Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian
I believe San Francisco's own BMR requirement exceeds 10% so all new projects in the city should fall under this unless there's something I'm missing--the program can be rather complicated with the alternatives to pay a fee or build off-site and differing requirements for rental vs owner-occupied housing and if somebody wants to clarify that would be great.
The concern in this thread, of course, is primarily with the effect of the ordinance in simplifying and speeding up approval of San Francisco projects and minimizing the ability of NIMBYs to block them.
|
It's confusing because there are two different tiers here. There are the cities that the state will have force streamlining for any projects that contains 10% or more affordable housing. While this is the majority of CA jurisdictions, it's not the one SF is in.
SF is in the smaller, but still sizable, second cluster. This cluster contains forced streamlining for projects with 50% or more affordable housing.
In a bizarre way, I'm curious to see is if developers would now be incentivized to include more affordable housing, in order to take advantage of this law and/or state density bonuses. The first 35% of affordable housing gets you a huge density bonus (the Nordstrom parking lot tower being proposed is one example of how aggressive this may get in the future), the remaining 15% gets you streamlined and moving quickly and dodging being tied up in neighbor complaints etc.
In a weird way, we may get more affordable housing out of this. I think we'll all be watching the Nordstrom parking lot proposal closely for the density bonus.