Supervisors hear competing housing proposals as wide public turnout urges more affordable units

The San Francisco Rules Committee devoted much of its July 17 session to two competing housing proposals aimed at stemming displacement and raising the city's affordable-housing output.

Supervisor Jane Kim presented the Community Housing Balance Act, an initiative ordinance that would establish a rolling 10-year citywide housing balance and require additional Planning Commission review (a conditional-use authorization) when affordable production falls below a 30 percent threshold. Kim said the goal is to ensure that a majority of new housing is affordable to households earning up to about $81,000 for individuals (roughly 60 percent of households) and to provide a transparent, neighborhood-level accountability mechanism when the city falls short.

"We have to hold ourselves accountable to the people of San Francisco in maintaining it," Kim said, arguing the code change would not ban development but would make affordability a formal factor in planning review.

April VanRassiano and other staff walked the committee through the measure's mechanics: an annually updated housing-balance count, exemptions for 100-percent-affordable projects, 8/20 projects, small projects and redevelopment/area-plan sites, a city "buy-in" option to restore balance, and quarterly reporting by the Planning Department.

The mayor's office presented its alternative: Olson Lee (Mayor's Office of Housing) and Sarah Dennis Phillips (Office of Economic and Workforce Development) described Mayor Ed Lee—s seven-point housing plan, which sets a goal of producing or preserving 30,000 housing units by 2020 across multiple affordability levels and emphasizes funding (including the newly created Housing Trust Fund), eviction prevention, preservation and expedited production. The mayor—s staff urged caution about adding a new conditional-use process that could slow market-rate development that currently produces fees and below-market-rate units for the city.

"We want resources, not process," Sarah Dennis Phillips said, asking that the city focus on revenue and speed to increase production rather than new procedural hurdles that could delay projects.

A lengthy public-comment period followed. Speakers from tenant groups, labor unions, neighborhood organizations, youth commissioners and residents delivered overwhelmingly pro-balance testimony. Common themes included rising rents, Ellis Act evictions, the shrinking middle class, and distrust that market-rate construction alone will produce the affordable units the city needs. Several speakers urged pairing any code changes with new revenue measures — a housing bond or impact fees targeted at luxury development — to fund preservation and new construction.

Supporters noted the measure—s exemptions for truly affordable projects and its focus on accountability; critics — including some housing and business stakeholders — warned that additional Planning Commission conditional-use hearings could create uncertainty and delay projects that generate fees the city depends on to finance affordable housing. Olson Lee said market-rate fees now comprise a large share of the Mayor's Office of Housing—s resources and that reduced production could constrain funding for nonprofit affordable housing and rehabilitation of public-housing units.

After hearing testimony the Rules Committee continued the item to the call of the chair for further refinement and additional hearings. The committee also held a separate hearing on the mayor's Build Housing Now planning-code ordinance and the mayor's seven-point plan; that measure urges production targets, funding analysis and that at least a third of Housing Trust Fund appropriations support preservation and San Francisco Housing Authority units. Public testimony reflected the same division: strong public support for the balance measure and caution from mayoral staff and other advocates about process versus revenue.

What happens next: both measures will return to Rules Committee and other hearings. Supervisor Kim's office and mayoral staff signaled they are prepared to continue negotiations on exemptions and funding mechanisms; advocates on both sides asked the Board and mayor to coordinate a package of reforms that couples accountability with new revenue for preservation and production.

Sources: Presentations and testimony at the July 17 Rules Committee meeting (Supervisor Jane Kim; April VanRassiano; Olson Lee; Sarah Dennis Phillips) and extensive public comment from tenants, labor, nonprofit and community groups.