By Alice Mosley, HANC Board
Committee room 250 was crowded with standing room only. The Land Use committee met to hear (or at least allow) public comment on its “upzoning” legislation, before it had been written. Although there was no legislation, there was a map that showed that the upzoning would greatly increase building heights along corridors throughout San Francisco, including the Haight Street commercial corridor, as well as affect half of the city. The ostensible justification for the “up zoning” was to meet state requirements for the construction of 82,000 new units in San Francisco.
During public comment - over 100 SF residents contributed--the very stipulation that there is a need for that quantity of new housing was challenged. Many outstanding contributions were made during this period of the hearing, and focused on many issues not yet addressed by the Board of Supervisors:
Firstly, increased density by building more housing was hailed as the way forward, upzoning proponents claim that increasing density by building more housing will address the housing crisis. However, there are 10s of thousands of market rate units currently empty. How do empty units create more density? It is not a family housing plan.
On top of that, there are already over 70,000 permits in the pipeline in San Francisco. Why are they not being built? And why the rush to incentivize further permitting by demolishing historic environmental protections enshrined in CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)?
As a Neighborhoods United speaker pointed out, the map provided was not an “upzoning map” but a demolition map. Rent controlled units will be replaced with unnecessary high end luxury towers.
Or is the new housing, if it gets built, serving instead as an investment vehicle for wealthy individuals and corporations to park their cash? Many speakers decried the giveaway to property developers.
The forecast of population growth which would explain requiring 82.000 units in SF was challenged as a figure calculated during the dot-com bubble. It was pointed out that SF has lost population in recent years, including 3,000 last year alone. No one credits it as a realistic or necessary number.
The supply and demand model, frequently cited by YIMBYs, does not operate when housing is treated as a commodity on the market, rather than a means to fulfill a social need.
While it was conceded that Sacramento’s overreach has boxed the Supervisors in, they were urged to join in with the other municipalities who were standing up to it.
As real estate speculators increasingly find real estate a safe investment, the cost of housing becomes inflated, putting both apartments and single family homes out of reach, especially to younger generations just starting out.
I looked at an example near where I live on 500 Stanyan Street - a large apartment building where rent for a 750 square foot apartment starts out at $4,100, which is more than the entire monthly salary of many working people, and most seniors, before food or other bills are even taken into account.
Members of the African American community pointed out the historic promises made of the right to return to members of their community before they were displaced, and how they are still waiting for justice in regaining their homes and their lost home ownership.
You can watch video of the hearing here: https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/50237?view_id=177&redirect=true .
The actual upzoning legislation was introduced at the Board of Supervisors on June 24, and can be downloaded here: https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7449405&GUID=DDD973ED-4B60-44D3-B7E9-3EC31487D470&Options=ID|Text|Attachments|&Search=250701 . It runs over 450 pages. Proposed changes to the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Commercial District can be found on pages 252-256. Zoning map changes can be downloaded here: https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7449404&GUID=0F95C63F-86D3-433A-8B92-069CAB240942&Options=ID|Text|Attachments|&Search=250701 . The legislation has been sent to the Land Use and Transportation Committee, but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.
Many people warned: you can only ruin a city once. Or as a city planner once explained it to me--If you win, it’s only temporary. If you lose, it’s for forever.