In a crucial development for San Francisco's housing landscape, the city's Board of Supervisors is taking steps to prevent developers from using the state builder’s remedy to bypass local zoning regulations for new home construction. This move comes in response to a stringent audit by the California Department of Housing & Community Development, which criticized the city's residential development approval process.

The Urgency of Reform

The audit, conducted last month, gave San Francisco a 30-day deadline to pass Mayor London Breed’s “constraints reduction” ordinance. This ordinance aims to streamline the development process by reducing bureaucratic hurdles, allowing many projects to proceed without a Planning Commission hearing. However, the city missed the initial Monday deadline, prompting the likelihood of a state-issued warning letter. San Francisco now has an additional 30 days to enact the streamlining ordinance.

Implications of Missing the Deadline

Should San Francisco fail to meet the second deadline, the state could decertify its Housing Element plan, which targets the construction of 82,000 new homes by 2031. This decertification could jeopardize substantial funding for affordable housing and transportation. Moreover, it could enable developers to apply for builder’s remedy projects, circumventing local planning review.

Diverse Reactions to State Intervention

The state's intervention has garnered mixed reactions. Pro-housing YIMBY advocates view it as a necessary correction to the city’s slow planning approval process, which contributes to San Francisco being the most expensive city for housing construction in the state. Critics, however, perceive it as a form of "blackmail" that could lead to unchecked market-rate development, potentially harming neighborhoods and doing little for low- and middle-income housing.

Amendments for Protection and Balance

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman has proposed amendments to protect rent-controlled units and historic properties. These amendments include a ban on demolishing rent-controlled units and withholding streamlined approval for "monster homes" in affluent neighborhoods. Mandelman emphasizes the complexity of the issue, aiming for an ordinance that increases housing production while improving the city's quality of life.

Committee Chairwoman Myrna Melgar, in collaboration with the city attorney and the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, has worked on legislation that protects tenants and facilitates faster, more affordable home building. Melgar believes the resulting legislation is strong and compliant with state law.

Conclusion

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors' actions reflect the city's effort to balance local zoning integrity with state demands for increased housing. This development is critical for residents, developers, and policymakers, as it will shape the future of housing in San Francisco.

For more information on this evolving situation, read the full article on The Real Deal.

If you're considering how these changes might impact your property or investment in San Francisco, text me to schedule an appointment. I'm here to provide expert insights and guidance in navigating these complex developments.

‍