Four-Unit Density Exception For Residential Districts [Board File No. 210866]

2020-11-05 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Gerald Cauthen Pe · email · 2020-11-05 · oppose · source packet

Switching from the Politically Correct to Something More Practical
Honorable SF Planning Commissioners: The frantic efforts of Senator Weiner notwithstanding, the promotion of housing, subsidized or otherwise, in ultra high cost, already built-up cities like San Francisco defies credulity. But it's when YIMBY compulsion pushes ahead with no thought given to the existing ambiance of the affected areas that things really go off the rails. Jobs and new housing should be loc… show more

2021-07-08 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Vivian Dwyer · email · 2021-07-08 · oppose · source packet

Planning Commission July 22nd hearing - AIA Letter in opposition to Mandelman's
Legislative Section 319 Review of Large Residence Developments To the San Francisco Planning Commission, The AIA Public Policy and Advocacy Committee is submitting this signed letter in opposition to Mandelman's Legislative Section 319 Review of Large Residence Developments to be reviewed in the July 22nd Planning Commission Hearing. We would appreciate that you will consider our comments with the seriou… show more

2021-07-22 · 2 comments · 0 / 2

Mark English · email · 2021-07-22 · oppose · source packet

Rafael Mandelman has proposed legislation
Dear Commissioners, As a residential architect with 30 years of experience working in San Francisco and the Bay Area, I am completely against the proposed legislation by Supervisor Mandelman. What possible good outcome would come out of this legislation? The gulf of credibility between real people in the City, and the ruling class increases every year and is increasingly Kafka-esque. Most existing 2 story homes … Dear Commissioners, As a residential architect with 30 years of experience working in San Francisco and the Bay Area, I am completely against the proposed legislation by Supervisor Mandelman. What possible good outcome would come out of this legislation? The gulf of credibility between real people in the City, and the ruling class increases every year and is increasingly Kafka-esque. Most existing 2 story homes are already near or above the 2500 sf mark. Calling these <U+201C>Large Residence Developments<U+201D> is simply incorrect, and the proponents know this. In addition, does anyone actually think that making the system even more draconian will foster the development of more housing units? This is a fantasy, and a cynical one. This is simply a back door way of suppressing change to the built environment without having enough respect for the residents of this city to present it for what it is. Overuse of CEQA in San Francisco evidently has not accomplished the desired suppression. Mark English, AIA Supervisor Rafael Mandelman has proposed legislation that would create a new section of the Planning Code, Section 319 Large Residence Developments'. This legislation seeks to establish an absolute maximum home size of 2500sf, above which most residential projects must obtain a Conditional Use Authorization for approval. Moreover, it bakes in redundant reviews: mandating that all properties with potential or actual historic value are automatically subject to CUA, and retaining the right to Discretionary Review, giving neighbors an additional tool to slow or stop projects. In all, the proposed legislation, if it becomes law, will increase the risk, cost, and time burden for residential expansions and the construction of new units in these districts, without improving the supply of affordable housing. Please send all written correspondence to my NAPA address. OFFICE: NAPA 1708 Los Carneros Avenue Napa, CA 94559 t: [phone removed] OFFICE: SAN FRANCISCO 315 Sutter Street 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 t: [phone removed] xtn 1001 www.markenglisharchitects.com Blog: thearchitectstake.com Twitter: Markenglisharch The contents of this email and any attachments to it contain confidential and/or legally privileged information from Mark English architects or its affiliates. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, taking action in reliance upon or use of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.show more

Michael Harris · email · 2021-07-22 · oppose · source packet

SF planning code change being proposed by Supervisor Rafael Mandelman.
Planning Commission My understanding is that this legislation is a reaction to two issues; lack of units and <U+201C>monster homes<U+201D>? I want more density and don<U+2019>t want <U+201C>monster<U+201D> homes, but Supervisor Mandelman<U+2019>s current proposal is poor legislation. 1. The Planning Commission should not be deciding every time someone wants to build a single fami… Planning Commission My understanding is that this legislation is a reaction to two issues; lack of units and <U+201C>monster homes<U+201D>? I want more density and don<U+2019>t want <U+201C>monster<U+201D> homes, but Supervisor Mandelman<U+2019>s current proposal is poor legislation. 1. The Planning Commission should not be deciding every time someone wants to build a single family house or a unit over 2500 sf. Too many projects already go before the Planning Commission. The SF Planning Code is already a mess by being a discretionary code. Good legislation does not punt to the Planning Commission but crates standards rules that allow one to build. San Francisco already is the most expensive and time consuming place to build and this will slow down all projects including the housing you want to build, an already cumbersome process will become glacier. A goal should be to redo the out of date and convoluted Planning Code, fewer projects should go before the Commission not more. 2. Pick a more reasonable size, 2500 sf gross, is hardly a big house; the way the Planning Code determines size, it is approximately the size of a two story house in the Sunset, as outside walls and all interior spaces including storage and parking-except in a below grade basement are included. Building a 3 bedroom 2 1/2 bath house without particularly large rooms and parking would be a tight fit, let alone a house for an extended family with grandparents or grandchildren. This proposal is too drastic a reduction from what the code allows now, assuming 3 stories of 1200 sf each (114<U+2019> deep lot with 45% rear yard)-is 3600 with a 30% rear yard it would be 4800sf for 3 stories. I think if you picked 3,000 sf and 4000 sf depending on zoning there would be more support. Most cities have FAR or some type of size limit. the story could also be included, 3 for single family 4 for more units, pick a reasonable limit and put it in the code and include bonuses for more units. 3. Do you really want to eliminate single family homes? Do property owners have so little control of their property? Is it fair that so many San Franciscans already have single family homes that now you want to deny them to others? Give incentives to build more units. I feel that some of Supervisor Mandelman<U+2019>s legislation related planning and building are reactive to a situation but do not do not adequately understand the consequences of the proposed solutions. I think if you defined the problem and worked with the Planning dept, community, and professionals better legislation would be created, I am disappointed that this is not the way it is done. Michael Harris 333 Cumberlandshow more

2021-07-29 · 2 comments · 0 / 2

Nick Noyes · email · 2021-07-29 · oppose · source packet

SF planning code change being proposed by Supervisor Rafael Mandelman
Audrey, The SF planning code change being proposed by Supervisor Rafael Mandelman is absurd and will drastically impact the livability of our City. Best, Nick -- Nick Noyes - FAIA Nick Noyes Architecture [phone removed] [email removed] http://www.nnarchitecture.com

Serina Calhoun · email · 2021-07-29 · oppose · source packet

Conditional Use proposal - Board file 210564
Good afternoon Commissioners and Supervisors, I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the proposed legislation. I am an architect and have practiced for 20 years in the Bay Area. In the majority of the country, a home of 2,500 sf is a modest sized home, yet this legislation presumes it is a <U+201C>monster<U+201D> development. In my practice, I have worked with many Chinese, Indian, and… Good afternoon Commissioners and Supervisors, I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the proposed legislation. I am an architect and have practiced for 20 years in the Bay Area. In the majority of the country, a home of 2,500 sf is a modest sized home, yet this legislation presumes it is a <U+201C>monster<U+201D> development. In my practice, I have worked with many Chinese, Indian, and Mexican families who live in households with multiple generations together. Those families often require more than 2,500 sf so that 2, 3, or even 4 generations of family members can live together. I<U+2019>m sure it was not the intent, but this legislation is discriminatory. This proposed legislation smacks of the demolition legislation proposed last year. It tries to mandate how people should live. There simply is no single way in which people create a home. Not only does this legislation create a discriminatory policy, but it further delays projects across the city. Many of my residential clients come to me while they are pregnant, often with their first child. They are astonished when I explain that even a modest addition will take 2-5 years for city approvals. It<U+2019>s crushing for me to have to tell my clients their child will be walking and talking before their project is approved, but that is often the case. My experience in working in SF clearly shows that the challenge to creating housing lies in streamlining permitting, rather than creating more restrictions, more hurdles, and more delays to construction projects. I welcome the opportunity to work with the Supervisors to help craft legislation that incentivizes new housing, while protecting homeowner<U+2019>s rights to live in a way that works for their family<U+2019>s needs. Please don<U+2019>t hesitate to contact me. I<U+2019>d love to be part of helping to create a solution with you. All the best, Serina Calhoun Principal Architect syncopated architecture [phone removed] Property ATLAS is dedicated to helping architects and engineers provide higher quality service to their clients AND save time while doing it. Check out our automated (major time saving) permit tracking: https://youtu.be/dTnhBiaAA_Eshow more

2021-09-09 · 3 comments · 3 / 0

Amy Yvonne Yu · email · 2021-09-09 · support · source packet

9.9.2021 Planning Commission Hearing: Sup. Mandelman's ADU legislation
Dear Commissioners, My name is Amy Yu, a tenant at 530 Stockton Street. I am writing to express my strong support for Supervisor Mandelman<U+2019>s proposed ordinance clarifying the existing rights of tenants to their contracted housing services. This legislation is not about stopping ADUs<U+2014>it<U+2019>s about protecting the already established rights of tenants such as myself. At 530 Stockt… Dear Commissioners, My name is Amy Yu, a tenant at 530 Stockton Street. I am writing to express my strong support for Supervisor Mandelman<U+2019>s proposed ordinance clarifying the existing rights of tenants to their contracted housing services. This legislation is not about stopping ADUs<U+2014>it<U+2019>s about protecting the already established rights of tenants such as myself. At 530 Stockton Street, our landlord Brick+Timber (Ballast Investments) unlawfully removed our housing services this March as an attempt to vacate more long term tenants. Without proper notification of 15 days, they unlawfully removed our basement services in less than 3 days: laundry, backyard access, secure bike storage, parking spaces, and basement exit (which was also our secondary egress) under the guise of an ADU renovation. This caused much distress for all tenants who relied on these services, especially during a pandemic. Our 6 story building is on a 45 degree incline with a constantly broken elevator, just not having laundry alone was a huge point of contention for many tenants in the building. Tenants stored their bikes in the secure storage to prevent damage from the elements and theft. Many also used our backyard daily to get some much needed fresh air in between our work from home days from our tiny 400 square feet studios in addition to walking and relieving theirs dogs. Additionally, there was at least 1 parking spot that was leased at the time the basement services were removed. Just from this incident alone, 2 more long term tenants moved out of the building shortly. Had this legislation been put into effect, then our housing services should have never been severed at all and the long term tenants would not have felt like they had to move due to the lack of housing services. I highly encourage the Commission to recommend this ordinance to the Board of Supervisors. It is fair, reasonable, and clarifies the existing rights of tenants without jeopardizing the City<U+2019>s housing goals. Thank you very much for your consideration, Amy Yu Member, Ballast Tenants Associationshow more

David Drevno · email · 2021-09-09 · support · source packet

Support of Supervisor Mandelman<U+2019>s Ordinance
Dear Commissioners, My name is David Drevno. My wife, Katie and I are tenants at 700 Church St. We have lived in the building for over 13 years. I am writing to express my strong support for Supervisor Mandelman<U+2019>s proposed ordinance clarifying the existing rights of tenants to their contracted housing services. This legislation is not about stopping ADUs<U+2014>it<U+2019>s about protecting th… show more

Henrietta Weiner · email · 2021-09-09 · support · source packet

Support Supervisor Mandelman's ADU Ordinance
Dear Commissioners, My name is Henrietta Weiner, and I am a tenant at 700 CHURCH, #101. I am writing to express my strong support for Supervisor Mandelman<U+2019>s proposed ordinance clarifying the existing rights of tenants to their contracted housing services. This legislation is not about stopping ADUs<U+2014>it<U+2019>s about protecting the already established rights of tenants such as mysel… show more

2021-09-23 · 3 comments · 0 / 3

Sarah Willmer · email · 2021-09-23 · oppose · source packet

File No. 210116: Legislative Section 319 Review of Large Residence Developments
Dear Planning Commission, I would like to express my deepest concerns regarding the legislation being proposed by Rafael Mandelman. I am the owner of a small residential architecture studio. We are 7 women and the majority of our work is residential design in SF. Most of our residential renovations / additions are for growing families in SF that choose to stay in the city and send their children to public schools.… Dear Planning Commission, I would like to express my deepest concerns regarding the legislation being proposed by Rafael Mandelman. I am the owner of a small residential architecture studio. We are 7 women and the majority of our work is residential design in SF. Most of our residential renovations / additions are for growing families in SF that choose to stay in the city and send their children to public schools. These renovations, that often result in usable (not including garages and exterior walls) sq.ft. bigger than 2,500, accommodates their expanding family, inter-generational parent help and often one parent working from home. If this work that we have been doing for the last 20 years is limited by this legislation it will have profound impacts. It will put my small business and associated construction industry out of business. Plus and equally impactful to San Francisco, it will encourage more families to move out of the city to places that embrace their goals of creating a home that allows for their growing family needs, multigenerational living and working from home. I am also a resident of Noe Valley, raised our two children in a home we renovated and sent our kids to public schools. I feel all parents should have the same opportunity. I feel that Mandelman<U+2019>s efforts here are really short sighted and wasteful of many people<U+2019>s time, his staff, yours, the SF Planning Dept and professionals and homeowners like myself as we try to understand why this legislation has long term value to the growth of this city. This is not where all our energy and time should be spent. San Francisco has a housing crisis but this legislation will do nothing to create affordable housing only exacerbate an already cumbersome and costly planning review process and encourage families to leave. I encourage you to not support this legislation but to advocate for more creative ways to solve the housing crisis. Regards, Sarah Willmer, AIA Studio Sarah Willmer, Architecture [phone removed] mobile www.studio-sw.comshow more

Vivian Dwyer · email · 2021-09-23 · oppose · source packet

Planning Commission September 23rd hearing - AIA Letter in opposition to Mandelman's
Legislative Section 319 Review of Large Residence Developments:SFBOS FILE #210116 To the San Francisco Planning Commission, The AIA Public Policy and Advocacy Committee is submitting this signed letter in opposition to Mandelman's Legislative Section 319 Review of Large Residence Developments to be reviewed in the September 23rd Planning Commission Hearing. We would appreciate that you will consider our … Legislative Section 319 Review of Large Residence Developments:SFBOS FILE #210116 To the San Francisco Planning Commission, The AIA Public Policy and Advocacy Committee is submitting this signed letter in opposition to Mandelman's Legislative Section 319 Review of Large Residence Developments to be reviewed in the September 23rd Planning Commission Hearing. We would appreciate that you will consider our comments with the seriousness that this proposed legislation should be reviewed. Thank you, AIA PPAC Chair, Vivian Dwyer DWYER DESIGN 1965 page street #201 san francisco ca 94117 [phone removed] dwyer-design.com AIA San Francisco 150 Sutter #814 San Francisco, CA 94104 T [phone removed] | E [email removed] www.aiasf.org 06.28.21 Supervisor Mandelman<U+2019>s LARGE RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION, SFBOS FILE #210116: AN INITIATIVE TO REGULATE HOME SIZE In recent years, we have seen several attempts by both the Planning Department and the Board of Supervisors to place a city-wide, universal limit on the size of an individual housing unit in San Francisco; in every case that limit is well below the typical home size in many parts of the city and includes many spaces within a unit that are neither occupied nor habitable. These legislative initiatives aim to maintain a predominance of small units in formerly working-class neighborhoods under the misguided belief that such controls will depress home prices and create affordability where it no longer exists. In this context, Supervisor Rafael Mandelman has proposed legislation that would create a new section of the Planning Code, Section 319, that would require a Conditional Use Authorization (CUA) for any single-family home, or any multi-unit, residential construction in an RH district resulting in any unit exceeding 2,500 GSF, regardless of the number of units proposed on the site. It also seeks to <U+201C>protect and enhance the neighborhood character<U+201D>, regulating aesthetics, as if the Planning Department did not already follow a rigorous and time-consuming review of existing conditions, historical significance, and neighborhood context. As written, this legislation discriminates against those with larger families or households, often those of more modest means and people of color. Current Planning regulations control the size of residential buildings by form-based criteria defining the allowable building envelope, such as setbacks, rear yards, and height requirements, which are further limited by the Residential Design Guidelines; this legislation substantially reduces what is allowed even further. The proposed Section 319, increases the risk, cost, and time burden for residential expansions and the construction of new units in these districts, without improving the supply of affordable housing. We are recommending some changes that may bring this policy more into the realm of city-wide urban planning and away from the kind of lot- by-lot legislation that slows development and increases the cost of building housing units in RH districts. We need to be streamlining permitting, not adding additional process. The delays and costs of Planning<U+2019>s existing policies continue to drive families from the City, when we already have the lowest percentage of families with kids of any major US city. IF THIS LEGISLATION IS TO MOVE FORWARD, THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS ARE NEEDED: 1. Raise the size of units allowed in RH zoning districts before triggering CUA from 2,500 GSF (gross square feet) as the trigger for CUA for any unit in an RH district. This is simply too small for many households, especially because the sum of uninhabitable space<U+2014>such as ground floor and attic space, parking in other than basements, and outdoor exit stairs --can easily reach 1,000 sf, reducing the living space to 1,500 sf or less in many cases. Such a small unit excludes multi-generational households and many families with children. A February 7th article in the New York Times about ADU<U+2019>s states that by 2016, the number of adults in the US living on the same property with parents or grandparents had reached close to its 1950 peak. While the ADU is a great option for many, it does not work as a fix for all large or extended families or households. These units are expensive to build and are not allowed to be interconnected with the primary unit. 1. Change the definition of area used in calculations to exclude the square footage of unoccupied ground floor and attic spaces, exterior walls, parking, and mechanical rooms. The use of Gross Square Feet (GSF) as a measure of a unit<U+2019>s size is not in keeping with people<U+2019>s perceptions, and Assessor<U+2019>s Office and real estate practices and includes many areas not typically counted. In addition, when exterior walls and mechanical spaces are included, a project sponsor is penalized for energy efficient measures resulting in thickened walls and large mechanical spaces. 2. Allow units to expand without CUA on a sliding scale proportional to their current size: <U+2022> Eliminate expansion limits resulting in units equal to or less than 3,000 sf . <U+2022> Allow 50% expansion of units between 3,001 <U+2013> 3,500 sf <U+2022> Allow 25% expansion between 3,501 <U+2013> 4,000 sf <U+2022> Allow 15% expansion between 4,001 <U+2013> 4,500 sf <U+2022> Allow 10% between 4,501 sf and over 3. Do not include in the calculation of allowable % increases <U+201C>all development performed on the lot within the last 10 years<U+201D> before these restrictions even existed. The unit is now what size it is, that should be the starting point. The legislation punishes people for additions that were completed prior to this legislation even being contemplated. 4. Do not include in the regulations and criteria for Findings for a CUA criteria that are already regulated by Planning in existing regulations and processes: It is a waste of the Commission<U+2019>s time and energy, and Project Sponsors<U+2019> financial resources and time to revisit their determination. We need to be streamlining reviews. <U+2022> Remove from CUA considerations <U+201C>whether the development proposes to remove more than 50% of the existing front faade<U+201D>. Demolition in Section 317, the Historic Preservation review process, and the Residential Design Guidelines already regulate the front faade. <U+2022> Review of historic buildings is already covered by the Historic Preservation Commission for declared Landmarks and Districts, and by CEQA for Historic Resources and Districts. <U+2022> Regulations to <U+201C>protect and enhance the neighborhood character<U+201D> are already enshrined in the Residential Design Guidelines. 5. Grandfathering: Change the applicability of the ordinance to instances where a complete Development Application is submitted after the effective date of the legislation rather than the date legislation was introduced (February 2, 2021). There is no rational argument for holding citizens responsible for following laws that have not gone into effect, and which few will know are even being considered. Realistically, for all but the very wealthy, it means all design and permit review of development that might trigger CUA would rationally need to stop until the final passage or failure to pass of the legislation occurs. Let us speak the truth about affordability. Finally, it is time to let go of the myth that small is affordable. The cost of construction, in dollars per square foot, is more expensive the smaller the unit. A family with a $500,000 budget for housing cannot buy a market-rate apartment or house in San Francisco under any circumstances, because units are selling for upwards of $800/sf and construction costs are upwards of $500/sf, not including the cost of land, permit fees, architectural and engineering fees, nor the cost of holding the property for two years and living somewhere else while permits are processed, plus another year for construction. So even a brand-new apartment built cheaply will be marketed at $800 - $1000/sf, making the available unit between 500sf and 625sf, clearly not suitable for a household larger than two intimate partners. Respectfully submitted, Vivian Dwyer AIA, Chair, SF AIA Public Policy & Advocacy Committee Karin Payson AIA, Co-Chair, SF AIA Public Policy & Advocacy Committeeshow more

Kelley Coelho · email · 2021-09-23 · oppose · source packet

Opposition Response Letter to File No. 210116: Legislative Section 319 Review of Large
Residence Developments Hello, Please see my attached letter in opposition to File No. 210116: Legislative Section 319 Review of Large Residence Developments. This is not the right legislation for the families of San Francisco. Respectfully, Kelley Coelho STUDIO SARAH WILLMER A R C H I T E C T U R E 3850 23rd Street San Francisco, CA 94114 Office: [phone removed] Cell: [phone removed] www.studio-sw.com R… Residence Developments Hello, Please see my attached letter in opposition to File No. 210116: Legislative Section 319 Review of Large Residence Developments. This is not the right legislation for the families of San Francisco. Respectfully, Kelley Coelho STUDIO SARAH WILLMER A R C H I T E C T U R E 3850 23rd Street San Francisco, CA 94114 Office: [phone removed] Cell: [phone removed] www.studio-sw.com Response to to File No. 210116: Legislative Section 319 Review of Large Residence Developments. Date: 09.22.21 To Whom It May Concern: I do not support this legislation based on the negative impact it will have 1. It adversely changes the intent of zoning laws that typically use form-based regulations, i.e yards, setbacks, and height limitations to determine what can be developed allowing for the variety of lot conditions and sizes to create a rich diverse urban fabric. 2. It will add time and expense. 3. It will add workload for Planning Staff and Commissioners to a system overburdened with Conditional Use Authorizations. 4. It will not encourage density or create affordable housing. 5. It will not discourage large construction. I support the proposed alternative suggestions to address Mandelman<U+2019>s concerns 1. Change the definition of area used in calculations to exclude the square footage of unoccupied ground floor and attic spaces, exterior walls, parking, and mechanical rooms. 2. Allow units to expand without CUA on a sliding scale proportional to their current size: <U+2022> Eliminate expansion limits resulting in units equal to or less than 3,000 sf . <U+2022> Allow 50% expansion of units between 3,001 <U+2013> 3,500 sf <U+2022> Allow 25% expansion between 3,501 <U+2013> 4,000 sf <U+2022> Allow 15% expansion between 4,001 <U+2013> 4,500 sf <U+2022> Allow 10% between 4,501 sf and over 3. Do not include in the calculation of allowable % increases <U+201C>all development performed on the lot within the last 10 years<U+201D> before these restrictions even existed. 4. Do not include in the regulations and criteria for Findings for a CUA criteria that are already regulated by Planning in existing regulations and processes 5. Grandfathering: Change the applicability of the ordinance to instances where a complete Development Application is submitted after the effective date of the legislation rather than the date legislation was introduced (February 2, 2021). I support efforts to: 1. Allow housing to adapt to accommodate the diverse community that occupies the Bay Area 2. Provide life and health safety measure and seismic upgrades 3. Adapt Sustainability and Energy Conservation methods 4. Encourage up-zoning to allow for density Sincerely, Kelley Coelho [email removed] [phone removed]show more

2021-11-18 · 53 comments · 43 / 9

Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Land value

Annie Hsia · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Besides the form letter below which you probably have received by the thousands by now, I want to tell you why I support this legislation. As a first generation immigrant, I long ago fell in love with the culture, diversity, and ethos of San Francisco. I somehow managed to find residence here and now, a… show more

Gisela Schmoll · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm reaching out to you today to encourage you to support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. We have a housing affordability issue and much … show more

Colleen Beach · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm reaching out to you to urge you to support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. Please pass this legislation! Colleen Beach [email removed] San Francisco, California 94127

Lee Markosian · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments in San Francisco
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I<U+2019>m writing as a long-time resident to let you know how extremely disappointed I am in the city leadership. Today the BoS is meeting to address the question, <U+201C>Should 4-plexes be allowed in San Francisco?<U+201D> How is this even a question? Why do I have to take time out … show more

Stephanie Beechem · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Hello Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm reaching out to you today to encourage you to support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. As this region<U+2019>s economic hub, th… show more

Colby Hastings · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Supporting Expanding Apartments in SF
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, The housing situation is San Francisco is broken. I've watched countless friends leave the city for lack of affordable housing. Our homeless situation is an embarrassment before the eyes of the world. And as long as I have lived here I've watched our city government do very little to help the … show more

Roan Kattouw · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm reaching out to you today to encourage you to support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. It's not nearly enough to end our housing … show more

Heather Stewart · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm reaching out to you today to encourage you to support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. Zoning must change in San Francisco to allow no… show more

Gail Macgowan · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Cities by definition mean housing that is denser than that found in suburbs. Dense housing is a necessary tradeoff for the richness in business and cultural offerings available in cities. San Francisco is failing to house its residents. That is why I strongly Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislati… show more

Urvi Nagrani · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Please support apartments everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, The house I grew up in was controversial at the time. The former landowner split the lot into two parcels, and used prefabricated units stacked on top of each other to make another house. Where once there was a single home, there were two. Some neighbors complained about their lost view, others were wor… Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, The house I grew up in was controversial at the time. The former landowner split the lot into two parcels, and used prefabricated units stacked on top of each other to make another house. Where once there was a single home, there were two. Some neighbors complained about their lost view, others were worried the small street would be overrun with traffic. Years later they made the same arguments when a house up the street did the same, splitting their lot into 3. In both cases, the neighborhood traffic was barely impacted. But the neighborhood did change. For a year after my family moved into our house, I was born, and had access to great public schools and a community I still cherish. Our next-door neighbor lived in there until his death, but after he died his home was split into a duplex. Our new neighbor lives in one, and his sister's family in the other. Meanwhile, the home values skyrocket. The small neighborhood I grew up in Los Altos has continued to be inaccessible broadly, but the area near my parent's home where lots were split are where we've seen the community become more diverse, young families start, and opportunities associated with the community become more accessible. As San Francisco considers whether to allow residential lots to split to allow more homes, I think of the opportunities I've only had based on geography, enabled by someone before my birth deciding "Yes, more people can live here", it enabled my parents to live in an area with great schools for us kids and access to work and opportunities that made the American dream possible for an immigrant family. I want this for my future neighbors. I think of how I didn't get to ride buses growing up in the suburbs because transit was inaccessible. And it wasn't unless I was going out with a friend in SF that I got to ride muni or take BART. Her experiences living in San Francisco were different than mine, she knew gay families and more immigrants who looked like us. I think of all the joys the city has provided me, the wonderful parks my niece plays in, the conservatory of flowers, the beaches, the restaurants, the playhouses, the walkable neighborhoods - and I want to share it all. I'm sharing this story of my own experience because when I think about Supervisor Mandelman's legislation to allow 4 units on every residential lot and 6 units on corner lots, I don't think of a faceless policy. I think of people like my parents getting a home in a community that they're likely going to cherish for the next 30+ years. That increase in housing could help us be more affordable, accessible, and increase our housing stock to allow more diversity, and that has a real value. But it also has more value as we think about the future. This summer we saw heatwaves across the entire west coast with temperatures in the 100s, with a notable exception. The microclimates of SF, and the geography of our peninsula meant the waters that surround our 49 square miles also kept us significantly cooler. It allowed the marine layer to come in every night giving us cleaner air when fires raged across the state. That clean air and livable climate is something that will become more scarce as climate change progresses, and those of us in safer and more habitable spaces must make it easier to share it so that fewer Californians need to live in wildfire-urban interface communities that must evacuate during red flag warnings. Many residents around SF have signs saying refugees welcome here, but we barely have affordable housing for our neighbors who work in our city and commute in every day. We can and must do better. So I urge you to pass Supervisor Mandelman's legislation and to also be aware this must be a first step not a last step. We have a duty to be the welcoming city that so many fall in love with so the next generation can leave their hearts here too. Best, Urvi Nagrani Urvi Nagrani [email removed] San Francisco, California 94104show more

Jason Friedman · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Legalize Apartment Buildings Everywhere
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I live in in Fairmont Heights and have seen the way developers have taken advantage of restrictive zoning to build monstrous homes on spec--projects that sometimes don't reach fruition and remain blights on the neighborhood. And even when they do get built, they're usually investment homes tha… show more

Joris Van Mens · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Please legalize more new housing
Commission Commission Secretary, Please support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize 4-6 units on single residential lots, and any other legislation that helps us reduce the enormous housing shortage in SF. Thank you! Joris van Mens [email removed] San Francisco, California 94103

Chris Chidsey · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Supervisor Mar, Planning Commissioners and Other Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, As a Sunset resident, I am aware of the terrible record of our neighborhood in building more housing and particularly density along the transportation corridors. Indeed, there are sadly vacant lots and worse that sit empty because of the terrible NIMBYism in the Sunset. I'm re… show more

Timothy Bauman · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm reaching out to you today to encourage you to support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. San Francisco has been expensive for decades, b… show more

Jacee Mchugh · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Build a multi unit building next door to me!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm reaching out today to encourage you to support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with the Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. I live in Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's distr… show more

Sarah Willmer · spoken · 2021-11-18 · neutral

Separate SB 9 from Sup. Mandelman's proposal

Milo Trauss · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Ira Kaplan · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Small step in the right direction

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

The October 21st Executive Summary from Staff analyzing SB-9 said the on page 10 the Department was working on a Financial Analysis of the financial viability of SB-9 development scenarios and it would be done in late October. Isn't this necessary information before proceeding with these Code Amendments? The Citywide Cultural Resources Survey is underway and ongoing and will not be completed until 2026? Isn'… show more

Peter Papadopoulos · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Affordability requirement

Laura Foote · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Cost

Yonathan Randolph · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Reduce setbacks, step in the right direction

Shaun Donovan · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Not everyone can afford a house

David Fruchtman · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Filtering

Steve Alexander · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Need more housing to bring down the cost

Karin Payson · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Upzoning is key to adding supply

Vivian Dwyer · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Will help people living on the streets off the streets

Lorraine Petty · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Not yet ready for prime time. Proposed tenant restrictions must be applied to both

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Housing inventory

Paul Maldonado · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Ronald Yu · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Oppose

Julie Jackson · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Kelly Hill · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Biggest benefit to real estate industry

Mike Chen · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Affordability, provide more opportunity

Bret Young · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Ministerial approval

Corey Smith · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Pursue ministerial approval process

Joanna Gutmann · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Martin Munoz · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

4 story mansion vs 4 units

Danny Sauter · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Robert Fruchtman · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Losing a lot of value with people leaving the city

Larisa Pedroncelli · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Creates more disparity

David Kim · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Jan Hong · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Shanti Singh · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Inclusionary zoning

Howard Torf · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm reaching out to you today to encourage you to support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. I am a former resident of San Francisco who wou… show more

Ted Weinstein · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

PLEASE support the 4 units per lot proposal
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I have lived in SF for more than 30 years. I am a renter. I have watched the city population grow, but the number of housing units grow not nearly enough. Please support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's … show more

Paul Anderson · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm reaching out to you today to encourage you to support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. Many other progressive cities like Portland, Mi… show more

Brad Bulger · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, The single most effective thing a city can do to mitigate and adapt to climate change is to fix its housing policy, to allow denser, walkable living. Especially in moderate climate zones like San Francisco, we have a moral obligation to make it possible for more people to live here. Supervisor Mandleman… show more

Andrew Walcher · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm reaching out to you today to encourage you to support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. This is long overdue. Current real estate price… show more

Karl Johnson · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Vote to end exclusionary zoning in San Francisco
Commission Commission Secretary, Supervisor Preston and members of the Board, I'm reaching out today to encourage you to support Sup. Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. As a regional commuter, I know firsthand, as well as from peers, of the atrocious conditions of th… show more

Joseph Catrambone · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Hello all, I'm sure you've gotten a bunch of letters very much in this form, but I'd like to add my voice to the many in support of Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to allow four+ units on each lot. I, like many others, understand that this proposal will help to make our city more affordable and accessible to people of all walks of life. Please pass this … show more

Chris Mcmahon · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Allow apartments on all lots.
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Please support the legislation allowing apartments on all residential lots. Not only will it help reduce the housing shortage here, it will correct 75 years of terrible elitism zoned into city codes. We all now know that the car oriented planning methods of post WW2 America are terribly flawed and can … show more

2021-12-02 · 5 comments · 4 / 1

Martin Munoz · email · 2021-12-02 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm reaching out to you today to thank you for UNANIMOUSLY recommending Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. I am also calling on each Supervi… Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm reaching out to you today to thank you for UNANIMOUSLY recommending Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. I am also calling on each Supervisor to support this legislation at the Land Use & Transportation Committee and at the full Board. Frankly, it never made sense to me that in such a huge chunk of the City, developers are allowed to build multimillion dollar, four-story, single-family mega-mansions BY RIGHT but are barred from adding four moderately sized and moderately priced apartments within the same exact footprint. It simply baffles the mind that single family homes add ZERO affordable units, yet are treated as sacrosanct simply because they are the status quo. As a tenant, Latino immigrant, queer person, and frankly, a young renter who depends on public transit and my own two feet to get around, I see San Francisco as a unique refuge. I could never even IMAGINE purchasing a multimillion dollar single family home in San Francisco, but I am LUCKY that I was able to find a moderately priced apartment unit in a 1920s 21-unit building that would be ILLEGAL to build in District 5 today. But it's become less and less attainable for people like me to even begin to CONSIDER making a home here as housing prices skyrocket. Add to that the reality that the City has added hundreds of thousands of new jobs and has not come even close to matching that growth with new housing, affordable or otherwise, and you can see why so many people are genuinely hurting. We need to plan for 82K units of housing due to state law as it is <U+2014> this modest proposal can help get us there with gentle density that conforms to existing development patterns while discouraging house flipping and mansion construction. We hear a lot about local control, and this legislation puts the future of San Francisco in San Francisco's hands, not Sacramento's. Even without the "threat" of RHNA, this is the RIGHT thing to do and it's a long time coming. Please pass this legislation immediately! Martin Munoz D5 Tenant Martin Munoz [email removed] San Francisco, California 94117show more

Valerie Aurora · email · 2021-12-02 · support · source packet

Yes on apartments everywhere in SF!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm a politically active San Francisco resident, living in a 250-unit apartment building in China Bay. I strongly support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, as well as Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six uni… show more

Michael Chen · email · 2021-12-02 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I'm writing to ask for your support for Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. I am sad to see friends leaving because they can't afford a … show more

Samuel Carlen · email · 2021-12-02 · support · source packet

Support Legalizing Apartments Everywhere!
Commission Commission Secretary, Dear Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, My name is Sam Carlen, and I'm a resident of SF District 6, specifically the Polk Gulch neighborhood. I'm reaching out to you today to encourage you to support Supervisor Rafael Mandelman's legislation to legalize up to four units on every residential lot, with Planning Department's … show more

Daun Bhasavanich · email · 2021-12-02 · oppose · source packet

Vote No on Dwelling Unit Density Exception in RHDs
Dear President Koppel and Planning Commissioners, Please vote no on the Dwelling Unit Density Exception in RHDs. While it is clearly understood that more housing is needed, such a blanket approach to increasing density throughout the residential neighbourhoods without a fine-grained study is unwise. Allowing the increased density as a matter of right can become an open invitation to developers and speculators to te… show more

2022-12-08 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Marc Huestis · email · 2022-12-08 · oppose · source packet

RE: CASTRO THEATRE- Letter to Supervisor Mandelman
RE: Castro Theatre Dear Rafael, I have had the pleasure of knowing and supporting you for a good many years. I'll never forget the first time we met. It was on the dance floor at a Frameline opening night party. You eagerly approached me with great enthusiasm and panache to tell me how seeing my film Sex Is.. at the York Square Cinema in New Haven changed your life. As we were cutting the rug, you shared what … RE: Castro Theatre Dear Rafael, I have had the pleasure of knowing and supporting you for a good many years. I'll never forget the first time we met. It was on the dance floor at a Frameline opening night party. You eagerly approached me with great enthusiasm and panache to tell me how seeing my film Sex Is.. at the York Square Cinema in New Haven changed your life. As we were cutting the rug, you shared what a seminal moment it was in your coming put experience. I was touched and honored by your words. And that memorable moment between us demonstrated to me the power of film, particularly LGBTQ film to change lives. Times change and we both know that businesses are not what they once were. That certainly applies to movie theatres. I know you have received a huge amount of feedback regarding the Castro Theatre from many sides. But I do ask you to remember that young gay man sitting in a darkened theatre in the early '90s who will never forget how that cinematic experience helped chart the course of his life. There are surely new generations of LGBTQ people who will be similarly changed by seeing the stories of our lives on the big screen in a movie theatre, and what more affecting place to experience them than the Castro Theatre. It is my opinion that the Castro needs to keep movies a priority. They are not an afterthought. Seating is imperative, and ripping out the seats is like ripping out the beating heart of our beloved theatre. Having done over 45 events over the course of 4 decades at the Castro (I am nicknamed the Impresario of the Castro-see list below), I understand the business in show business. I am totally supportive of multi use of the sacred space. However recent events there, such as the Morrissey concert, clearly demonstrates that can happen while preserving the integrity and intent of the venue. I understand the recent machinations happening behind the scenes. The current leasers have the power of money behind them to lobby various people and organizations. That is their privilege and their right. However you also are aware of the large grassroots campaign fueled by the passion of cinephiles and homophiles to maintain the theatre seating. We love our cathedral of cinema and do not want to see it desecrated. I add my voice to this chorus. This is our right. I ask you to take this into consideration. Also as a point of procedure, I oppose the continuance, though I now understand that the board has approved this. The cynical side of me worries that some are hoping that the voices to save the seats will tire of the fight. But take my word, they won't. I have a feeling that voices at the Dec. 7 Preservation and Planning Commission will clearly demonstrate that. Thank you for your kind consideration and congratulations on your reelection. I am proud of you and your trajectory. Best, Marc Huestis Producer http://marchuestispresents.com/ https://url.avanan.click/v2/___http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Huestis___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6 bzoyMWNhMmU1YmQwODc0Njg1OWQ5MjM1ZThlZjJjODZlYzo2OmU2ZWE6NGZmZGQ2NWYyMGU wODc3ZTc0YWMwYjY2ZTYwZjUwNjJlZDAyMDQ3YTMxODA4M2M5M2RkMzk2MmM1MjZhNjg3Nzp0 OkY (3D screening of Kiss Me Kate at Marc Huestis Presents Too Darn Hot with Ann Miller Live, July 2002) AS SAN FRANCISCO'S CASTRO THEATRE MARKS IT'S 100th ANNIVERSARY "MARC HUESTIS PRESENTS" CELEB-RATES 40 YEARS AT THE THEATRE San Francisco- On June 21, 2022 the landmark Castro Theatre marks its 100th Anniversary. An important contributor to the theatre's history, producer Marc Huestis, the subject of Lauretta Molitor's documentary Impresario celeb-rates 40 years of involvement with the Castro. This includes premieres and runs of his feature films, with his 1993 award-winning Sex Is breaking box office records. In more recent years, he is best known for producing over 50 acclaimed tributes to the stars of the Golden Age of Hollywood and beyond, often selling out the 1400 seat venue, benefiting local non-profits and receiving world-wide press attention. For his efforts Huestis was awarded the Frameline Award (as a co-founder of the Festival) in 2001, and the Bay Guardian's Lifetime Achievement Award in 2010. In 2019, his memoir Impresario of Castro Street was released to critical acclaim. MARC HUESTIS CASTRO THEATRE FILM PREMIERES/ CELEBRITY EVENTS o Whatever Happened to Susan Jane? Directed by Marc Huestis /World Premiere (Feb, 1982) SOLD-OUT o Sex Is benefit featuring a rare screening of The Boys in the Band (Sept, 1992) o Sex Is One Week Theatrical Engagement of Documentary Directed by Marc Huestis (May, 1993) Breaking the Castro's house record for number of attendance's for a first-run American independent film in a one-week run and grossing $48,160 o The Stepford Wives with Sick & Twisted Players (July, 1995) SOLD-OUT o Poseidon Event-Ure with Carol Lynley (Nov., 1995) SOLD-OUT o Heat with Sylvia Miles (May, 1996) o The Nutty Professor with Stella Stevens (July, 1996) o A John Waters X-Mas with John Waters (Dec., 1996) SOLD-OUT ( Mr. Waters went on multi-city tours with Huestis' idea for 25 years) o Valley of the Dolls with star Barbara Parkins (July, 1997) SOLD-OUT o Gypsy Rose Lee's Home Movies presented by Erik Lee Preminger (Nov., 1998) o A Carrie White Christmas with Piper Laurie (Dec., 1998) o Christmas with Christina Crawford with Christina Crawford (Dec., 1997) (SOLD-OUT 2 NIGHTS) o Summer Beach Party with Troy Donahue & Sandra Dee (July, 1998) o The Bad Seed with Patty McCormack (July, 1999, Oct., 2011) (SOLD-OUT) o A Judy Garland Christmas with Lorna Luft (Dec., 1999) o New Year's Blow-Out on the SS Poseidon with Carol Lynley and Stella Stevens (Dec., 2000) o A Tribute to Billy Wilder with Edie Adams (April, 2000) o Ho Down with Karen Black (July, 2000) o Can't Stop the Music with Thelma Houston (July, 2001) o The Exorcist with Linda Blair (Oct., 2001) o A John Waters X-Mas with John Waters (Dec., 2002) o Viva Ann-Margret with Ann-Margret (Feb., 2002) (SOLD-OUT) o Too Darn Hot with Ann Miller (July, 2002) o Joan Baez & Reno Together at Last! With Performances by Baez & Reno (March, 2003) o Create Peace An All-Star Benefit (July, 2003) o A Hedwigged Out X-Mas with John Cameron Mitchell (Dec., 2003) o Sing Along Wizard Of Oz with Munchkin Margaret Pellegrini (March, 2004) o Ladies & Gentlemen Prefer Jane Russell (July, 2004) (SOLD-OUT) o A Judy Garland Christmas with Margaret O'Brien (Dec., 2004) o The Unsinkable Debbie Reynolds with Debbie Reynolds (July, 2005) o Mildred Pierce with Ann Blyth Live! (July, 2006) o To Kill a Mockingbird with "Scout" Mary Badham interviewed by Armistead Maupin (Nov., 2006) o Bad Boys of Project Runway with Santino Rice and Jeffrey Sebelia (July, 2007) o A Disco X-Mas with Village People's Cowboy Randy Jones (Dec., 2007) o Romeo & Juliet with Olivia Hussey Live! (Feb., 2008) (SOLD-OUT) o A Salute to Miss Mitzi Gaynor (July, 2008) o A Tribute to Tony Curtis - co presented with the Mill Valley Film Festival (Nov., 2008) o Sparkle, Patty, Sparkle with Patty Duke Live (July, 2009) (SOLD-OUT) o Justin Vivian Bond- Close to You in Concert (Feb., 2010) o Poltergeist with JoBeth Williams Live (Oct., 2010) o I Bought a Blue Car Today with Alan Cumming In Concert (July, 2010) o A Victor/Victoria Valentine with Lesley Ann Warren (Feb., 2011) o Justin Vivian Bond- Dendrophile CD Release In Concert (April 2011) o The Bad Seed with Patty McCormack (Oct., 2011) o I Dream of Barbara Eden with Barbara Eden (July, 2011) o Love Story Valentine with Ali MacGraw (Feb., 2012) o She's Got Balls with Miss Coco Peru (April, 2012) o Mother's Day with Mommie Dearest with Carol Ann -Rutanya Alda (May, 2012) o A Tribute to Natalie Wood with Lana Wood (Nov., 2012) o Poseidon Event-ure with Carol Lynley (July, 2012) o Joey Arias: Love Swings in concert (Feb., 2013) o The Color Purple with Margaret (Shug) Avery (Feb., 2014) o Putting on the Ritz with Rita Moreno (March, 2014) o Romeo & Juliet with Leonard Whiting (Feb., 2015) o A Tribute to David Bowie with Candy Clark (March, 2016) o Vertigo with Kim Novak hosted by Eddie Muller (May, 2018) (SOLD-OUT) These events have not only received local publicity, but attention in such national venues as The New York Times, L.A. Times, Variety, Liz Smith, The London Times, Out Magazine, E!'s Gossip Show, The Village Voice. Celebrities who have participated in Huestis' galas (both in San Francisco and out-of-town) in the past include Alan Cumming, Ali MacGraw, Ann-Margret, Ann Blyth, Ann Miller, Armistead Maupin, Barbara Eden, Barbara Parkins, Bruce Vilanch, Candy Clark, Carol Doda, Carol Lynley, Christina Crawford, Debbie Reynolds, Edie Adams, Eddie Muller, Erik Lee Preminger, Harry Belafonte, Hector Elizondo, Jack Lemmon, Jane Russell, Janeane Garofalo, Jeffrey Sebelia, Jerry Lewis, Joan Baez, JoBeth Williams, Joey Arias, John Cameron Mitchell, John Schlesinger, John Waters, Justin Vivian Bond, Karen Black, Kim Novak, Lana Wood, Lady Bunny, Lesley Ann Warren, Leonard Whiting, Linda Blair, Lypsinka, Margaret O'Brien, Margaret Avery, Mary Badham, Michael Musto, Mike Farrell, Mitzi Gaynor, Munchkin Margaret Pellegrini, Olivia Hussey, Miss Coco Peru, Patty Duke, Patty McCormack, Patricia Clarkson, Piper Laurie, Randy Jones, Reno, Rex Reed, Rita Moreno, Rutanya Alda, Sandra Dee, Santino Rice, Sissy Spacek, Stella Stevens, Sylvia Miles, Thelma Houston, Tony Curtis, Tony Kushner, Ted Casablanca, Troy Donahue, and Varla Jean Merman. Local luminaries include Arturo Galster, Connie Champagne, D'Arcy Drollinger, Heklina, Juanita More, Joan Jett Black, Marga Gomez, Matthew Martin, Jan Wahl, and Paula West.show more

Four-Unit Density Exception For Residential Districts [Board File No. 210866]

Hearings

Campaign emails (287)

Comments by hearing (71)