5th Stop SB 50 Email

Dear Senator

On Dec 20th, San Francisco renewed it's Opposition to SB 50. The first paragraph summarizes it well, but please ask your staff to read it all:

AMENDED IN COMMITTEE
FILE NO. 190398 12/5/2019 RESOLUTION NO. 541-19

[Opposing California State Senate Bill No. 50 (Wiener) - Housing Development: Incentives -
Unless Amended]

Resolution opposing California State Senate Bill No. 50, authored by Senator Scott
Wiener, which would undermine community participation in planning for the well-being
of the environment and the public good, prevent the public from recapturing an
equitable portion of the economic benefits conferred to private interests, and
significantly restrict San Francisco's ability to protect vulnerable communities from
displacement and gentrification, unless further amended.

WHEREAS, The California State Legislature is currently considering passage of State
Senate Bill No. 50 (SB 50), which would entitle real estate developers to increase residential
and mixed-use development with significantly less public review, and in excess of many
existing local community plans, which are often developed after extensive public participation,
in concert with our regional governing agencies and consistent with state planning mandates;
and

WHEREAS, SB 50 incentivizes private market-rate housing development unaffordable
to most San Franciscans without guaranteeing increased affordable housing development,
even though the San Francisco Planning Department's Housing Development Pipeline report
shows San Francisco has met 100 percent of its Regional Housing Needs Assessment goal
for above-moderate housing through the year 2022 but less than 30 percent of moderate and
low-income housing goals; and has 72,565 units in the pipeline with only 20% affordable units,
despite the fact that 57% of the need is for affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco along with many other communities
is striving to address the social and environmental impacts of regional growth of private
industry, which include displacement of low-income seniors, working families, and
communities of color, and strained public transit and infrastructure; and

WHEREAS, The City has been most successful managing this growth through the
adoption of local community plans, which included significant upzoning and subsequent
housing production, and SB 50 restricts the City's ability to adopt local community plans to
assure equitable and affordable development in all its neighborhoods; and

WHEREAS, SB 50 undermines sound public policy to capture some of the value
created through upzoning policy to be used for affordable housing, and instead confers
significant value to private properties through upzoning policy without increasing affordability
requirements for San Francisco, without recognizing or conforming to the standards of the
City's established "HomeSF" program which increases specific affordable housing
requirements in exchange for projects receiving height and density increases; and

WHEREAS, SB 50 formulaically defines "sensitive communities" and only establishes
an optional and temporary deferral for "sensitive communities", which is insufficient to meet its
apparent purpose to control displacement while expanding growth; and
WHEREAS, SB 50 fails to encompass many areas threatened by development-driven
displacement and gentrification, including parts of the Mission, Chinatown, SoMa, Portola, the
Bayview, Castro, Inner Richmond and others; and denies the City the ability to adjust or
expand the boundaries of "sensitive communities" based upon research and community
testimony; and

WHEREAS, SB 50, by incentivizing market-rate development, will exacerbate
displacement pressures in neighborhoods not in a "sensitive community", which experience
gentrification in hot-markets cities like San Francisco, including displacement of working-
class, cash-poor homeowners; and will exacerbate barriers to develop non-speculative,
permanently-affordable housing in these neighborhoods, which already have significant
barriers to affordable housing production, especially in neighborhoods without a local
community plan to facilitate and guide increased development; and

WHEREAS, SB 50 alone appears to preserve local demolition controls and other local
planning processes, but when combined with other state laws such as SB 330, undermines
the ability of local governments to protect existing tenants, housing, and small businesses,
and to raise affordability requirements, and otherwise advance the public good through
demolition controls and local community plans, now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco
continues to oppose SB 50 unless amended to cure these concerns; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San
Francisco is committed to working with its State Legislative Delegation to craft the necessary
amendments to SB 50 to protect San Francisco's sovereign charter authority, guarantee
housing affordability, and adequately protect vulnerable communities; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San
Francisco requests that SB 50 be amended to:

1) Ensure SB 50 not apply within areas in San Francisco subject to a local community
plan that resulted in increased density and affordable housing benefits from
previous zoning. This includes plans a local government has adopted or is in the
process of adopting. SB 50 could include a provision for local governments to "optin"
to SB 50 state land-use interventions for a local community plan area as early as
July 1, 2021, pursuant to consultation with community-based organizations in the
particular area

2) Ensure communities in hot-market cities, like San Francisco which is meeting or
exceeding its Regional Housing Needs Assessment production goals for abovemoderate
income housing, are afforded sufficient opportunity to create local
community plans and submit draft EIRs by January 2026 in lieu of SB 50 state land
use preemptions. This local community plan alternative shall include, at a minimum:
a. Rezoning to permit multifamily housing development at a range of income
levels to meet unmet needs, as informed by the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment production goals
b. Substantial increases to overall housing development capacity, particularly
near transit stops, to meet unmet needs, as informed by the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment and in the context of existing zoned residential
development capacity
c. Increased and explicit affordable housing benefits that meet or exceed the
minimum affordability standards set forth in SB 50, and meet or exceed the
existing local baseline lnclusionary standard for development projects
d. Increased displacement and demolition protections for vulnerable residents
that meet or exceed the standards set forth in SB 50
SB 50 should exempt San Francisco from SB 330 and other state laws that would
render this local community plan alternative with its minimum requirements
infeasible.

3) Ensure Sensitive Communities in San Francisco are properly delineated and
exempted from SB 50. The definition shall aim to include all residents at risk of
displacement and areas with a history of community gentrification and
displacement. The "sensitive community" definition in San Francisco shall be
informed by the 11/25/19 "heightened sensitivity" map prepared by the UC Berkeley
Urban Displacement Project and conform, at a minimum, to the 12/11 /18 map
prepared by the Equity Caucus of the Committee to House the Bay Area (CASA)
Geography Working Group. SB 50 could include a provision to "opt-in" to SB 50
state land use interventions for a "sensitive community" as early as July 1, 2021,
pursuant to consultation with community-based organizations in the particular area

4) Ensure all SB 50 projects are required to make affordable housing contributions
substantially higher than existing local affordable housing standards potentially
applicable for the site. In San Francisco, affordable housing requirements should be
commensurate to the City's "HomeSF" program standard for progressive value
capture

5) Ensure clear and strong tenant protection, anti-vacancy, and anti-demolition
provisions - with sufficient and robust state funding, programming, and
enforcement - to protect all tenants from displacement triggered by SB 50 upzoning

6) Ensure areas impacted by SB 50 showing demonstrable efforts to increase housing
(e.g. entitlements) receive increased transportation incentives, especially where
services and infrastructure are currently inadequate, subject to delays and
overcrowding, and/or deficient in their state of repair. Transportation incentives tied
to SB 50 could include, but is not limited to:
a. Direct capital and service investments through a bonus pot of grant funds
tied to housing provision, a higher share of formula funds distributed by the
state (e.g. LCTOP/Low Carbon Transit Operations Program) for associated
projects and programs, priority in state-funded competitive grant programs
(e.g. TIRCP/Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program and AHSC or Affordable
Housing/Sustainable Communities cap and trade funds), and
b. Allowances for jurisdictions to impose private sector development impact
fees, CEQA exemptions for public transportation projects for land use
changes triggered by SB 50, and/or funds for local community transportation
planning; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San
Francisco directs the Clerk of the Board to transmit copies of this resolution to the State
Legislature and the City Lobbyist upon passage.

I hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was ADOPTED on 12/17/2019
·by the Board of Supervisors of the City and
County of San Francisco.
12/20/19

**your signature**

Share this with your friends: