Three relatively big housing related items were on the agenda for yesterday’s Board of Supervisors meeting.
1. A two year extension on the condominium conversion lottery. If passed, the ordinance (pdf) would extend the 200-unit annual limit through 2008 and – if we’re reading it correctly – end the 2006 pilot condominium lottery program (which established seniority based on participation in prior lotteries). TIC owners/buyers take note.
2. A resolution imposing interim (18 month) zoning controls for a change in use or reduction in size of any recreational space of 15,000 square feet or more. The resolution (pdf) would effectively block Pulte Homes’ development of the San Francisco Tennis Club. (First set Daly?)
3. A resolution (pdf) establishing “City and County of San Francisco policy” that all new housing developments in the City’s “Eastern Neighborhoods” (Mission District, Eastern South of Market, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill and the Central Waterfront) should be required to consist of 64% affordable units (28% Moderate Income, 10% Low Income, and 26% Very Low Income). That’s quite a difference from the current 15% requirement. And although simply a non-binding resolution, BeyondChron explores its impact on the Eastern Neighborhoods and surrounding environs.
We’ve heard that the Board delayed their vote on the Eastern Neighborhoods resolution, but nothing more. Any readers have the full rundown?
∙ Board of Supervisors Agenda: 12/12/06 [SFGov]
∙ First Game Pulte (But Many Sets To Go) [SocketSite]
∙ San Francisco’s Inconsistent Housing Policy [BeyondChron]
I’m not politically savvy enough to fully understand the outcomes of what most development-related legislature might be, but would it be correct to draw the following conclusions should the three listed items be realized?
1. Extension of condo conversion lottery: Established, built-out neighborhoods will continue to be priced at a premium, as new housing opportunities (through conversion or tear-down/rebuild) will be limited. Areas such as SOMA/So Be will continue to see a flood of new construction because of continued land availability, and therefore values (based on demand) will be more fragile.
2. Zoning control on recreation space adds one more blockade to matching SOMA/SoBe’s housing development with amenities to attract buyers.
3. The “Eastern Neighborhoods” are resigned to being dominated by restrictions that impose lower-than-market real estate values and impede appreciation.
I look forward to hearing opinions and conclusions from the better-informed.
As a homeowner in the SOMA area, I’d say anything they do to restrict building will be good for my property values, bad for the city (IOW–it’ll probably have the opposite effect the politburo intends).
you can watch the Board of Supervisors (and any other city meeting on the internet. Here is the link for Video on Demand. http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=10
The Dec 12th meeting should be posted in a day or two.
#3, if seriously implemented, means there will be no housing produced by the private sector in the eastern neighborhoods–it just won’t pencil out. Even the slush funds Chris Daly has extracted from developers won’t be enough to create many subsidized units. Net result: nothing gets built. Of course, that’s the way the Supervisors like it: keep the eastern neighborhoods run down, dilapidated and seedy at all costs.
Adding more housing restrictions in the eastern neighborhoods is so absurd, it’s bordering on comical (unless you own property in the area – then it’s more tragic). Let’s review. In the 1980’s to early 1990’s, this area was slated for a significant increase in housing – the idea was to connect the downtown areas with the Bayview with a more vibrant residential community. So all that land and the one-story industrial properties along 3rd Street got upzoned to allow medium density residential uses – essential four story residential buildings where one story industrial buildings were. Enter the dot com boom with rampant development of every kind of commercial/industrial property being converted to loft office or live/work residential uses and you resulted with a pretty strong anti-development sentiment city-wide. The result of that was the IPZ (Industrial Protection Zone) and PDR (Production Distribution Repair) regulations for the Eastern Neighborhoods which effectively downzoned that entire eastern area by severely restricting the number of commercial properties that you could demolish and develop with residential or office uses. Oh and while your at it, throw in the City’s demolition ordinance from a few years ago which severely restricts the ability of a property owner to demolish any kind of residential improvements for a larger development (such as demolishing a house to build 10 units on the same property – even if the zoning allows it otherwise). Oh, and let’s not forget that you have to write off 15% of any new development units to affordable housing now too. So now, this huge area with a lot of marginal improvements have all these really recent restrictions put on them which effectively down-zones this entire area pretty radically. And like that wasn’t enough, if someone can find the needle in the haystack where it would’ve made sense to develop residential uses on a property, they are proposing that you’re going to have to give up 2/3 of the units to affordable housing and only make money developing 1/3 of the total units? I generally consider myself pretty liberal and actually am all for some government regulation to keep greedy market forces in check, but come on, I can’t believe this (64% affordable) resolution even made it into reality.
and…let’s not forget that we’ve spent something like $500 million on a new light rail line to serve the sparsely populated “eastern neighborhoods”, partially on the theory that this is where growth should happen in the future.
That wrong-minded crap like this resolution gets cloaked in “progressive” associations is mind-boggling.
This is exactly why no one takes SF seriously. We’re so high-minded and full of ourselves, yet we have no sense whatsoever.
We are a parody of ourselves.
I wonder at what point does this absurd regualtion become a govermental “taking” where just compensation is due to the land owners?
I know cites can and should zone but this seems so draconian. SF is very lucky prop 90 didn’t pass because I doubt they could pass something like this if it did
And the public investment in the 3rd street light rail makes it all the more sick
True – excessive zoning regulations are often decided in the courts where they are challenged as an unconstitutional “taking” of a property under eminent domain without just compensation.
It’s truly infuriating. This area is ripe for development.
Don’t we care about traffic and the environment and the economy? San Francisco, out of every county in the Bay Area, should be building the most housing. We have the most transit infrastructure, and the most density. People can actually live here without a car. And because of transit, development can follow suit and make the investment worthwhile. It’s actually over $660m that the 3rd St. LR project cost. And with this resolution nothing will get built and offset the cost.
We are strangling this City. The population hasn’t changed in 50 years because no one can build the housing that is needed. So the Central Valley’s getting paved over and they claim they care about Global Warming and the Environment? What a load of crap.
Industry will not come back. Shipping has containerized and moved to Oakland. It’s geography and logistics. Do they really expect manufacturers to set up shop in one of the most expensive cities in the country with extremely small plots of land? No. It is gone, and it will not come back.
Take the vacant land and build housing. That is all that is needed. Housing.
I cannot believe that these people are actually elected. They are so oblivious.
Remember that people that voted for supervisors like Chris Daly are the ones that he’s kowtowing to, in order to garner the necessary votes. And there still is quite a good ratio of renters to homeowners in the district he runs so there seems to be no way about it. SF is a renter-run city at this point and all matter of crooked politics to keep it underdeveloped in areas of obvious need will continue if officials like Daly or even Mark Gonzalez are elected.
It may be cut and dried to us but the whole view of things is pretty damn opaque to most of us homeowners I imagine.
Nice try there with the anti-Daly/Gonzales rhetoric – this is Sophie Maxwell’s legislation.
If nothing gets built, then home prices and rents remain high. And no developer-subsidized affordable housing gets built.
This is absolutely perverse to any kind of progressive agenda.
You know, this is such a ridiculous idea, that it really pains me to read about it.
Then I read the comments section, and I realize that all the informed people out there know what is going on… What is wrong with these decision makers and the people who elected them???? These ideas are not progressive or conservative, they are just bad.
This is an obvious way for Ms Maxwell push on her own agenda. No developer who took Finance .001a (common sense finance) would be able to finance a project with these restrictions. I question the motives for this law.
Interestingly enough, I heard that some companies like Lennar may be exempt from this restriction. Sounds kind of fishy to me.
Also, I just received a flier in the mail saying “The City of SF has plans in the works to DOUBLE the population of Potrero Hill”. There is apparently a meeting this Sat and Sund (at the PH Neighborhood house) to hear from the residents on how development should take place. Is Maxwell trying to stop these plans by passing on this law?
Who knows but I know I’m mad.
I heard that some companies like Lennar may be exempt from this restriction
It’s not that Lennar (or any other developers) would exempt, just that the developments Lennar is working on are outside the designated “Eastern Neighborhoods” area.
And as mentioned in the original post, keep in mind that it’s a “non-binding resolution” that Maxwell is fronting. At least for now…
The resolution has been continued until Jan. 9:
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4008#more
Is there a chance that sanity will prevail?
“Amidst ongoing confusion about the meaning and intent of Supervisor Maxwell’s Eastern Neighborhoods Resolution (See previous article), the Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 (Maxwell and McGoldrick dissenting) to continue the item until January 9. The continuance motion was approved following the Planning Department’s announcement that it would issue critical new information about the Eastern Neighborhoods in February. This raised questions about the wisdom of passing the resolution prior to that time.”
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4008#more
It’s Matt Gonzlez, not Mark. I voted for him, and think he would have been a great mayor. Let’s not lump him in with Daly, k?
ugh!!! It is so frustrating, I’m really glad I’m not the only one who thinks it’s crazy!
Anyhow, to track to an idea that gets bantered about here a lot on this site – which is all the new condo’s being built in Soma. There is NO way the new stuff in the pipeline will ever match the demand in SF with the city making developers give their first born son to get anything built. I’ve been trying to say this gently in many different guises on many different posts. For me I love all of SF not just soma, and this hurts the entire city, (well arguably it helps soma become more of a neighborhood faster). I’m for increasing the density in the city, not just soma, which I believe will increase the services and hopefully move us more into a carless modality moving forward. Let’s hope someone inside can speak reason to the Theater of the Absurd.
Agree with all the comments on the absurdity of this resolution. Until the current board of supervisors get voted out and replaced with more pragmatic leaders, these misguided and self-serving stunts will continue to prevail.
“It’s not that Lennar (or any other developers) would exempt, just that the developments Lennar is working on are outside the designated “Eastern Neighborhoods” area”
Good point! But the question still then remains, why allow market rate housing in Bayview and stop market rate housing in Potrero Hill.
Isn’t there anything us SF residents can do to stop this? Is there a way we can impeach her? j/k kinda…not really
I’m all for diversity and affordability where possible, but the only people who will benefit from this insane policy — which would stop all improvements to housing — are the Sureño and Norteño gangs, who will be able to shoot, kill, & terrorize the residents with increasing abandon as the rest of SF is forced to ignore the ghettos these neighborhoods will become. Not impressive!