabilization Strategy map. West SoMa (except for the census tract containing the jail), parts of greater Chinatown, much of the Mission (except for the census tracts containing the two public housing developments), parts of Bayview/Third Street corridor and of Western Addition, the Portola district, parts of the Castro and much of Inner Richmond, identified as sensitive communities in the UC Berkeley analysis and incorporated by the SF Planning Department, are left out in the MTC map. In other words, heavily working-class and communities of color, currently at risk of or facing advanced gentrification, rent burden and evictions, are ignored in the current SB50 maps. Additional comments and concerns regarding the CASA upzoning incentives, which are applicable to SB50, can be found in CCHO's December SF Examiner op ed, found here, http://www.sfexaminer.com/casa-important-housing-deal-youve-never-heard/. Sincerely, Fernando Mart, Co-Director Council of Community Housing Organizations CCHO Action Celebrating 40 years as the voice of San Francisco's affordable housing movement 325 Clementina Street, San Francisco 94103 [phone removed] office www.sfccho.org www.sfcchoaction.orgshow more I Support The More HOMES ActHi Commissioners, just wanted to say that I fully support the More HOMES Act. Legalizing duplexes, triplexes, and quads across this city (especially near transit) is essential for a thriving middle-class. San Francisco has systematically under built housing for the last 30+ years. We want to be a welcoming city, the reality is that we are not. We've essentially built a wall, saying if you don't earn 2… Hi Commissioners, just wanted to say that I fully support the More HOMES Act. Legalizing duplexes, triplexes, and quads across this city (especially near transit) is essential for a thriving middle-class. San Francisco has systematically under built housing for the last 30+ years. We want to be a welcoming city, the reality is that we are not. We've essentially built a wall, saying if you don't earn 200k+ a year, you're not welcome here. We need to figure out how to build 20,000 units a year. <5,000 is not sufficient. The More Homes Act is a step in the right direction. Rex Salisbury SF Resident, District 2show more I Support The More HOMES ActI support SB50, the More HOMES Act. As someone in their thirties hoping to find a way to live in San Francisco, I know it is imperative that we build more housing in order to make that a reality. And when we focus that density/housing in transit corridors, the city can provide critical housing and also support its sustainability goals and support public transportation. The bill would also create a state floor for i… I support SB50, the More HOMES Act. As someone in their thirties hoping to find a way to live in San Francisco, I know it is imperative that we build more housing in order to make that a reality. And when we focus that density/housing in transit corridors, the city can provide critical housing and also support its sustainability goals and support public transportation. The bill would also create a state floor for inclusionary units while maintaining local control. The bill legalizes important larger unit types that we need to keep families in affordable units across the city. This is a bill we need. If the commission believes that young professionals without the good fortune of a tech salary like me should be able to live in San Francisco, I expect you will support SB50 and MORE HOMES along transit corridors! Don't let me down. Thanks, Will Bloomershow more Public Comment for the record re: Senate Bill 503/14/19 Public Comment for the record re: Senate Bill 50 Anastasia Yovanopoulos, Noe Valley Tenant Although Senate Bill 50 extends protection to tenants by exempting buildings, that are tenant occupied or have previously been tenant occupied, from qualifying for the program, the 63% of San Francisco residents including 14% renting single family homes are not protected at all, because our c… 3/14/19 Public Comment for the record re: Senate Bill 50 Anastasia Yovanopoulos, Noe Valley Tenant Although Senate Bill 50 extends protection to tenants by exempting buildings, that are tenant occupied or have previously been tenant occupied, from qualifying for the program, the 63% of San Francisco residents including 14% renting single family homes are not protected at all, because our city doesn't have a sure way of knowing whether a building is, or has been tenant occupied. There is no tenant data base or registry of tenant occupancy. How can this city be expected to implement SB 50 unless all the provisions to ensure that tenants are protected are in place? Commissioners: Should SB 50 pass, I ask that the city proclaim a moratorium on implementing this legislation until the city has complete information regarding past and present tenant occupancy.show more Strongly Opposed to SB50Dear Elected Officials, I am a district 2 resident and homeowner who strongly opposes SB50 for the following reasons: - SB 50 up-zones virtually (96%) all of San Francisco, making no allowance for differences in individual neighborhoods to adequately handle increased housing density. - San Francisco's transportation infrastructure in totally inadequate to support the level of housing density proposed by S… Dear Elected Officials, I am a district 2 resident and homeowner who strongly opposes SB50 for the following reasons: - SB 50 up-zones virtually (96%) all of San Francisco, making no allowance for differences in individual neighborhoods to adequately handle increased housing density. - San Francisco's transportation infrastructure in totally inadequate to support the level of housing density proposed by SB50. SB50 definition of a transit corridor as a MUNI bus line is absurdly broad. The majority of the city's northern and western neighborhoods have no fixed rail transportation at all, with all MUNI buses reliant on surface streets. Excessive traffic congestion, a double-parking epidemic, widespread potholes, numerous public works (sewer, water, etc), and construction projects make these surface streets woefully inadequate to handle current traffic loads. Even as traffic has increased in recent years, MUNI ridership has actually decreased because the service is so bad that many customers view ride sharing or individual cars as a much more attractive alternative or as a necessity (which they are to get to most places in the bay area). To assume that the increased residential population resulting from SB50 would all ride MUNI buses (something the proponents of SB 50 magically believe) is totally inconsistent with recent traffic and bus ridership trends. This lack of transportation infrastructure would only mean more cars, more pollution, more traffic, worse streets and even worse bus service. Infrastructure needs to come before increased housing density. San Francisco can't support the density levels of a New York, London, Tokyo or Paris because we lack the transportation infrastructure (i.e., effective underground mass transit) to handle the density. - SB 50 would result in the loss of numerous residential areas due to higher density and the elimination of single family zoning. These residential areas are important to the character of the city and are consistent with the city's current infrastructure. - SB 50 would allow developers (without any community input) to make zoning decisions. Zoning decisions should remain in the hands of the local communities, who are in a position to assess the broader environmental, community, transportation, infrastructure and neighborhood impacts of a project. Developers have no long term interest or commitment to the community and should not be given this zoning "blank check". - The combination of SB50 with the State Density Bonus and the Housing Accountability Act would allow increased heights of up to 70 feet in residential areas and up to 75 feet in commercial districts. Additionally, if developers include a certain percentage of affordable housing in their project, besides the increased height and density, they would be allowed three exemptions from current building codes. These provisions would result in mega-projects within existing neighborhoods that are totally out of character with those existing neighborhoods with no recourse to the local community. - Pollution will increase and pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist safety will be reduced due to even greater car traffic, as San Francisco's lack of transportation infrastructure (see above) will only encourage (but effectively force) the occupants of these new projects to have or use cars (as there is no other viable option). SB 50 would be a major mistake for California and an even bigger mistake for San Francisco. It doesn't address the housing affordability issue and would seriously negatively impact the character of our neighborhoods and the quality of life in San Francisco. Sincerely, Michael G Muellershow more