Who lives in the luxury units? They are mostly used as secondary residences, which does not help the housing crisis. Yet the state, supported by tech companies, wants to allow development that removes rent-controlled units for housing that is 80% not affordable.

Because of protests by people like you and organizations like us, a proposed housing law that would have taken away the right of the public to have hearings about major real estate developments was stopped, for now. Scott Wiener, who is running in November for State Senate, supports the bill. Vote for his opponent, Jane Kim!

Mountain View rent control headed for November ballot? Initiative proponents submit signatures

Jun 14, 2016, 2:59pm PDT Updated: Jun 14, 2016, 3:07pm PDT

Mountain View resident Duc Duong (right) signs the last petition for the Mountain View rent control initiative before organizers submitted more than 7,300 signatures to the city on Tuesday.

Mountain View residents are likely to vote on rent control this November, according to the Mountain View Tenants Coalition.

On Tuesday, the Coalition submitted more than 7,300 signatures for a rent control initiative to the city clerk, according to Communications Organizer Daniel Debolt. Among other things, the initiative would tie maximum allowable rents to changes in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation that has averaged a 2.5 percent annual increase over the last 10 years.

The next step is for the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters to count the signatures and verify they come from Mountain View residents. In order to qualify for the November ballot, the initiative must receive 4,671 valid signatures.

Debolt said the Coalition is confident they’ll have enough valid signatures, based partially on a study the group carried out on almost 1,000 petitions to determine the rate of invalid signatures. Debolt declined to share the percent the group found were invalid.

The initiative is opposed by the powerful California Apartment Association, a lobbying group for the rental housing industry, as well as the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors (SILVAR).

In an interview with the New York Times, CAA CEO Thomas Bannon said the group is planning to spend millions of dollars to defeat rent control initiatives across the state.

Tenant advocates in Burlingame and San Mateo are expected to submit signatures for their own rent control initiatives in the coming weeks.

Jessica Epstein, government affairs director for SILVAR, said the group is still working out what actions they’ll take to oppose the measure, but said it’s important for voters to know that the initiative does more than impose a cap on rent increases.

“This is 20-plus pages of policy,” she said.

If passed, the initiative would enact a just cause ordinance, which would require landlords to cite a specific reason, such as nonpayment or a lease violation, in order evict a resident.

Bryce Druzin

Economic development reporter

Silicon Valley Business Journal

Despite record-breaking corporate (Airbnb, Facebook, SF Realtors Association, and other big business interests) and Republican donations to the “Real Estate Slate”, we elected the Reform Slate to the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee (SF DCCC). We stopped corporate interests from controlling the SF Democratic Party!

Pressure from housing activists such as the San Francisco Tenants Union and other voters pushed the San Francisco Supervisors to support enforcement of the rules for Airbnb. Illegal postings by Airbnb will face penalties. Airbnb removes affordable housing from the market and Ron Conway, Airbnb’s investor, funds politicians (such as London Breed and Scott Wiener) and legislation that are anti-tenant.

Did you know San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim has a black belt in martial arts? Watch her action ad.

June Special: Support for those affected by eviction.

The Mission is ground zero for “No Fault” evictions.
We would like to support our neighbors by offering
$15 acupuncture treatments to anyone who is
fighting an eviction, has recently been evicted,
or is a member of a housing rights or
tenants advocacy group.

Community Acupuncture Works
2889 24th St. (between Bryant and Florida)
San Francisco, CA 94110
415.861.0104
www.caworks.org

A hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission, June 16, 2016, to consider adoption of changes to the San Francisco Planning Code as they relate to:

1. Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities (typically includes cell towers or cell antennas); and
2. Articles 10 and 11 of the Planning Code (to clarify that Planning Department staff may also deny certain types of historic preservation related applications as described further below).

The following links have been posted online at www.sf-planning.org/wirelessforms:

• Video, from SFGovTV, of the previous March 2016 Planning Commission initiation hearing (Choose Item 15)
• Powerpoint presentations slides from the initiation hearing. The presentation slides are intended to provide photos to visually illustrate the types of wireless facilities typically used in San Francisco, and some of the associated challenges. 
• The previous executive summary outlining, in (mostly) Plain English, the proposed changes that were discussed at the initiation hearing.
• FAQs about various some types of wireless facilities.

The proposed legislation was drafted by Planning Department staff, and is consistent with the changes presented during the March 17th initiation hearing; with the exception of a minor change to the definition of a WTS Facility. The Planning Commission recommended initiation of the proposed changes on March 17th.

In addition, Supervisor John Avalos (District 11) recently sponsored and introduced (requires a future Board of Supervisors hearing) the (same) proposed changes at a May 2016 Board of Supervisors hearing.

If you wish to provide formal written comments please provide them eight days before either (or both) the June 1st Historic Preservation Commission hearing or the June 16th Planning Commission hearing.

The hearing packets for the upcoming HPC and PC hearings will be posted on the Planning Department website on the Friday before each hearing.

Overview of proposed changes:

1. Provide an updated definition for Micro and Macro WTS Facilities and create a distinct land category for WTS facilities in the Planning Code. See BACKGROUND 1 below.
2. Clarify that Macro WTS Facilities can be conditionally permitted  (generally mounted on rooftops) in the West Portal,  Inner Sunset, and Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial Districts. See BACKGROUND 2 below.
3. Allow screening elements for WTS facilities to exceed height limits (subject to design/preservation review and shadow rules as related to parks). While unscreened (visible antennas, brackets, cabling, and equipment cabinets) antennas and towers are currently allowed to exceed height limits (subject to Planning Commission review), the screening elements typically placed around antennas and other equipment are not. See BACKGROUND 3 below.
4. Establish a 10-year time limit for Conditional Use Authorizations (CUA) when one is required for the WTS facility. See BACKGROUND 4 below.
5. Clarify that Planning Department staff may administratively approve or deny Administrative Certificates of Appropriateness (Article 10 landmark building or districts), and Minor Permits to Alter (Article 11 buildings or districts).This change would apply to both WTS facilities (e.g. on rooftops, inside signage, or on poles in the public right-of-way), and would also apply to other (non-wireless) eligible projects such as certain storefront modifications.See BACKGROUND 5 below.
6. Please note that at this time no changes are proposed to the WTS Facility Siting Guidelines, or the City’s radio-frequency emissions testing requirements.

BACKGROUND 1  | DEFINITIONS | The Planning Code currently does not include a universal land use for WTS facilities, and does not include a definition of a Micro WTS facility. In addition, the only reference to Micro WTS facilities includes a requirement that new Micro WTS facilities are subject to Planning Code Sections 311 and 312 Neighborhood Notification. This requires neighborhood notification (150 feet from the Project Site) for any new Micro WTS facility. The proposed update would provide a consistent definition and land use category, and clarify that Micro WTS Facilities are allowed in all zoning districts; subject to approval of a Letter of Determination by the Zoning Administrator, as well as neighborhood notification (where applicable), and design, environmental, and historic preservation review.

BACKGROUND 2  |NCD RULES | WTS Facilities are currently “conditionally permitted” (requiring approval by the Planning Commission at a public hearing) in all neighborhood commercial districts (NCDs).

WTS Facilities are currently included within the definition of a “Public Use” which includes museums and post offices. In the Inner Sunset, Pacific Avenue, and West Portal NCDs, the Planning Code’s Controls by Story rules limit “Public Uses” (and by extension, WTS facilities) to the 1st and 2nd floors. However, WTS facilities are typically installed on the roofs of multi-story buildings. This Controls by Story rule (limiting Public Uses to 1^st and 2^nd floors) does not apply to all other NCDs in the City.

The effect of the current Planning Code language allows for wireless carriers to possibly seek a more intrusive deployment of WTS facilities in nearby residentially-zoned areas (either on rooftops or on antennas/boxes attached to utility-owned wooden poles).

There are existing Micro and Macro WTS facilities in all three of these NCDs, as some Macro WTS facilities pre-dated the formation of the specific NCD; and Micro WTS facilities are not subject to the Controls by Story rules.

BACKGROUND 3  | HEIGHT LIMITS | The Planning Code (Section 260) currently exempts antennas and towers from height limits. However, screening elements (e.g. faux [fake] rooftop stairwell penthouses or faux vent pipes) are not referenced, and therefore subject to height limits.

The proposed change would exempt screening elements from height limits, but would be subject to design, historic preservation, and shadow review (shadows over parks, per Planning Code Section 295).

The effect of the current code language has led to instances where a wireless carrier may avoid a site on a larger/taller building due to limited screening options, and instead pursue a location (e.g. roof of a two-story building) where the placement of antennas and equipment, even if screened, is considered more intrusive (e.g. visibility, noise, and proximity of antennas) by the surrounding community.

BACKGROUND 4  | TIME LIMITS | The Planning Code does not provide a time limit for WTS Facilities. However, Personal Wireless Services Facilities (antennas and equipment boxes attached to utility-owned wooden power poles) are subject to Article 25 of the Public Works Code (due to their location within the public right-of-way), and are currently subject to a 10-year permit limit.

The proposed change would only apply to:

1. New WTS facilities which require a Conditional Use Authorization, or

2. Modifications to existing WTS facilities requiring a new Conditional Use Authorization.

The time limit is proposed due to the spatial effect of such facilities and the rapidly changing nature of WTS facilities. It is consistent with both the time limits established for wireless facilities in the public right-of-way (e.g. antennas and equipment on wooden utility poles; which are disfavored) and time limits typically established for wireless facilities in other California communities (on buildings – outside the public right of way).

The proposed change would not apply to Micro WTS facilities in all zoning districts.

The proposed change would also not apply to WTS facilities in zoning districts where a WTS facility is principally permitted (e.g. Downtown), and a Conditional Use Authorization is not required, unless the specific design exceeds certain size or height parameters.

In these zoning districts a WTS facility can be approved via a building permit (along with design and historic preservation review, if applicable). This applies to zoning districts with the following prefixes: C, M, MB, or PDR (except PDR-1-B); which are primarily larger scale commercial and industrial areas (e.g. Downtown and portions of the Bayview, Fisherman’s Wharf, and South of Market Areas).

BACKGROUND 5  | HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPLICATIONS | The Planning Code currently allows the Historic Preservation Commission to determine certain scopes of work as minor (e.g. certain storefront alterations, signage, and WTS facilities) and delegate approval of specific applications to Planning Department staff.

The applications involved include an Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness (Article 10) and a Minor Permit to Alter (Article 11).

The proposed change would indicate that staff may “render a decision,” which would clarify that staff may also deny certain applications that do not comply with Preservation standards.

This change is needed, due in part, to a new State law, AB 57, which took effect January 2016. The law creates an automatic approval for a WTS facility if a City/County does not make a decision within certain time limits (90 days for collocations and 150 days for new facilities). The proposed change would allow staff to deny a WTS facility application that is not consistent with Preservation standards, and avoid an automatic approval from taking effect.

The majority of the over 750 (mostly rooftop-mounted) WTS facilities in San Francisco are located on buildings considered potential or known historic resources, or also located within historic districts. Many facilities are screened within elements designed to mimic faux vent pipes or rooftop penthouses. Some older antenna systems can be found mounted to building facades; however such installations are typically not allowed for new facilities.

New density bonus plan emerges for 100 percent affordable housing projects, proposed by Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Eric Mar. The new proposal replaces the Affordable Housing Bonus Program proposed by Mayor Lee, that could have displaced many low income tenants from affordable homes.

Vote for pro-tenant candidates and legislation endorsed by the San Francisco Tenants Union.