tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 29, 2019 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT
perspective. last fall, the california air resources board issued a report stating that the state does not have the hope of reaching its climate change goals unless it does something serious to reduce the vehicle miles traveled, electrifying vehicles will not do the trick. so in order do that, it's imperative on a statewide basis to be increasing the amount of housing that is provided close to transit and close to major employment centers. unfortunately, local governments across the state have made it crystal clear they have no intention of doing that on their own. therefore, state action is imperative and sb50 is an important step in that direction. we need to stop treating single-family residential neighborhoods as some kind of holy of holys that need to be protected from defilement by apartment buildings. we need to increase the supply of housing and the vast part of
the urbanized areas that are currently devoted to family residential areas. without doing that, the state will fail to meet its climate change goals. that said, i do have concerns, especially with the most recent amendments to the bill. that flesh out the inclusionary housing requirements. i think the provisions about how fees will be calculated are vague. it's unclear how the fees will be determined. and i'm especially concerned that the bill would exempt structures that have 10 or fewer units from making any inclusionary contribution. that really could provide a windfall to the current property owners without providing an affordable housing component. so i do hope that the bill as it goes through the legislature is amended to beef up the inclusionary requirements, especially for the smaller-sized units. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. .
>> my name is kathy. and i'm a native san franciscan. i've lived here all of my 72 years. gone to public schools here. i'm a resident of mount davidson. i want to call your attention to the fact that on march 7, the "new york times" had an article and it said when uber and airbnb go public, san francisco will drawn in millionaires -- drown in millionaires. uber, slack, pinterest, airbnb, they expect to go public in 2019. in 2018, there were 5,644 properties sold in san francisco. software employees represent 50% of those buying. now you will have six major ipos with the potential of 10,000 millionaire employees who will enter the buying market. that is twice as many buyers as
there are properties. how high will prices go? will anyone not in tech be able to buy in san francisco? will real estate investors accelerate options to evict tenants in existing buildings so that they can build buildings that will reach eight stories or 85 feet? we, your fellow san franciscans asking you to use your full influence in opposing this sb50 which will be a radical change to our zoning and way of life. zoning needs to remain under the control of the planning commission, not the state. >> president melgar: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm ken. that is my other half. i've been a real estate agent for 43 years. i'm a native. and i want to tell you, you're not going to be able to build
the number of units that the demand requires as long as you keep allowing office growth downtown. proposition m originally passed in 1986 mandated that all development be included under a cap. since then, numerous legislation has been passed to modify proposition m which allows unfettered growth, especially in soma, where tech wants to reside. what has occurred, there is a ground swell of opposition that is being formed in many urban centers in the united states, especially here in san francisco. just today's "new york times" talked about there was three
articles, what popular -- the most popular tax ever. another article, techs, mafia kept it all the in the family. another one, if you want to break up big tech, do it right. elizabeth warren's new proposal. this is a historic moment. and you, commissioners, can make a difference and help right the way history sees it, that you stood up for the residents and that you fought to control the proposition m's growth of office development. >> president melgar: thank you. i'm going to call out a few more names. richard. anthony. anastasia. mary.
reverend carole. jeff. gary. >> good afternoon. i represent habitat for humanity san francisco and habitat for humanity california. we want to add our voice to the organizations and individuals who strongly support sb50. we support it because working families are under pressure. the housing and affordability crisis they're facing has an urgent response. higher density housing will meaningfully increase affordable homes in the city. it will help people live closer to wro they work. -- where they work.
reducing the environmental harm of commutes, but also the toll this takes on family life. we're happy to join with the san francisco residents who say yes to affordable developments in the city. and we're proud to support sb50 alongside other organizations such as san francisco housing action coalition, the nonprofit housing association of northern california, and the aarp california. we look forward to marshalling our community of supporters in san francisco and across the region in favor of this bill as it's being considered in sacramento. thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a native of san francisco for the first 24 years of high life. i remain here in san francisco, so that i hopefully won't get displaced. i'm a tenant councillor. i strongly oppose sb50 not only
because it sensationlizes the housing crisis, it perpetuates unaffordable housing. it contributes to rising costs that existing residents won't be able to live in the market rate units. particularly in chicago, up-zoning led to higher property values that are directly related to monthly rents and mortgages. with higher prices in housing, more folks in existing neighborhoods, particularly working class families won't be able to afford the units in these proposed developments. by adding up-zone housing in single-family neighborhoods like richmond, sunset, there will be burdens to these communities, specifically in the sunset and richmond where the terrain is mostly sand. taller buildings are not sustainable for the sand areas. along the transit corridor,
underneath mission street, there is an underground creek. particularly in these neighborhoods, adding high density housing will displace tenants as the buildings and single-family hopes will be demolished and replaced by higher buildings. it will reduce the stock of rent controlled units. and will make cost of living higher than today. sb50 won't preserve our existing tenants vulnerable of being displaced. if the planning commission wants to prioritize, please oppose sb50. >> good afternoon, planning commission. i'm the transit justice organizer for south of market community action network, i was born and raised here in san francisco. i'm here to express concerns about sb50, up-zoning neighborhoods is not going to fix the housing crisis when the units are primarily market rate
and luxury housing. we see evidence of this in soma when you walk down the streets. you can see and feel the gap between the rich and the poor. there are towers with now leasing banners because no one can afford to live in them. the type of housing we need is affordable housing between 30-90% to cover our most vulnerable population, to families with combined income. our rent controlled units need to be preserved and we need ensure our communities are able to thrive in the communities they call home. i'm interesting in seeing analysis on whether public ridership has increased. in a study conducted by the national transit institute at rutgers in 2016, the study shows that it does not decrease auto ownership and higher income means more people can afford
cars. if the city wants to increase ridership to 80% by 2030, as part of the plan, we need to be discouraging people in driving by making public transit, biking and walking alluring options. sb50 won't preserve our existing communities of being displaced. if the planning commission wants to prioritize diversity of tenants, you'll oppose sb50. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello. david. san francisco is in a displacement, eviction and affordability crisis, not a housing crisis. there are more vacant units than unhoused people. sb50 has false solutions to these problems. as you're heard, up-zoning presented in sb50 work to directly increase displacement. working class communities,
immigrant communities and communities of color in san francisco will continue to be the hardest hit by market driven policies such as sb50. instead of prioritizing the needs of real estate developers who froth at the mouth in anticipation of the profit that can be made, the needs of our most vulnerable community members must be prioritized. that means expanding tenants' rights and protections, preserving affordable housing and expanding new affordable housing opportunities. not rolling out a red carpet for luxury development that gentryfys and replaces. we must focus on solutions that are not rooted in the private market. i also have a statement from katrina, from the soma filipino cultural district. scott wiener has softened his rhetoric since the very problematic 827 received criticism for its gentrifying effects. he is appropriating out he grew up in single-family housing as a
way to deflect criticism from community advocates and frame sb50 as anything but cut from the same cloth as 827. this is a real estate bill, not a legitimate housing bill. soma filipino opposes sb50. >> president melgar: thank you very much, next speaker, please. . good afternoon, commissioners. anastasia. more value is bestowed on land by virtue of deregulating density limits and allowing more housing units to be built on a lot. it will give rise to increased speculation. sb50 requires developers to provide a certain percentage of affordable units to qualify for incentives of added height and added debt, however, sb50 does
not require developers to provide any affordable housing units for projects of less than 10 units. although sb50 extends protection to tenants by exempting buildings that are not are not have been tenant occupied, the 63% of san francisco residents who rent, including 14% renting single-family homes are not protected at all because our city does not have a sure way of knowing whether a building is or has not been -- or has been tenant occupied. there is no database or registry. how can the city be expected to implement sb50 unless all the elements to ensure that tenants' protections are in place? should sb50 pass, commissioners, i ask that the city proclaim a moratorium on implementing this legislation until the city has
complete information regarding past and present tenant occupancy. thank you. >> speaker: my name is mary. i'm with the outer sunset working group. i don't really have time in this two minutes to really discuss the wave of speculation in foreign investment in this city, but i firmly believe that sb50 will result in a wave of evictions from single-family homes. because these deep pocket developers have the ability to hold on for seven years. and that is precisely what is going on in our -- with our rental buildings being bought up. i want to describe the true impact of sb50 in my neighborhood. for example, looking at the small areas, sunset to the
beach, lincoln, which is the outer outer sunset. close to 90% of homes are within half mile of light rail stop. there are approximately 2800 parcels that are 3,000 square feet. most of the homes sitting on those parcels are around 1200 square feet and they have quite lovely backyards. so let's look at the impact of just one parcel. all right, so 55 feet plus two stori stories, that is seven stories. the structure could take up 75% of the lot. this results in 15,730 square feet which a developer could play with in any variety of ways, including 30 400 micro units which the vast majority would be market rate. you can see that one parcel represents a huge jump from 2-4
people to 40-60 people living on that parcel. you look at that 2800 parcels in this small area and we are talking about a vast increase. and, please, don't call us exclusionary. you're going to hear that. it's majority -- [bell ringing] -- for many decades. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> speaker: good afternoon. i'm here with the housing rights committee of san francisco. i organize in the richmond. i live in excelsior. i'm here to express the housing rights committee on sb50. i believe a letter has been delivered. i'm here to talk about the first half, housing rights opposed to sb5 when it came around. we were opposed to 827 and here again today, stating opposition to sb50 for the same reason. we're not in a market rate housing crisis.
we're in a affordable housing crisis. we oppose this bill because the bill would up-zone the entirety of all lots, especially on the west side where we organize in the richmond and sunset. and in addition to that, these up-zoning for local controls would further exacerbate the speculation we've been seeing. especially since there is so much invisible density. given there are still a lot of renters, especially in the single-family homes. this legislation requires zoning for a quarter mile of bus -- or increasing the zoning for a quarter mile out from our bus line and we know that san francisco is a small city that effectively upzones all of the western neighborhoods. and real estate speculators will be able to then extract tremendous value from the parcels that were previously zoned for single-family homes, but can now be sold as potential apartment buildings. [please stand by]
know more market rate housing will not do anything for the future families on the west side. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm richard frisbi. people go to sacramento and go brain dead. we have sb50. it's destructive and mindless and does nothing for affordable housing and gavin newsom goes to sacramento and comes up win units by 2035 and 5,000 a year in a state that produces less than 100,000 units a year. that's the effect. he's been spending too much time in the wine cellar. these are incredible things they're doing in sacramento.
trump would be proud of them. i'm surprised he hasn't flown out to air force won, gone and congratulate him for coming up with this stuff. in the end, who is talking about the infrastructure for all this? i really would like planning to take a look at the infrastructure impact and the potential costs and who is going to pay for the billions of dollars that are going to be added when we're not paying for infrastructure today. so we're not building what we are title. we're going build more and not going to be affordable and not going to help those who need it host. i plead with you to oppose sb 50 and the board of supervisors oppose it and try to figure out what the financial impact might be and also i hope none of you go to sacramento. thank you.
>> commissioner: thank you very much. >> reverend carolyn scott, native of san francisco, 72 years old. i've worked and served in the city since the early '60s, through civil rights. i've worked with families for health, wealth and development of this city and it's heartbreaking to see our children, the millennials not able to afford to live here in the city. i'm against gentrification. i'm against unaffordable housing. i'm against not being able to live close to where you work. not being able to live near transit even. but i am for affordable housing. hearing what i was hearing, i signed my card as for. i'm neutral now. i think and i would ask you to do more research.
i want more research. i'm serving as an inner city missionary. i've done for years since the early '60s. i'm going in and out to families being pushed out and eliminate. i'm not for gentrification of any culture in this city. i'm asking that you do deeper research and weigh the information, make sure we get it all on both ends and i'm looking for more information. i definitely want affordable housing not just for low income but middle and all income who want to live in this city. >> commissioner: thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gary weiss, president of corbett hite neighbors. i can't imagine anyone would
dispute this is important if you were to build it from scratch you'd have housing for all levels and transit and police, parks and hospitals that are enough. it's understood san francisco doesn't have the luxury to start over but the existing infrastructure is already lacking in all the above and the goal with this and several other housing bills coming up is to increase housing without considering improving the infrastructure. i know people who live in the inner sunset and they depend on trans its -- transits and they often have to wait if one doesn't break down and the plan is to build without insight from muni. what could go wrong? if we were being responsible we'd act more in the way of those building the city from scratch. repair, replace or supplement
>> as i stood at the bart station recently and thought about sb50s proposal for greater density and height within half mile radius i began to concentrate on the word radius and realized the whole damn thing was intended to go in all directions. yes, indeed with a combination of our bus stops and bart trains, the entire city could be upzoned without regard for residents' input. the angelenos are right when they say it's a real estate bill not housing bill. sb50 openly threatened sensitive community, low-income neglected neighborhoods and requires them to upzone any community plan in five years to conform to sb50. this reminds me of an urban remove agenda. sb50s largely market-rate units
will not trickle down to renters. last year 83% of apartments built in california's three largest cities including us, were unaffordable to the majority. sb50 creates housing containing a small percentage of affordable units. where we need more housing statewide the concentration must be on affordability. apparently an annual $100,000 income for a family of four in san francisco is now considered low income. san francisco's nexus study shows for every 30 units 30% to 40% affordable units are needed to stay unit and sb50 will not require developers to make even 25% affordable. unfortunately, since we don't have a rental registry in place, the city really doesn't know where tenants are making it easier for landlords to push them out so for those who
suggest a moratorium until the data is available are right but better yet, deep sixing the revival of the defeated sb 27 would be better. >> commissioner: thank you, ms. lipscomb. next speaker, please. >> i'm jeff rigo a resident of district 4. i'm nearly as prepared as all the people that precede me but i'd like to echo and support their comments for those opposing or asking for more consideration. i don't consider myself to be an m.b. one or another. i'm interested in being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. i just am concerned about the wording of the bill as it currently is. i'm very concerned about the loss of local control. i know there's a lot of talk it seems like concepts like
neighborhood character preservation is some kind of an evil thing these days and i don't think that's a true thing. i think as others have indicated, san francisco's special city. just because everybody wants to live here doesn't mean they can and i think we need to have some say in how the city is moving forward and i feel like the people that are already living here already have an as much as a right as the people who want to live here and people coming here for new jobs. i guess the other thing is the infrastructure that's not really in place to support all the growth. that's my input. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i'm rene kurren, 25 resident of san francisco. i want to echo how sb50 does not
to help the actual crisis which is about affordability and it increases the speculation and increases the supply of wealthy to have place to park their excess money especially now they can't pay stanford to allow their precious progeny to get in. i recognize local control has been a problem for areas such as the suburban south bay. they've produced far less housing for the jobs there. sf should not be a bedroom community for silicon valley but taking control from communities like we have in san francisco is not the solution. sf, oakland, l.a. and other so-called hot market areas need to be protect. first, not one more market rate unit should be built until we
have built enough housing affordable to those who live and work here and diverse employment sectors. second, we need solid and enforceable protections against renter displacement. sb50 does not provide these. when they say affordability requirements and protection preclude development of affordable housing and prospective real estate and they face lack of communication and faith in humanity. every we have brilliant people not driven by a neurotic need to make as much as money as possible. many people just want to make a decent living. people can make a decent living providing housing that's affordable to real people who live here now. thanks. >> commissioner: thank you, very much, next speaker, please. >> i'm from the san francisco land use coalition.
sb50 will not address our affordable housing crisis. the recent amendments further target san francisco with effects like a laser beam. the report doesn't go far enough in illustrating the effect to san francisco when sb50 is combined with other laws. i'd like to start with a sentence stricken from the most recent set of amendments, quote, it's the in tent of the legislature to require any developer receiving equitable incentive include housing to low, very low or extremely low household. maybe only for technical reasons the language was strick ennen but it's stricken but it's indicative and it will turbo charge luxury development by overriding maximum controls on density with
it would be rh9 city wide and will not result in tenant protects that are nad wat and will inadequate or were more affordable housing than current law and the list goes on. i'll add one small detail how this does not reflect common sense data on the ground in san francisco where the geographic conditions exist. areas near the jay church will not get boosted density but increased height limits of 60% to 100%. why? they're near rail but the j only gets 16,000 average boardings. the 38 gets more and one gets 39,000. why focus on the j? the people of san francisco must insure we commit this bill to history. >> commissioner: thank you, sir. i'll call off a few more names.
[reading names] >> i'm jay donde a resident of the mission and i'm in support of sb50. i want to give a comment and i've been fortunate and have a good job to live comfortably but among my colleagues and contemporaries those that want to buy a house in the city and raise a family is zero. i think that's remarkable.
i think you know the reason for that is because housing costs are astronomical in the city. fortunately, think the solution is clear. it's build more homes. build more affordable homes and build more market rate homes. build more homes, period. i'm not here to complain or lament they could buy a house and can't afford it but if someone like me can't stay here and raise a family, who can? i think we're moving in a direction of a city where we have nothing here but multimillionaires and renters and that's not a healthy place to live. it's a place where people won't care about public schools because the millionaires will send their kids to public schools and the renters will be long gone before they raise children here. people will talk about preserving neighborhood character, i understand that but what i would say is character of
the neighborhood is not determined by the size of the lots or the bricks in the houses, it's determined by the people who live in those neighborhoods and if our neighborhoods are telling all but the wealthiest among us they're unwelcome, i would question what kind of character we're preserving. i urge you to support sb50. i think it's a fair and equitable measure to address the housing crisis and address and invest in our city's future. >> commissioner: thank you , very much. next speaker, please. >> thank you. i'm steve idalson i've lived in noe valley 37 year and i wasn't borne in san francisco, however. i'm a retired math instructor from city college and retired consulting actuary having work on the san francisco state pension planning and other small and large retirement systems. i'm a mathematician. i am opposed to sb50.
as a mathematician. the numbers do not make spence -- sense. we need low-cost housing. there's hundreds of market rate house for sale right now. we need more low-cost housing. my children will be able to afford to live in san francisco when i die and they inherit my house. happy pi day. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is david bancroft. i'm a long-time resident of san francisco, as you can see. thanks to the staff for their report. one hard request, not hard to do, but made very strongly. i would like to see, and i
understand it may be the case, that you are developing 3-d models of what the height and density of how configurations will materialize. think that's the only way to come to terms with a lot of this. i had the feeling looking at your charts i was walk around with a plug you never stuck in the socket. the interface of legislation take the height limits considerably higher than 55 feet. in fact the common wisdom as i read through all the comments on the internet is 80, 85 feet. can't miss that. so i would like to see that done in 3-d. second thing i want to say is i'm mystified by sb50. i mean, really mystified.
we have, as i understand it in this city, 58,000 housing units approved, fully approved ready to go. the problem is there's a cost gap. instead of trying to meet the cost gap, sb50 tries to impose a new regiment. what about trying to find a discreet solution and trying to get some kind of financing through bonds or anything else? that's what would bill the housing already authorized. lastly, on the infrastructure issue, nothing in this bill would pay for the infrastructure. the infrastructure's going to have to be paid at the front end. all the police, all the fire, all the parks, all the schools, all the transit and utility --
>> commissioner: thank you, your time is up. >> commissioner: thank you. >> the bill deserves your opposition. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> once you start speaking it will go to the overhead. >> nothing brings out the neighborhoods like threatening -- >> commissioner: sf gov, can you go to the overhead, please. >> it's upside-down. >> nothing brings out the different neighborhoods than threatening with rampant building. this is what we in the mission have been going through for years. this is just a straight out land grab and being proposed by the very people supposed to
represent our best interest. i think it's time to vote out the representatives. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> mary livett here and i invited a lot of people to speak so i'll be brief. i oppose local control over local communities. i join with others to request san francisco county follow the l.a. county democratic party and oppose sb50 unanimously. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. i'm read off some names. [reading names]
>> i'm with nidc the natural resource -- i'm elizabeth stant nidc, the natural resources defense council. california and san francisco are facing two crises, housing affordability and climate change. sb50 addresses both. california's moving forward quickly to meet climate goals in many ways. on transportation, which is the biggest source of greenhouse gas pollution, the state is falling behind. we need to build more homes, many more homes near public transit and near jobs. that is in many ways the missing piece of california's climate strategy. here in san francisco where i've been a renter in the mission for
20 years, we know density works. we know life is good when you can go to work and the store, drop off and pick up your kid from school without having to drive. san francisco can help show california the way on this and nrdc supports it and i urge your support of sb50. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much. nvpts. good next speaker, please. >> laura from m.b. action. i was at a hearing about the proposed navigation center the other night which was extremely hostile. it was one of the most intense hearings i've been to in a while. somebody screaming from the
audience, fu and somebody threatening and someone waving a picture of his kid in front of my face saying you'll murder my children and the government officials are trying to manage the situation and trying to figure out how to have a public meeting and every supporter is like, god, i don't know if i can handle going up in front of that crowd and saying i think we should have a navigation center in the neighborhood because they'll bully me and boo and they'll hiss at me because i think we need more shelter beds in the community and that's how a lot of the hearings in the community is. it's a little how this one is now. there's people laughing and hissing and booing and i want you to understand how difficult it is up here with good faith say what we need is more housing. i think what we need in this city and cities all over the bay area is a lot of more housing.
it means going up in front of people who are often, not always, but often more housing secure. it means often going up against people who remind you of your family and your grandparents and who have nothing but contempt for you. i want to you understand -- >> commissioner: i'm sorry, ms. clark. if we could keep it down i'd appreciate it. everybody deserve the same respect. >> we're talking about transitioning our society from one that's been car dependent to one of economic opportunity and vibrancy for all that's going to be transit oriented. i think we can do it. i don't think we can do it this way. >> commissioner: thank you. your time is up. >> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm theodore randolph. a native of san francisco. i support sb50. i grew up in the excelsior
direct in illegal a.d.u. units because we didn't have enough legal housing in san francisco, the price too high and back then it was not clear how to make legal a.d.u. units. near my house in the excelsior district there's many small two to three-story apartment buildings now illegal to build. housing is becoming more expensive in the excelsior district in accordance with e.i.r. predictions. so we need more housing and a.d.u.s are helpful but not enough. san francisco can't do it alone. homes in my working class neighborhood, they're selling for $1.5 million, $1.6 million. i'm encouraged by the protections for the neighborhoods like mine. i saw mine was part of the gray
area. we need state law to get more housing built in the job rich areas and palo alto and coop coopertino. and we need more so they don't dump all their engineers in my neighborhood. my mother needs to find a new house that's affordable preferably without driving because she doesn't drive very safely and affordable housing is predominantly fund market-rate funding and we need more and sb50 legalizes affordable housing in places where it's currently illegal. >> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> i'm susan futaf.
i'm a member of the plaza 16 coalition and hayes valley neighborhood association, a former nurse, small business owner and 20-year resident of san francisco. i want to thank all you for your service because i know how hard it is to be on this planning commission or work for the planning department right now while we're in such a crisis in this city. i wouldn't want to be in your position so thank you for your service. most of what i wanted to say has already been said by many other people opposed to sb50. i think you are smart enough to realize what a wolf in sheep's clothing this is. they're pretending they have a concern for low-income and minority communities in the introduction to the bill when it's clearly aimed at giving more power to developers.
in a situation where developers already have a lot of power in this city and we are struggling against their power on a daily basis. often with your help, thank you very much. and i hope you will pose this at the very -- oppose this at the very least you'll not want something that will reduce your power which it clearly does. it take away the ability for local government and local government bodies to plan for what their communities need and we know better than they do what that is. thank you again for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> lirissa petrocelli. as part of a working class community of color diff -- devastated by predatory real
estate development i'm concerned with sb50. it continues to be amended as recently as a few days ago. our community is not opposed to building housing but our community and this city need 100% affordable housing below 100% ami. sb50 has provisions for communities of concern but requires us to devise our own method of displacement in five years or less. we would need an entire mission area plan and we know how long that would take. we have no way currently of trafficking renters and we know we have not sufficiently tracked displacement or evictions. i am continually asked why with the crisis that we've had in the mission, i don't stand in support the upzoning of the west
side. there are no provisions and protections for our single-family homes. and we have a lot of families that are working class and would never wish upon them what has happened to our community. i ask you take this to the board of supervisors for this to be fully vet with the community and with our representatives. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you, next speaker, please. >> we have a significant number of widespread concerns about the current version of sb50. you're hearing a lot of those from other people so i'm going to keep it brief and point to a couple that are specifically
maybe, well, starting with looking at the mission to start with which is if it's goals and we were to take the goals at face value and that we are moving towards equitable community incentives as its currently dubbed which seems currently not an accurate statement of what it confers, that would be a non-starter for the mission which is currently three-quarters not recognized as a sensitive community. that doesn't seem to make sense on the surface how you could get to that place if you had that as a framework. we would recommend the city itself do analysis from the strategy group which signifies different neighborhoods as a starting point to work from. second, for the city of for instance itself, it's as you've
heard a billion-dollar giveaway. it confers billions of value on to developers and property owners. in the city of san francisco where thank goodness we have pretty robust affordable housing requirement there's no value in exchange. unlike the rulings you make every week where you grant we get nothing back in value for our vulnerable value or nothing for infrastructure, etcetera. we ask others here in calling on what we think would be healthy next step which is more research and a board of supervisors hearing and we'd love to see them take a position on this as well. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please.
>> i'm here opposed to the giveaway we can't get the developers build whatever matchmaxed out boxes fit their portfolio or fall prey to developers at whatever cost to the neighborhood. in this cycle, architects have become more service providers for the profit-hungry developers who keep units off the market when it best suits them. look at s.o.m. in 1979 mission street the monster in the mission. an embarrassment so out of touch with the neighborhood how could something like this ever be grant the ability to trample the ability. without control there's little hope of fostering the nice of community and how the environment progress. it's known we can't build our way out of this prediction --
predicament. the housing stock remains empty. there's tens of thousands of empty unit. one piece of legislation can probably provide 30,000 units pretty quickly. where's the real rent control provisions? who guarantees these units are occupied when they're built? the sensitive area plan shown earlier grossly under represents the mission. that needs to be a good study and there's tons of entitled property in our neighborhood being land bank. what's the five-year plan and how's it effect the future land banking? those are concerns. i urge to you reject the proposal and demand the mayor and supervisors reject it. >> commissioner: thank you very much. i'll ca call some names. [calling names]
>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm steven bus with m.b. action. i'm also a resident of the mission, as you all know. i'm strongly in favor of sb50. it addresses what i've been speaking about for two years or so which is the zoning in san francisco is inequitable. the entire west side take nothing. it's all single-family or duplex zoning and you can't build affordable housing there and sb50 will fix that and bring the west side to the same zoning level as the mission already has which is great because i love the mission. it's one of the best neighborhood or the best neighborhood in the city. and moreover, it brings the
zoning equity statewide. by supporting sb50, we solve something that is not just constrained to san francisco. the entire state is experiencing the problems of displacement and high housing costs and gentrification. and sb50 can fix that. we can make it so you can build apartment buildings in neighborhoods that are not at risk of displacement and gentrification. because as you know, the neighborhoods that have historically been disenfranchised are some of the only places you can build high density and let's put it near transit to fight climate change. it's on the way forward and i
know you won't vote on it today but also thank you to emery rodgers and pauly guzo or the memo and the excellent staff report from planning. it was great. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> up your packet you have received a coalition for san francisco neighborhoods document there. so according to the planning memo overhead the mayor stated goals, transit, ren ten protection and using under utilized commercial space. continuing with the overhead there's a bunch of points i was going put in. there's the transit that can change in frequency. you have the map and it's going to change. might as well make it jell-o and
unenforceable projects that must meet whatever it's going to be changed to and metric not applied today and the on site and the affordable is unclear and it incentivizes developers and san francisco lacks clear objective planning building demolition criteria win aha and sb50 you get increased demolition and expansion so the impact is under utilized spaces, empty lots including affordable housing and looks at