The already politically perilous process of building housing in the Mission would get even more difficult under guidelines the San Francisco Planning Commission could adopt Thursday.

Two months after San Francisco voters shot down a ballot measure that would have imposed a moratorium on market-rate housing in the neighborhood, the commission will vote on interim controls that would subject development to extra scrutiny.

Beyond the usual environmental impact studies, Mission District housing projects would be evaluated on the impact they could have on neighborhood character, affordability and blue-collar jobs. The controls would last nine months, giving city planners time to develop the Mission Action Plan 2020, which would set permanent strictures on the neighborhood.

The interim controls would impact 21 projects totaling 1,335 units in an area bounded by Division Street to the north, Cesar Chavez Street to the south, Mission Street to the west and Potrero Avenue to the east. They include well-known proposals like the 331 units proposed at the 16th Street Mission BART Station and the 274-unit development at 2000-70 Bryant St.

The controls would apply to any development that had not been approved by Thursday and would “make explicit the commission’s expectations for a dialog about affordability,” according to the introduction to the proposed controls.

Tenants rights attorney Scott Weaver, who helped craft November’s moratorium ballot measure, said the proposed controls are an improvement over earlier versions.

“I don’t know how much it solves the problem, but at least it’s a start,” he said. “The commission will have more information to base their decisions on. That’s an improvement to the decision-making process.”

The vote comes as new Mission District housing development proposals continue to be filed with the city, and passions on the topic are running as high as ever. There’s no guarantee that the interim controls would calm those tensions.

Dose of controversy

On Jan. 6, property owner Robert Tillman learned that firsthand when he invited neighbors to a meeting about a 55-unit apartment complex he wants to build at 2918 Mission St. The site, which Tillman owns, holds a parking lot and laundry, a business he says is no longer economically viable. He said he thinks the property — one block from the 24th Street Mission BART Station — would be ideal for housing.

“If the community doesn’t want me to build it, I’m happy to sell it for market value to the city or an affordable housing builder,” he said. “I would prefer to build it myself and own it, but I understand that may not be what people want.”

Last week’s meeting was raucous, and Tillman was interrupted frequently and shouted down, according to neighborhood news accounts and people who attended. Tillman, who previously lived in the Mission and has owned the laundry for 18 years, said he understands why so many residents want to preserve the neighborhood’s character.

“The fact of the matter is people are being displaced,” he said. “They are upset, and they ought to be.”

But at the same time, Tillman would like to see his property become housing as soon as possible. Instead, he finds himself embroiled in a political fight. Given all the controversy, Tillman said he doesn’t think the interim controls will make much of a difference.

‘Scratching my head’

“If you can’t build housing on a site where nobody is being displaced, one block from BART, I am scratching my head trying to figure out where you can build housing,” he said.

The latest version of the controls, developed by Planning Department staff, includes some concessions to developers. An earlier plan would have required every project to complete an economic analysis detailing the project’s impacts on commercial rents and nearby housing costs. In the latest version, project sponsors would be allowed to rely on reports completed last year by the city controller and legislative analyst.

Tim Colen, executive director of the pro-housing trade group Housing Action Coalition, said the proposed controls are unfortunate.

“We can’t support the idea of building a wall around the Mission,” he said. “We understand the political pressure the city is under to do something — but even 43 percent of the Mission voted against the moratorium. ... The plain truth is that the Mission has produced very little new housing. It doesn’t make sense to restrict it even more.”

John Elberling of the affordable housing developer TODCO, who supported the Mission moratorium, disagrees.

“The real question is whether they will give themselves the latitude to turn a project down,” he said of the Planning Commission. “The proof is in the pudding.”

Meaningful controls

Peter Papadopoulos of the Mission’s Cultural Action Network, who has been working with planners on the controls, said the plan is on the right track, and he wants to make sure the controls have teeth.

“It’s not enough to just discuss the socioeconomic impacts,” he said. “The commission needs to have the ability to say no. We would like to see the commission be able to say (a project) is clearly out of line with the needs of the community.”

Currently, projects that would contain 33 percent or more affordable housing would be exempt from the controls. Papadopoulos would like to see that raised to 50 percent.

AnMarie Rodgers, senior policy adviser with the Planning Department, said the controls are about as far as the city can go under current zoning laws.

“We can’t do a moratorium. We can’t establish new requirements. We can’t say, ‘You have to do 33 percent affordable,’” said Rogers. “But we can say we are going to look more closely at how your project could affect the neighborhood.”

J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: jdineen@sfchronicle.com

Twitter: @sfjkdineen