Families from Chinatown, Bayview, the Tenderloin and Mission came to City Hall in droves yesterday to support the Family Housing Initiative – which will be on the June 2008 ballot. Stories about family members leaving San Francisco due to overcrowded conditions and insufficient options set the stage for the proposal – which encourages private housing developers to make all their affordable units large enough for families. The incentive would provide a small density bonus – which does not interfere with additional standards that neighborhood plans may impose on developers. The initiative is not the panacea for addressing the flight of families (or even the affordable housing crisis in general), but it’s a modest step that would make a real difference. And in the end, something has to be done soon.

“This will be a useful tool – but a modest one,” said Supervisor Bevan Dufty at the start of the Hearing. A few weeks ago, Dufty teamed up with his colleagues Ross Mirkarimi, Aaron Peskin and Sophie Maxwell to put the initiative on the ballot – after groups like the Tenderloin Housing Clinic (which publishes BeyondChron) and ACORN proposed it. “Often,” said Dufty, “affordable housing is seen as an either-or. I commend activists like Randy Shaw who are working creatively to bring solutions.”

San Francisco has an inclusionary housing ordinance for new projects – which requires that 15% of the units be set aside as “below-market rate.” But over the years developers have satisfied this requirement by just building studios – so families who have the greatest need for such housing get the short end of the stick. At an affordable condo lottery that I participated in recently, nearly 300 families competed for one two-bedroom apartment – while single adults like me got to choose from 15 studios and one-bedrooms.

“I have three children who are seven, five and an infant,” said Maria Gomez of La Voz Latina through a Spanish interpreter. “We all live in a Tenderloin studio, and one of my kids is autistic. Because he is autistic, he needs his own space. That’s why we need more housing for families.” Other parents spoke about how their children can’t bring their friends over to play – because the apartments are simply too small.

Others spoke about how housing costs – and cramped conditions – are driving families out of San Francisco. Cynthia Livingston of ACORN said she doesn’t know how living in a small apartment will be manageable as her two sons get older – and that her whole extended family has already left the City. Giselle Hernandez, a union member with CWA, also spoke about how her co-workers – who have good-paying middle-class jobs – are now commuting from the East Bay (and further) due to the lack of family housing.

Stormy Henry, who lives in Bayview but grew up in the Fillmore, spoke directly about the plan’s critics who oppose density bonuses for family housing. “When you talk about ‘control,’ you’re controlling the number of people who can move in,” she said. “When you say the word ‘reduce,’ you’re talking about taking something away. I have three kids – and the space that we’re living in is just not right. My daughter needs her own room, but I can’t afford anything else in San Francisco.”

The Family Housing Initiative will give private developers a small density bonus in bulk – but not height – if they agree to make all the “below-market rate” units in their property two-bedroom apartments or larger. Ann-Marie Rodgers of the Planning Department was on hand to explain what such a “density bonus” would mean in the real world: a parcel at 24th and Noe where the developer can only presently build 5 units would increase to six, and a project at Eddy & Larkin slated for nine units could build up to 16 units.

“The Department is confident that the initiative will not undermine community impact fees,” said Rodgers – or additional concessions that the City usually gets from developers in exchange for letting them build. In fact, the initiative provides a floor (not a ceiling) of creative incentives to build more appropriate housing. For example, activists in the Eastern Neighborhoods want to require developers to build a higher percentage of affordable units. This initiative does not preclude that – it just says that if a developer has to build affordable units, they should be two-bedroom apartments or larger.

Moreover, a small increase in density would result in more affordable units – because the inclusionary zoning law is tied to a percentage of total units in the building. For example, at present the nine units at Eddy & Larkin would only yield one affordable unit (which is likely to be a studio.) But if the Family Housing Initiative passes, and the developer then takes advantage of the density bonus to build 16 units – we would have three affordable units (all of them family sized.) A modest density bonus could yield tangible results.

The five people at the hearing who opposed the initiative – and who waited until most audience members had left – claimed that the families who spoke would not benefit from such new affordable units. That is factually incorrect. Many of the working-class parents who spoke at the hearing have union jobs, and would meet the guidelines of 80- 120% AMI for condos or 60% AMI for rentals. And these are precisely the people who are moving out of San Francisco due to the lack of available options.

“I’m always very candid with the parents we organize,” said Bobbie Lopez of La Voz Latina – a project of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic that works with very low-income families. “And I told them that a lot of them would still not qualify to get these units. But there are families who will benefit, and our members understand how important it is to speak out for more family housing. We need more options.”

And when it comes to the mammoth problem of affordable housing, we should encourage such creative solutions.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Randy Shaw, who publishes BeyondChron, played a major role in drafting the Family Housing Initiative.