It’s been a busy week in the volatile San Francisco housing world. State watchdogs began Monday by firing a shot across the city’s bow, in essence warning lawmakers to carry through plans to build more than 82,000 new homes this decade.
A day later, almost as if in self-parody, SF supervisors once again did exactly what the watchdogs were warning against, waylaying a 10-home project where Nob Hill meets Chinatown that the city’s own planners had already approved.
Bowing to neighbors’ protestations that the project might pose a fire risk, harbor toxic soil, and cast shadows on a recreation center, the supervisors Tuesday overrode Planning Department staff and commissioners who said the townhouse proposal checked enough boxes to bypass review under CEQA, the oft-abused California environmental law.
Seven supervisors upheld the appeal, and some noted that support for SF’s housing goals doesn’t mean approval of everything. Board president Aaron Peskin cited the pressure from tenant organizations and other community groups: “There is evidence of unusual circumstances.” Sup. Myrna Melgar said the worries about toxins gave her pause.
They then segued to debate a 19-unit housing development in the Castro, which they eventually green-lighted, but not before several supervisors admitted they’d likely squash the proposal if the state were not waiting to pounce.
“It’s not a great project, but I don’t think it’s a project we can say no to,” Sup. Rafael Mandelman said before his vote. (Nine other supervisors along with Mandelman denied the appeal, allowing the housing to move forward.)
That there was a vote at all showcased the city’s delinquent process. The board had approved the Castro project months ago, yet it was back before them for the 10th public hearing in all, thanks to the city’s “conditional use” rules that allow anyone to file an appeal at any time.
Peskin’s opposition on the Nob Hill housing came even as he floated some reform. On Tuesday, he and Mayor London Breed pushed for new legislation to accelerate stalled housing construction. The proposal would be temporary, lowering fees and the amount of required affordable housing in new projects (known as the “inclusionary system”) only during the current down cycle.
The hope is to make some buildings pencil out that are currently financially infeasible to build. As SF’s chief economist Ted Egan told The Frisc recently, these are adjustments officials are expected to make every few years — not necessarily fundamental changes.
And that brings us back to Monday’s letter. The missive from regulators — the state’s Department of Housing & Community Development, to be specific — was aimed directly at a hearing Thursday, where the Planning Commission will debate planning code changes to streamline housing production and in some cases potentially prevent this kind of undying appeals process.
In the letter, the state’s proactive housing accountability chief Melinda Coy writes, “The purpose of this letter is to express HCD’s support for the ordinance,” which may be true as far as it goes. But further reading suggests the letter’s ultimate purpose was a subtle warning: Don’t just pay lip service to more housing, make the changes necessary to build it.
SF has its blueprint — the new and ambitious Housing Element approved by the supervisors in January — but now must fill in the fine print.
“If HCD finds that a local jurisdiction has failed to implement a program included in the Housing Element, HCD may, after informing the local jurisdiction and providing a reasonable time to respond, revoke its finding of compliance until it determines that the jurisdiction has come into compliance,” Coy writes.
As The Frisc detailed last year, “revocation of compliance” can lead to the so-called builder’s remedy, a drastic erasure of local controls that SF has never been subjected to. Even with a Housing Element approved by HCD, as SF’s was, the state reserves the right to take the wheel at any point.
Brass tacks
The code changes up for debate Thursday are all about “constraints reduction” — policy-speak for lowering fees and cutting red tape. The letter highlights and recommends several of the changes that HCD regulators believe are at the core of revving SF’s housing engine:
- Let projects that meet state “density bonus” requirements bypass Planning Commission approval. (Density bonus laws allow developers to add more units than normally permitted in exchange for more affordable housing.)
- Allow HOME-SF projects (the local version of the state’s density bonus) to potentially demolish one unit in the development process. Right now, any demolition at all is a no-go.
- Apply one citywide building standard for new housing of at least 1,200 square feet and a 20-foot width. It’s incredible the city has gone this long without these uniform building rules.
- Eliminate impact fees for affordable housing that’s reserved for residents making up to 120 percent of area median income. (Impact fees are extra fees developers pay to help bear the new housing’s cost on public infrastructure, and they’re often used as bargaining chips by local groups.)
- Cut back on the neighborhood notifications and zoning administration requests that “certain code-compliant projects” have to go through.
- Nix the need for conditional use permits (possibly the most time-consuming demand this side of CEQA review) for many buildings in excess of 50 feet tall.
- Permit group housing at a rate of one unit per 415 square feet. (The 415 figure is presumably coincidental, but appreciated.)
These changes, if enacted, won’t solve the housing crisis on their own, but they will represent a real rewiring of deeply entrenched rules. Given the Planning Commission’s composition, not to mention HCD’s preemptive “recommendations,” a rejection of the proposed changes would be a surprise. The real test, evidenced by the supervisors’ actions Tuesday, will come farther down the line.