web analytics

SF pushing changes to affordable housing requirements, short-term rental rules

Trending Articles

Supervisors David Campos, left, and Aaron Peskin announce new legislation that would further regulate short-term rentals in San Francisco during a news conference on Monday at City Hall. (Jessica Christian/S.F. Examiner)

Ushering in a new era of housing policy, San Francisco has proposed a tougher rule on short-term rentals like Airbnb and will vote today on legislation to increase affordable housing requirements.

Legislation from supervisors Aaron Peskin and Jane Kim would impose new affordable housing requirements on development, should voters in June approve Proposition C, a charter amendment that would allow the Board of Supervisors to adjust the requirements rather than voters, who currently have that power.

With thousands of homes wending their way through the planning process and the future of development at stake, the board is poised to vote on the legislation today after it advanced Monday out of the board’s Land Use and Economic Development committee.

The law would impose a 25 percent affordable housing requirement for new developments with at least 25 homes. The current requirement is 12 percent for projects with at least 10 units.

While last week the committee hammered out controversial details of grandfathering provisions, on Monday Supervisor Scott Wiener outright opposed the legislation, arguing it could mean a “de-facto moratorium,” even though he has endorsed Prop. C.

Wiener said he had concerns the 25 percent could render future development unfeasible. “We’re finally starting to see rents leveling off in San Francisco because we have been producing more housing over the last few years,” Wiener said. “We should be waiting to see what the [economic] feasibility shows.”

The legislation requires the City Controller to issue by July 31 a feasibility study of affordable housing requirements.

In addressing Wiener’s concerns, Peskin said, “We should be very proud of” the legislation. He said the pipeline projects were “treated lightly,” facing increases between 1 percent and 2.5 percent on top of the existing 12 percent requirement.

“We’ve got four years worth of projects already in the pipeline,” Peskin said.

Peskin also objected to Wiener’s housing supply-demand analysis, arguing that it wasn’t the building of more housing that has led to what Wiener called “rents leveling off” but shifting market conditions.

Under the proposal being voted on today by the Board of Supervisors, developments proposed prior to 2014 must comply with a 13 percent affordable housing requirement, 13.5 percent applies to projects proposed in 2014 and developers must hit 14.5 percent if filed in 2015. Projects in excess of 120 feet tall must hit 25 percent.

There are some 10,000 homes in the pipeline, and the new rates are expected to yield an additional 200 below-market-rate units.

Every unit counts

As San Francisco is poised to increase its affordable housing requirements, The City may also be ready to add more restrictions on short-term rentals like Airbnb, which have been widely blamed for gobbling up existing housing.

Today, Supervisor David Campos will introduce legislation to require websites like Airbnb to only list short-term rental opportunities with a verified registration number or face fines of up to $1,000 daily

“We believe that some 2,000 units of housing have been permanently taken off the market” by “unscrupulous speculators” violating the city’s short term rental laws, Peskin said. “Not all of the [short-term rental] operators are mom-and-pops trying to make ends meet.”

In his support of the proposal, Peter Cohen, co-director of the SF Council of Community Housing Organizations, referred to The City’s March housing balance report.

“We are losing three rent-controlled protected units for every four we build,” Cohen said. “We know that the short-term rental industry is part of that. How much of that we can’t know until we have an ability to have transparency.”

Airbnb said in an emailed statement, “While the legal enforceability of this proposal is questionable, Airbnb will continue working with our community to simplify the process and get hosts registered.”

Supervisors, however, said the proposal is legally defensible. The federal law in question says, in part, that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Click here or scroll down to comment

  • old timer in SF

    When the BOS implements and creates more laws and rules to increase the stock of more affordable homes. Its unfortunate that what the BOS will do is make housing actually more expensive. With more affordable required units, it makes housing more expensive across the board with those buying the non subsidize to pay more. It will also make developers think twice to build new housing.

  • jgkiefer

    Let the free market determine it. If you can’t afford it, move. When enough people have to start moving the tech companies will move to where it is more affordable also. Thus solving the problem.

  • Howard Epstein

    VOTE NO ON PROP. C – The Board of Supervisors should not be given the power to dictate the amount of subsidized housing without voter approval. Increasing the amount of subsidized housing requires more subsidy-providing luxury housing and less middle class housing to be built, thus exacerbating the shrinking of San Francisco’s middle class.

  • Guest

    This affordable housing craziness has to stop. This is not the old USSR, at least not yet. Campos, Peskin, and Kim are just pawns of the development and union lobbyists, otherwise why would they want to mess with such quality of life issues affecting everyone living in SF when housing density is already insane. There is a complete absence of verifying and reexamining who is a legitimate affordable housing participant, an area where the city totally lacks the checks and balances for programs they approve. Wiener has taken a more cautious and intelligent position. Changes to the charter being pushed by the three musketeers should be strongly opposed. It is obvious they have an agenda that will benefit no one but themselves.