A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Analysts and planners warn office‑to‑residential conversions face high costs and regulatory barriers; committee asks for prioritized incentives

April 03, 2023 | San Francisco County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Analysts and planners warn office‑to‑residential conversions face high costs and regulatory barriers; committee asks for prioritized incentives
Supervisor Asha Safai convened a broad hearing on repurposing commercial real estate for residential use, bringing the Budget & Legislative Analyst (BLA), SPUR, Gensler, Urban Land Institute and development consultants to present technical and policy findings.

BLA analysts summarized key metrics: downtown vacancy increased from ~5.6% in 2019 to about 24.1% in 2022, representing roughly 20.7 million square feet of vacant office space in the greater downtown market. Their report found conversion is technically possible for a subset of class B and C buildings but is costly and rarely pencils without incentives: only a small fraction of existing commercial stock has typologies and floor plates suited for economically feasible conversion.

SPUR, Gensler and ULI presented a typology and feasibility study noting San Francisco has a higher share of conversion‑suitable buildings than average but that most projects would still not be financially feasible under current rents and construction costs. Sample analyses in the presentation showed a set of 10 strong candidate properties could yield about 4,196 housing units if converted, but broader conversion would require layered policy changes including property tax abatements, reduced inclusionary or impact fees, streamlined ministerial approvals and building‑code alternatives.

Supervisors asked how conversion could prioritize affordable or middle‑income housing. Presenters said tailoring incentives and layering subsidies or JPA financing could create middle‑income pathways but would require explicit policy trade‑offs around inclusionary requirements, rent control, and the types of incentives offered. The committee requested a prioritized list of the most impactful policy levers and further analysis on affordable outcomes and financial assumptions; members continued the item to allow staff and presenters to return with that follow‑up work.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee