FILE NO. 190398 1 AMENDED IN BOARD 4/2/2019 RESOLUTION NO. [Opposing California State Senate Bill No. 50 (Wiener) - Housing Development: Incentives Unless Amended] 2 3 Resolution opposing California State Senate Bill No. 50, authored by Senator Scott 4 Wiener, which would undermine community participation in planning for the well-being 5 of the environment and the public good, prevent the public from recapturing an 6 equitable portion of the economic benefits conferred to private interests, and 7 significantly restrict San Francisco’s ability to protect vulnerable communities from 8 displacement and gentrification, unless further amended. 9 10 WHEREAS, The California State Legislature is currently considering passage of State 11 Senate Bill No. 50 (SB 50), which would entitle real estate developers to increase both 12 residential and mixed -use development with significantly less public review, and in excess of 13 many existing local community plans , which are often developed often after extensive public 14 participation and, in concert with our regional governing agencies and consistent with state 15 planning mandates; and 16 WHEREAS, SB 50 would incentivizeincentivizes private market -rate housing 17 development unaffordable to most San Franciscans without guaranteeing increased 18 affordable housing development, while 94even though the San Francisco Planning 19 Department’s Housing Development Pipeline report shows San Francisco has met 100 20 percent of the City’s market-rate-its Regional Housing Needs Assessment goal for above- 21 moderate housing goals through the year 2022 have already been met andbut less than 30 22 percent of moderate and low -income housing goals have been met, according to; and has 23 72,565 units in the Planning Department's development pipeline reportwith only 20% 24 affordable units, despite the fact that 57% of the need is for affordable housing; and 25 Supervisors Mar; Mandelman, Yee, Fewer, Peskin, Walton, Ronen, Haney BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco along with many other communities 1 2 is striving to address the social and environmental impacts of regional growth of private 3 industry, which include displacement of low -income seniors, working families, and 4 communities of color, and strained public transit and infrastructure; and the City has been 5 most successful managing this growth through the adoption of community-driven local plans; 6 and 7 WHEREAS, SB 50 establishes an optional and only temporary exception from its 8 mandated development incentives for formulaically defined ‘Sensitive Communities’ with the 9 apparent purpose of controlling displacement while expandingThe City has been most 10 successful managing this growth; through the adoption of local community plans, which 11 included significant upzoning and subsequent housing production, and 12 WHEREAS, SB 50 restricts the City’s ability of the city to adopt long term zoning and 13 land use policieslocal community plans to assure equitable and affordable development in all 14 its neighborhoods; denies the city the abilityand 15 WHEREAS, SB 50 undermines sound public policy to adjust or expand the 16 boundariescapture some of those protected neighborhoods based upon community testimony 17 and additional research;the value created through upzoning policy to be used for affordable 18 housing, and SB 50’sinstead confers significant value to private properties through upzoning 19 policy without increasing affordability requirements for San Francisco, without recognizing or 20 conforming to the standards of the City’s established “HomeSF” program which increases 21 specific affordable housing requirements in exchange for projects receiving height and density 22 increases; and 23 24 WHEREAS, SB 50 formulaically defines “sensitive communities” and only establishes an optional and temporary ‘Sensitive Communities’ exemptiondeferral for “sensitive 25 Supervisors Mar; Mandelman, Yee, Fewer, Peskin, Walton, Ronen, Haney BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 1 communities”, which is insufficient to meet its apparent purpose to control displacement while 2 expanding growth; and WHEREAS, SB 50 fails to encompass many of the areas threatened by development - 3 4 driven displacement and gentrification, including parts of the Mission, Chinatown, Western 5 South of MarketSoMa, Portola, the Bayview, Castro, Inner Richmond and others; and denies 6 the City the ability to adjust or expand the boundaries of “sensitive communities” based upon 7 research and community testimony; and WHEREAS, Neighborhoods outside “Sensitive Communities” targeted by SB50 in hot 8 9 market cities like San Francisco can also experience hidden gentrification and WHEREAS, SB 10 50, by incentivizing market-rate development, will exacerbate displacement pressures in 11 neighborhoods not in a “sensitive community”, which experience gentrification in hot-markets 12 cities like San Francisco, including ondisplacement of working-class, cash -poor homeowners, 13 and experience significant barriers for affordable housing production, such that raising land 14 values through upzoning without the certainty of affordable units getting built in these 15 neighborhoods will exacerbate pressures and; and will exacerbate barriers to develop non- 16 speculative, permanently -affordable housing in these neighborhoods, which already have 17 significant barriers to affordable housing production, especially where there is noin 18 neighborhoods without a local community plan to facilitate and guide increased development; 19 and 20 WHEREAS, The upzoning proposed by SB 50 confers significant value to properties 21 for increased development opportunity and yet is not tied to any increased affordability 22 requirements for San Francisco above and beyond the baseline Inclusionary standard already 23 required of development projects, which undermines sound public policy that requires any 24 substantial value created by density increases or other upzoning be used, at least in part, to 25 provide a meaningful net increase in affordable housing; and Supervisors Mar; Mandelman, Yee, Fewer, Peskin, Walton, Ronen, Haney BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 1 WHEREAS, While SB 50’s provisions standingWHEREAS, SB 50 alone may 2 appearappears to preserve local demolition controls and other local planning processes, 3 without further clarifying amendments, the combination of SB 50’s development incentivesbut 4 when combined with other state laws underminesuch as SB 330, undermines the ability of 5 local governments to protect existing tenants, housing, and small businesses, and to raise 6 affordability requirements, and otherwise advance the public good, specifically through 7 demolition controls and local community-driven local plans;, now, therefore, be it 8 RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco 9 joins with other local jurisdictions and a growing statewide coalition of housing advocates in 10 opposingcontinues to oppose SB 50 unless amended to cure these concerns; and, be it 11 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San 12 Francisco is committed to working with its State Legislative Delegation to craft the necessary 13 amendments to SB 50 in order to adequately to protect San Francisco’s sovereign charter 14 authority, guarantee housing affordability, and adequately protect vulnerable communities, 15 and protect San Francisco’s sovereign charter authority; and, be it 16 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San 17 Francisco requests that SB 50 be amended to address significant concerns regarding: 18 1) Use of SB 50 as the base zoning for purposes of calculating the State 19 Density Bonus; 20 2) Additional incentives or concessions; 21 3) The authority of local jurisdictions to deny demolition permits to 22 code-complying SB 50 projects which involve demolition of existing 23 residential units; 24 4) Local authority to increase inclusionary requirements on SB 50 projects; 25 5) Use of SB 50 incentives for construction of ‘monster homes;’ Supervisors Mar; Mandelman, Yee, Fewer, Peskin, Walton, Ronen, Haney BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 6) Treatment of extant and future local Area Plans that increased zoned capacity to levels akin to SB 50; 7) Amend application of Costa Hawkins and the Ellis Act to allow for greater tenant protection in sensitive communities; and 8) A meaningful process for community feedback on the proposed boundaries of sensitive communities; and, be it 7 8 9 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 10 previous zoning. This includes plans a local government has adopted or is in the 11 process of adopting. SB 50 could include a provision for local governments to “opt- 12 in” to SB 50 state land-use interventions for a local community plan area as early as 13 July 1, 2021, pursuant to consultation with community-based organizations in the 14 particular area 15 16 2) Ensure communities in hot-market cities, like San Francisco which is meeting or 17 exceeding its Regional Housing Needs Assessment production goals for above- 18 moderate income housing, are afforded sufficient opportunity to create local 19 community plans and submit draft EIRs by January 2026 in lieu of SB 50 state land 20 use preemptions. This local community plan alternative shall include, at a minimum: 21 a. Rezoning to permit multifamily housing development at a range of income 22 levels to meet unmet needs, as informed by the Regional Housing Needs 23 Assessment production goals 24 25 b. Substantial increases to overall housing development capacity, particularly near transit stops, to meet unmet needs, as informed by the Regional Supervisors Mar; Mandelman, Yee, Fewer, Peskin, Walton, Ronen, Haney BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 5 1 Housing Needs Assessment and in the context of existing zoned residential 2 development capacity 3 c. Increased and explicit affordable housing benefits that meet or exceed the 4 minimum affordability standards set forth in SB 50, and meet or exceed the 5 existing local baseline Inclusionary standard for development projects 6 7 d. Increased displacement and demolition protections for vulnerable residents that meet or exceed the standards set forth in SB 50 8 SB 50 should exempt San Francisco from SB 330 and other state laws that would 9 render this local community plan alternative with its minimum requirements 10 infeasible. 11 12 3) Ensure Sensitive Communities in San Francisco are properly delineated and 13 exempted from SB 50. The definition shall aim to include all residents at risk of 14 displacement and areas with a history of community gentrification and 15 displacement. The “sensitive community” definition in San Francisco shall be 16 informed by the 11/25/19 “heightened sensitivity” map prepared by the UC Berkeley 17 Urban Displacement Project and conform, at a minimum, to the 12/11/18 map 18 prepared by the Equity Caucus of the Committee to House the Bay Area (CASA) 19 Geography Working Group. SB 50 could include a provision to “opt-in” to SB 50 20 state land use interventions for a “sensitive community” as early as July 1, 2021, 21 pursuant to consultation with community-based organizations in the particular area 22 23 4) Ensure all SB 50 projects are required to make affordable housing contributions 24 substantially higher than existing local affordable housing standards potentially 25 applicable for the site. In San Francisco, affordable housing requirements should be Supervisors Mar; Mandelman, Yee, Fewer, Peskin, Walton, Ronen, Haney BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 6 1 commensurate to the City’s “HomeSF” program standard for progressive value 2 capture 3 5) Ensure clear and strong tenant protection, anti-vacancy, and anti-demolition 4 provisions - with sufficient and robust state funding, programming, and enforcement 5 - to protect all tenants from displacement triggered by SB 50 upzoning 6 7 6) Ensure areas impacted by SB 50 showing demonstrable efforts to increase housing 8 (e.g. entitlements) receive increased transportation incentives, especially where 9 services and infrastructure are currently inadequate, subject to delays and 10 overcrowding, and/or deficient in their state of repair. Transportation incentives tied 11 to SB 50 could include, but is not limited to: 12 a. Direct capital and service investments through a bonus pot of grant funds 13 tied to housing provision, a higher share of formula funds distributed by the 14 state (e.g. LCTOP/Low Carbon Transit Operations Program) for associated 15 projects and programs, priority in state-funded competitive grant programs 16 (e.g. TIRCP/Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program and AHSC or Affordable 17 Housing/Sustainable Communities cap and trade funds), and 18 b. Allowances for jurisdictions to impose private sector development impact 19 fees, CEQA exemptions for public transportation projects for land use 20 changes triggered by SB 50, and/or funds for local community transportation 21 planning; and, be it 22 23 24 25 Supervisors Mar; Mandelman, Yee, Fewer, Peskin, Walton, Ronen, Haney BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 7 1 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San 2 Francisco directs the Clerk of the Board to transmit copies of this resolution to the State 3 Legislature and the City Lobbyist upon passage. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Supervisors Mar; Mandelman, Yee, Fewer, Peskin, Walton, Ronen, Haney BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 8