Last week, Supervisor Scott Wiener presented legislation to the Planning Commission that would make it easier and quicker to get approval for building projects that are made up of 100 percent affordable housing.

Slam dunk right? Clearly the lack of affordable housing is the issue defining the city. As Wiener said at the Dec. 3 hearing, “We need more affordable housing yesterday.”

So you might assume that the proposal sailed through Planning — perhaps with applause and cheers from housing advocates and progressives — on its way to an enthusiastic approval by the Board of Supervisors.

Oh, what a quaint and charming thought that is.

Instead, what followed was over two hours of debate, rancor and outright nonsense. Speaker after speaker — predominantly gray of hair and firm of opinion — began with the words, “While I am a supporter of affordable housing ...” and then headed off on tangents that left reality far behind.

In the end, the commission deadlocked 3-3 (Commissioner Christine Johnson was absent) on the issue, which sent it to the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Transportation Committee, but with a recommendation of disapproval.

Seriously?

“You have self-described progressives opposing it,” Wiener said. “You have housing advocates that claim to be in favor of affordable housing opposing it. The fact that this could be so controversial is a microcosm of why we are in this crisis.”

‘Conditional use’ issue

It all seemed so harmless. Wiener’s modest proposal is to make projects that are 100 percent affordable exempt from a process called “conditional use.” Developments are given a CU vetting to show that they are “necessary and desirable” — which is pretty much the definition of affordable housing in San Francisco. Wiener estimates the change could cut three to six months off the approval process.

And chronic delays are a very real problem. Pat Scott, executive director of the new Booker T. Washington Community Center, with 100 percent affordable housing, said at the hearing that public process delays (not all due to conditional use) put them “in court for five years” and the cost of building went from $26 million to $27 million all the up to $36 million to $37 million.

Wiener said that even if the CU process were to be dropped, there would still be plenty of checks and balances. Neighbors could still call for a discretionary review, developers would still have to notify the neighbors and give them a chance to respond, and any changes in zoning would still need oversight. There might also be environmental impact report and California Environmental Quality Act requirements.

Not good enough, opponents said. Commissioner Kathrin Moore said Wiener was trying to “take away the public’s right to comment” and was attempting “to shortcut the public process.”

During public comment, Katherine Howard, a member of the Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance, may have had the moment of the afternoon.

“I think someday I am going to have T-shirts made that say: ‘NIMBY and proud of it,’” she said. “A NIMBY is someone who loves their neighborhood, their city and their country.”

No cost to the city

One man warned that the legislation “could involve considerable money by the city.”

Actually there’s no cost.

Another warned that this constitutes “rezoning of the whole city.”

It doesn’t.

A member of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers wanted to know what Wiener’s plans were for rent-control tenants who might be displaced.

First, the legislation has nothing to do with rent control. And second, as Sophie Hayward, from the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, said at the hearing, “To my knowledge we have never supported a project for displacement. First and foremost we use parcels of vacant land.”

And then there was a long, convoluted discussion about the definition of “affordable housing.” And it may be that the city has to come up with one. But Wiener’s point is that whatever standard is used, he’s asking to have the developments that are 100 percent affordable — including low-income — exempt from the conditional use review.

Still, speakers warned, it’s best to go slow. After all, it would be a sweeping, dramatic change in public policy.

Actually, it wouldn’t. Large multiunit projects, affordable or not, typically need a CU review.

6 projects since 2008

But Hayward found that of the dozen 100-percent affordable projects approved since 2008 exactly six have needed only conditional use hearings. The other six had other issues, like a zoning change, and would have been reviewed anyhow.

So six projects in seven years. Hardly a sea change. And yet it became such a contentious issue that Planning Commissioner Dennis Richards said, “It is incredibly difficult to sit here through all this acrimony.”

So what now? Well, the legislation goes to Land Use and then hopefully to the full Board of Supervisors.

“I think we will get the support of the board,” Wiener said. “I’m optimistic.”

That makes one of us.

C.W. Nevius is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. His columns appear Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail: cwnevius@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @cwnevius