California’s housing crisis unites unlikely camps in support of new bill

It’s the political equivalent of a cat and a dog playing together. And something rarely seen in California.

YIMBYs and historic preservationists, two often conflicting groups, are uniting in support of San Francisco City Councilman Matt Haney’s policies aimed at making it easier to convert office buildings into housing, and the declining It could help revive areas such as downtown San Francisco. Around California.

Even if this measure is passed, its effects may not be felt for some time. But the unusual alliance behind AB3068 not only shows how the urgency of California’s housing crisis is uniting political opponents, but also shows how easy it is to attack rivals on social media. It is also a rare Kumbaya moment in an era of polarization. We will work towards a solution.

And maybe we can take a breather and find other problems to work on together.

“The whole point here is that we should be talking, not isolated in opposite corners, and that’s what happened,” said Cindy Heitzman, executive director of the California Conservation Foundation. “We sat down and worked on this and found common ground.”

“We knew they thought we were the bogeyman,” said Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action, which supports all types of housing construction. I knew it was there,” he said, referring to the defunct state program. Helped fund local projects to revitalize blighted areas.

Preservationists and others object to the clearing of entire neighborhoods in the name of redevelopment, such as San Francisco’s predominantly black Fillmore neighborhood in the mid-1960s.

“But they were able to understand that the YIMBY movement is actually made up of people who want to be part of the city they live in,” Foote said.

A coalition did not form organically around this bill. Haney originally introduced the program more than a year ago as a way to revitalize a struggling downtown area, where occupancy rates in many office buildings were well below pre-pandemic levels. That’s a big problem in San Francisco, where the office vacancy rate is 36%.

“I don’t think those people are going to come back,” said Haney, who lives on San Francisco’s Market Street, in the era of hybrid work arrangements. But once people live in these office buildings, they could revitalize otherwise deserted downtown areas.

San Francisco’s problems are exacerbated by long delays in building 82,000 new housing units mandated by the state. Filling these office buildings will help us achieve that goal.

Then why not turn them into housing? A 2023 study by Gensler Architects found that converting 12 office buildings to residential use could create 2,700 homes in downtown San Francisco.

However, converting an office building into housing is not easy. Especially in newer buildings, wide open floor plans can make conversions difficult. Every project is different, but it’s often easier to rethink old office buildings from a construction perspective.

But politically, not so much.

“The biggest concern is what the exterior of the building will look like,” Heitzman said. “It’s what we call character-defining traits. Are they being violated?”

People on both sides agree that preserving aspects of San Francisco’s historic buildings is laudable. The problem is that some people who don’t want any changes to their neighborhoods often block new housing in their own homes, hidden under the guise of historic preservation.

“Preservation can often be used as a way to discourage development in wealthy enclaves,” said Sujata Srivastava, chief policy officer at the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Society (SPUR). Measure. “There was some tension and concern there. Are we expanding the definition of historic resources in a way that actually makes development impossible?”

Seeking ways to simplify and speed up the transition, Haney called for relaxing environmental reviews, allowing local governments to move these projects through the approval process more quickly, and providing tax incentives to developers. Introduced the Giving Office to Housing Act.

After Haney introduced the measure, he began hearing feedback from developers and local leaders about “preservation issues.”

“We thought they were going to object to this and there was nothing we could do,” Haney said. “But that was a wrong assumption.”

Nate Albee, one of Mr. Haney’s top aides, became acquainted with several preservationists while working for the oversight board at San Francisco City Hall. He contacted Heitzman and Foote, and they began meeting weekly for a year. It wasn’t always smooth. Haney said there have been several times when negotiations have come close to collapsing.

However, the two sides continued to talk and found common ground. The YIMBY couple wanted more housing. Preservationists, too, thought adaptive reuse might be a way to preserve buildings that might be lost in California’s (at least stated) urgency to build more housing.

“They were interested in hearing from us,” Heitzman said, noting that preservationists have been working with developers and political leaders to build old offices in downtown Los Angeles over the past few decades. He noted that the company has helped convert buildings into thousands of homes. “We are not anti-housing.”

“I think what’s making this possible at this point is the political reality, that neither side feels like they can fight as hard as they can and win and win it all,” Haney said. .

“If we don’t meet somewhere in the middle, nothing will happen,” Haney said. “If we leave these guys alone and let them fight across the state, nothing is going to happen. And we’re going to miss the opportunity to get more done.”

The bill is currently before Congress’ powerful Appropriations Committee, whose chair, Oakland MP Buffy Wicks, told me she supports it.

But some have concerns.

The city of Santa Clarita, north of Los Angeles, is concerned about “the bill’s provision that permits and entitlements be granted within 60 days if the project has fewer than 150 housing units and within 90 days if the project has more.” stated in the document. Analysis of countermeasures. Santa Clarita officials feared the proposal would “compromise due diligence,” given that the city’s typical rights and permit review process takes six to nine months.

The California League of Cities, an influential advocacy group, is still analyzing the bill and has not yet taken a position, spokeswoman Kayla Sherwood said.

Political opposition aside, there is likely no law that can overcome the larger challenges of converting office buildings to housing: high construction costs and interest rates that are stifling development. These conversions are now too expensive.

Haney acknowledged these hurdles, but said it’s important to be prepared when interest rates drop.

“Developers, building owners and banks are making decisions about what to do with buildings that are currently vacant or will be vacant,” Haney said. “We now need to put a framework in place that allows us to take housing conversion as a serious option.”

Meanwhile, Heitzman and Rafa Sonnenfeld, YIMBY Action’s policy director, are meeting with members of Congress to support this bill and are considering other bills they can work on. Asked if this partnership was unprecedented, Heitzman laughed.

“This is really unprecedented for us,” Heitzman said. “And I have to say, that’s what we should do. We need to reach out and talk to housing advocates to find common ground.”

Contact Joe Garofoli: jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com; Twitter: @joegarofoli