San Francisco voters may have resolved a debate last week over increasing affordable housing requirements for developers with the passage of Proposition C, but already The City is engaged in another hotly contested housing issue, a density bonus program.

The issue is possibly even more politically charged than Prop. C, the Affordable Housing Requirements measure placed on the ballot by Supervisors Jane Kim and Aaron Peskin. Voters widely passed that measure on June 7.

About two years ago, Mayor Ed Lee proposed with the support of supervisor Katy Tang the Affordable Housing Bonus Program, or AHBP. The legislation that would enact the program underwent its first hearing Monday before the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee.

Amid criticism, Tang amended her proposal Monday to prohibit the demolition of residential units and only asked the committee to vote on the portion of the plan that allows a density bonus for 100 percent affordable housing projects. The program is intended to allow developers to construct taller or denser buildings in exchange for more affordable housing.

The density bonus for mixed-income development remained in the committee for further debate, after it was amended to require developers obtain a conditional use permit, which can be appealed to the full board.

While the proposal advanced with the support of supervisors Malia Cohen and Scott Wiener, Supervisor Aaron Peskin opposed it and predicted a defeat at the full board next week.

“Let’s deal with political reality,” Peskin said. “The version that you want to send to the full board is not going to survive. So we are just wasting our time.”

Peskin has introduced a competing density program to only allow 100 percent affordable housing, referred to as “Density Done Right.” Peskin’s request of the committee to expedite review of his proposal was defeated in a 2-1 vote.

In defending his vote, Wiener said he opposed Peskin’s proposal and that it was important to have the full board “go on record to say where they are: do people want to make it easier or harder to create housing?”

Wiener added that he supported the mixed-income program as well, even though Tang has compromised to only advance the 100 percent affordable housing component.

While critics of the mayor’s measure say it gives too many allowances to developers while not adequately guarding communities against adverse impacts and displacement, critics of Peskin’s measure say it’s overly restrictive.

For instance, Tang argued, “You want to put more obstacles to building 100 percent affordable housing projects,” in an apparent reference to Peskin’s measure requiring conditional use permits.

But Peskin responded the permit “honors our neighborhoods and the fabric of our city and gives people a voice in the planning process.” Peskin’s proposal also replaces the Area Median Income requirements used to determine affordability with neighborhood median incomes.

Planning Director John Rahaim backs the mayor’s program. “Affordable housing is probably the issue of our time,” Rahaim said. “We believe strongly in the importance of this program that it will lead to the development of significantly larger numbers of affordable units than we are seeing today.”

Gil Kelley, director of citywide planning, said there are 40,000 permanently affordable units in The City with some 9,000 in the pipeline over the next decade. The mayor’s proposed density bonus program is estimated to create an additional 5,000 affordable housing units within 20 years.

“That’s just a dent in the affordable housing supply need,” Kelley said.

Tim Colen, executive director of the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, a development advocate group, was critical of Peskin’s proposal.

“‘Density Done Right’, it’s hard to imagine we’re going to get more than 150 units in the next decade out of it,” Colen said.

The City’s density bonus debate comes as developers may attempt to use the state’s density bonus law to trump local controls.

It’s unclear if San Francisco can start to bring down housing rents where about 43 percent of residents pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing, of which 22 percent pay more than 50 percent.

Click here or scroll down to comment