The headline sounds pretty promising: San Francisco is on the verge of abolishing single-family zoning, and will soon allow 4-plexes across the city and up to 6 units on corner lots. It is also clear recognition that, "hey, we have a housing problem and should probably figure out a way to increase overall supply."

Unfortunately, when you look at the policy details, you'll see that this is likely to be more symbolic than effective. What is being proposed is to take the 40% of San Francisco's land area that is zoned exclusively for single-family houses and upzone it to allow for duplexes on an as-of-right basis.

And then, if you happen to have owned the property for at least 5 years -- or inherited it from a family member that did -- you can apply for a special "density exception" from the city. This would allow you to build 6 units on corner lots and 4 units on all remaining mid-block lots.

But here's the other thing: if you are granted this density exception, the additional units (beyond your as-of-right two) will be subject to rent control. So the important question here is about whether or not anyone will end up building more than luxury duplexes and, if they do, will there be enough scale to produce a meaningful impact.

I'm not familiar with development cost structures in San Francisco and I'm not sure if there will be any incentives/subsidies for delivering these additional rent controlled units, but the above feels like far too many barriers if the goal is more housing.

But it remains a step in the right direction. Symbolism certainly has its merits.

For other posts on infill housing, click here.

Photo by Braden Collum on Unsplash

This Twitter thread by UC Davis Law Professor, Chris Elmendorf, is a good reminder that there can be a meaningful difference between actual completed homes and zoned land that might one day becoming new housing.

The point he makes is as follows: The state of California's housing needs allocation for the city of San Francisco is approximately 80,000 new homes over the next decade. In the past, cities could demonstrate that they were able to meet these targets through, as I understand it, some fairly loose assumptions. But more recently, amendments have made it such that the probability of new homes actually getting built needs to be considered.

San Francisco has been doing this and, according to Chris, the conclusion was that the city should upzone portions of the city -- primarily on the west side -- to allow for some 22,000 new homes. Sounds cool. But as part of this process, the city also hired an outside consultant to run indicative pro formas and assess overall development feasibility. This is what they found:

I haven't seen any of the actual numbers, but what this chart is saying is that nobody is going to develop on the west side of the city no matter what entitlements you put in place (tier 3 and tier 4 market areas). The only new development that is likely to take place is high-rise development over 24 storeys in the highest value submarkets (tier 1 and tier 2 market areas).

Based on this, the 22,000 new homes figure is probably closer to 0 new homes.