Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mission Interim Controls topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff presents options for Mission interim controls as community leaders press for displacement protections
Summary
Staff proposed six‑month interim controls to let the city study displacement and require conditional review for projects that remove rent‑controlled units, add five or more units, or convert arts/PDR uses; commissioners debated policy versus formal controls and asked staff to weigh a Comptroller study before finalizing language.
Planning Department staff presented a set of proposed interim controls intended to pause or condition certain approvals in the Mission while the city completes the Mission Action Plan 2020 and displacement/affordability analyses. The proposal, as introduced at the July 23 meeting, would: permit 100% affordable housing and PDR uses as‑of‑right; require conditional‑use review for projects that would remove rent‑controlled units, produce five or more dwelling units, or demolish/convert certain assembly/arts/PDR/institutional uses; and apply initially to pipeline projects filed after January 1, 2015 (staff clarified alternatives for different grandfathering dates).
Staff outlined alternatives commissioners could consider: change the numerical triggers (e.g., apply the CU trigger to the loss of any single rent‑controlled unit to match a citywide Supervisor‑led control), exempt projects that meet specified affordability targets (e.g., 100% affordable or projects that meet the city’s housing balance), restrict controls to projects of a certain size (20+ units or >25,000 gross sq ft), or exclude parcels that have been vacant for a minimum period to guard against late‑filed displacement tactics. Staff also described an economic analysis the Controller’s office is preparing that could provide per‑unit findings and a basis for consistent project‑level findings and mitigation requirements.
Public testimony was mixed. Several neighborhood organizers and tenants’ groups urged stronger controls, arguing the Mission is losing affordable housing and arts/PDR capacity too quickly; others warned that a moratorium could exacerbate supply constraints and advocated for faster production of housing even at market rates. Commissioners asked staff to prioritize simplicity, consistency and enforceability, to avoid a patchwork of grandfathering rules that could put similar projects under different standards depending on timing and location. Many commissioners expressed interest in awaiting the Controller’s displacement study, and staff agreed to return with refined language and additional analysis for a subsequent hearing.
