The Board of Supes Land Use and Transportation Committee today killed amendments to the mayor’s Rich Family Zoning Plan that advocates say will put 45,000 existing tenants at risk for displacement.
On the motion of Chair Myrna Melgar, the committee voted to table amendments that would have, among other things, protected all rent-controlled housing from demolition.
The vote moves the mayor’s plan closer to approval by the full board.
Lurie has been arguing that if his plan doesn’t pass, the state will impose mandates that are even worse. Sup. Connie Chan, who represents the Richmond, pushed back.
Chan made an impassioned statement that directly called out state Sen Scott Wiener, the author of several bills that seek to force more luxury housing on San Francisco: “We can’t agree to demolish San Francisco based on a state mandate from a single legislator based on an unproven ideology.”
She said that some of her amendments are “non-negotiable … We will not demolish people’s homes to replace them with market-rate units. We will protect our coastal zone, and demand real family housing.”
She said that many see this as a numbers game, but “there is a fear and anxiety over real estate speculation.”
Sup. Bilal Mahmood kept pushing his argument that any limits housing capacity or constrains the growth of luxury housing will put the city out of compliance with state law. If Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office decides San Francisco isn’t doing enough to help developers make higher profits, including by displacing rent-controlled tenants, it could impose a “builder’s remedy” and remove all local control of land use.
Help us save local journalism!
Every tax-deductible donation helps us grow to cover the issues that mean the most to our community. Become a 48 Hills Hero and support the only daily progressive news source in the Bay Area.
The state could also take away some $100 million a year in affordable housing grants, which is radically counterproductive: The entire idea of upzoning is to make housing more affordable.
The reality is that Wiener and his allies are trying to punish San Francisco for not being friendly enough to luxury housing developers—despite the fact that those developers have built thousands of units in the past decade, many of which are still vacant or owned by out-of-town speculators who don’t live in them and don’t rent them out.
If Chan decides to run for Congress—and she sounded a lot like a candidate tonight—this could be a defining issue, particularly on the West Side.
Mahmood said that allowing more luxury housing will also help affordable housing—which is true, to a limited extent. The city is now allowing developers to provide as little as 15-20 percent affordable units. Even at 20 percent, if developers build 40,000 new units, and actually pay for the required affordability, that would be 8,000 affordable units—less than 20 percent of what the state say the city needs (but is not paying for).
The affordable housing math doesn’t even begin to “pencil out.”
Oh, and that doesn’t count the induced demand for affordable housing created by housing for rich people.
One speaker noted that the $100 million the state is threatening to take away is 0.07 percent of the city’s budget, and would amount to less than $400 per parcel of land. “I would pay it,” he said.
But that’s not even necessary: A very modest local income tax on the very, very rich would provide plenty of money for affordable housing.
Mahmood opposed an amendment by Sup. Chyanne Chen that would mandate more actual family housing, more two- and three-bedrooms units, because the Planning Department said that could be a “constraint” on luxury development. You can cram more small units into a building than units that might make sense for “families,” which is supposed to be the point of the mayor’s plan. But that passed 2-1 with Melgar in support.
Another amendment that would set aside public land owned by Muni for affordable housing would also be a “constraint,” Citywide Planning Director Rachel Tanner said. (This is the old, infuriating debate over Muni and affordable housing.) Melgar and Mahmood voted against it.
Chen proposed that luxury development in low-income neighborhoods be limited to prevent gentrification, but that went down by the same 2-1 vote.
Chan’s measures to prevent demolitions of residential units were also rejected after the planners said the restrictions would impact thousands of parcels. So were plans to lower heights in commercial corridors and protecting property in the coastal zone.
Melgar then moved to table the version of the legislation that included the amendments proposed by Chan and Chen and supported by tenant groups, the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition, the Alliance for Affordable Neighborhoods, and Affordable SF. That passed 2-1 with Chen is opposition.
From Affordable SF:
“This is obviously a blow for tenants, at a time when San Francisco is facing its highest rate of evictions in over a decade,” said Fred Sherburn-Zimmer, director of Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco. “The Planning Department and HCD have admitted that the Plan was never predicated on demolishing rent-controlled homes. These are vulnerable renters’ homes in the Sunset, Castro, Noe Valley, the Richmond, North Beach and other neighborhoods – many are occupied by families and seniors living on a fixed income. Supervisor Chan’s amendment is a no-brainer, so it’s really sad to see our elected leaders cave to real estate special interests and anonymous bureaucrats in Sacramento.”
SF Planning originally excluded all parcels subject to rent-control in its housing count projections. Mayor Lurie then introduced a new map that dramatically increased the redevelopment value of these “opportunity sites.” Supervisor Chan introduced an amendment to exclude them all from the “local plan” – without losing a single net new unit, as far as HCD and State compliance is concerned.
“The depressing thing about all of this is that you have two hard-working supervisors who have worked overtime to make this zoning plan pencil – without incentivizing displacement,” said Peter Stevens, director of Build Affordable Faster CA. “Supervisors Chan and Chen have drafted common-sense amendments that are compliant with both Housing Element and HCD mandates. They are pushing a pro-housing vision that is also pro-affordability, pro-tenant and pro-working families.
The upzoning measure will come back to Land Use Dec. 1.
