Basically developers need to designate 10-12% of the units in a new project as 'affordable' --OR-- build off-site units numbering 15-17% of the market-rate units in the origenal project.
Or just pay a fee the gets routed to non-profit housing developers<-- the usual option... nobody wants 'poor' people (like the guy who actually designed the building) bringing down the mood at their upscale condo tower.
the Planning Dept has begun a 90 day review of 2 new pieces of legislation that seek to increase developer requirements,
Daly wants to up the %'s (in my view not enough)
from 10 to 15 onsite
from 15 - 20 offsite
Mcgoldrick's wants ordinance to apply to buildings of 5 or more units rather than current 10.
i havent heard anything about revisiting the fees developers have to pay, which are pretty minimal from what i undestand and usually is the most appealing option. i think either of these are still not enough for the dev's in my book. perhaps the inclusionary housing should be staggered through out the building at different levels, within a greater spectrum of AMI, or diversified through out the city differently. sangiacomo gave in eventually at Trinity Plaza, and Rincon showed dev's could afford to provide more affordable housing and still make their killings. there needs to be some form of vacancy control, or anti-speculation tax.
anyway, it's a hot topic, as is the Better Neighborhoods Planning Plus legislation, the board is still hesitant about after 3 years of revisitation.
Affordable Housing in San Fran
Hello everyone,
I was wondering where I could find statistics and general information on affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Thanks in Advance.
Oops. I forgot to mention that I have the fact sheet from the Mayor's office, and that I am looking for other sources.
Thanks again.
slightly outdated, but try here: the housing element
http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=24994
what's the "fact sheet"?
Thanks Bryan
Here's the fact sheet
http://www.sfgov.org/site/moh_index.asp?id=5812
Michael, my dear, is that you?
nope, not Michael. I'm guessing you aren't the Queen of England either.
Section 315 of the SF Planning code is a good place to start...
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sf_planning
Basically developers need to designate 10-12% of the units in a new project as 'affordable' --OR-- build off-site units numbering 15-17% of the market-rate units in the origenal project.
Or just pay a fee the gets routed to non-profit housing developers<-- the usual option... nobody wants 'poor' people (like the guy who actually designed the building) bringing down the mood at their upscale condo tower.
the Planning Dept has begun a 90 day review of 2 new pieces of legislation that seek to increase developer requirements,
Daly wants to up the %'s (in my view not enough)
from 10 to 15 onsite
from 15 - 20 offsite
Mcgoldrick's wants ordinance to apply to buildings of 5 or more units rather than current 10.
i havent heard anything about revisiting the fees developers have to pay, which are pretty minimal from what i undestand and usually is the most appealing option. i think either of these are still not enough for the dev's in my book. perhaps the inclusionary housing should be staggered through out the building at different levels, within a greater spectrum of AMI, or diversified through out the city differently. sangiacomo gave in eventually at Trinity Plaza, and Rincon showed dev's could afford to provide more affordable housing and still make their killings. there needs to be some form of vacancy control, or anti-speculation tax.
anyway, it's a hot topic, as is the Better Neighborhoods Planning Plus legislation, the board is still hesitant about after 3 years of revisitation.
read more
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.