Examining Local Law, Policy, and Planning Practice on Development in San Francisco Using CALES
San Francisco’s planning practice and process problems spring from local law that applies discretionary review to any permit and offers repeated opportunities to challenge project approvals after an already complex and lengthy planning review process. These rules incentivize risk averse planning practices to avoid disruptions to a busy workflow and public scrutiny from political bodies. Risk averse planning practices, in turn, limit full implementation of the Permit Streamlining Act, Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act, and in some instances, State Density Bonus Law. Local rules also limit the effects of SB 35, as affordable developers face post-entitlement appeals. Still, the direct effects of state ministerial review highlight what is possible in terms of resolving San Francisco’s process issues. Planners, developers, and housing advocates suggest achievement of the city’s equity goals requires a local ministerial process coupled with equitable upzoning. What is also apparent, however, is that reforming zoning and entitlement will be insufficient to attain production targets. The city has major challenges with post-entitlement processes—some of which are related, again, to local rules, and some of which are related to variability and subjectivity in permitting processes, staffing, and lack of inter-agency coordination.