Two pieces of legislation that would make significant changes to San Francisco’s affordable housing laws came before the Planning Commission yesterday, sparking a discussion that gave an early inkling of the contentious battle both proposals will likely cause. Supervisor Chris Daly’s legislation would increase the percentage of affordable housing units developers must build as a condition of development, while Supervisor Jake McGoldrick’s would add buildings with 5-9 units to the city’s inclusionary housing law. Despite their attempts to solve what nearly everyone in the city agrees to be a major problem – the severe lack of homes available to low-income people – both proposals face early opposition from developers and downtown interests.
Yesterday’s hearing represented the beginning of a 90-day review process the Planning Commission will have before they make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the proposals. Already, opponents are beginning to push for either delaying or substantially altering the new legislation.
Daly’s proposal will likely cause the biggest fight, as it would force developers citywide to build hundreds more affordable units every year. The legislation would increase the required percentage of onsite housing for projects that don’t require Planning Department approval or a conditional use (CU) permit from 10 percent to 15 percent onsite and from 15 to 20 percent offsite. For those projects that did require department approval or a CU, developers would be forced to build 20 percent affordable housing onsite and 25 percent offsite.
While presenting the proposal to the Planning Commission, Planning Department staff reminded the public that a report on the impact market-rate housing has on affordable housing in the city would be forthcoming in the summer of 2006. SPUR and developers urged the Commission to delay reviewing Daly’s legislation until Planning can complete the study.
South of Market Community Action Network’s (SOMCAN’s) Chris Durazo, however, reminded the Commission of the massive amount of market-rate development already underway in the city. Durazo cited a number of condo developments currently under construction or in the pipeline in South of Market alone.
“If you’re going to postpone your decision [on Daly’s legislation], you need to think about postponing all of these projects going up in SOMA,” said Durazo.
McGoldrick’s legislation also raised the hackles of some developers. The proposal would lower the number of units a building must have before it becomes subject to affordable housing laws from 10 units to 5 units.
Local developer Dick Millet argued that should the proposal pass, he would simply start reducing his projects of 5-9 units to 4 units to avoid having to provide affordable housing units. In addition, SPUR and other development interests said the law should be tweaked so that the amount of affordable housing required is increased incrementally as the number of units in the development increase.
Whether the Planning Commission chooses to delay both pieces of legislation, alter them, approve them or deny them remains to be seen. A majority of Commissioners, as well as members of the Board of Supervisors, however, have already expressed their desire to solve the affordable housing crisis currently plaguing San Francisco. While the parameters of change may be altered, but it would be surprising should some form of the proposals not be enacted eventually.
