San Francisco’s housing crisis has displaced residents, made it harder for companies to hire, increased pressure on developers and caused heated debate over which housing policies could help solve the problem.

But a report released Wednesday by a business-backed think tank argues that at least five policies either already in place or under consideration could worsen affordability for San Francisco residents.

The report examined the effects that 15 types of housing policies — ranging from rent control to density incentives — would have on affordability, based on the number of households that would either see their housing costs increase or decrease.

Controversial development requirements were among the initiatives with the most negative impact, behind eliminating rent control and implementing development moratoriums, according to the report from the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. The think tank is supported by the Bay Area Council, a public policy group representing many of the region’s most prominent companies.

An initiative approved by San Francisco voters in 2014 that required voter approval for any future developments taller than existing height limits on waterfront properties may prevent construction of 6,144 housing units over a 20-year period, the report found. That estimate is based on housing projects in the planning pipeline at the time the initiative passed.

A proposition passed in June that forces builders to include affordable units in large, multifamily buildings could decrease housing production by 4,245 units, according to the report. That result assumes that the city will implement a minimum 17 percent inclusion requirement. Some affordable housing advocates want the city to require 25 percent.

Setting the inclusion threshold too high can make buildings unprofitable for developers, said Denise Pinkston, co-chair of the Bay Area Council Workforce Housing Committee and partner at development firm TMG Partners.

“It’s a good idea (when) used correctly,” Pinkston said. “Overreaching, you’ll kill development. Advocates don’t understand that as well.”

Cities that have had the most success with inclusionary policies make those policies cyclical to account for changes in the housing market, said Karen Chapple, professor of city and regional planning at UC Berkeley.

While a 25 percent inclusion requirement might make sense in a strong real estate market, it could make building impossible for developers in a soft market, Chapple said.

“We’re softening, and I think that’s why people are nervous,” Chapple said. “When we were clearly going up and up a year and a half ago, it would have been easier to pass this 25 percent. Now it’s a little bit harder.”

Offering bonuses to developers that include a certain number of affordable units, on the other hand, could help increase overall affordability, the report argues.

San Francisco supervisors in June approved a program which lets developers build higher than existing height limits for housing projects designed for lower-income residents. Under the program, buildings in which 100 percent of the units are affordable to people earning less than 80 percent of the area’s median income can exceed height limits by 30 feet. That policy, the report estimated, may create an additional 2,400 housing units.

“The effective initiatives for subsidized housing are ones that provide incentives rather than restrictions,” said Stephen Levy, director and senior economist at the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy. Levy was among several economists and industry experts that reviewed the report’s methodology and findings.

The report’s authors based their assumption that increasing housing supply would lower the overall cost of housing on a report from the San Francisco Controller’s Office.

However, increasing supply will only help prices long-term, Chapple said.

“If you want to fix things right now, you need to help renters with their income,” she said.

For this reason, banning home sharing was among the housing policies that would worsen affordability, the report found.

Making development easier would have the largest positive impact on affordable housing, the report found.

Expediting the construction of four housing developments at Hunters Point, Treasure Island, Park Merced and Mission Rock would have the largest effect on affordability, the report found. Together, those projects will create more than 25,300 units.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal to streamline affordable housing permitting also would have lowered barriers imposed by the California Environmental Quality Act and a prolonged local approval process, according to the report.

Facilitating the development of smaller and cheaper “micro-units,” easing building code restrictions and enabling in-law units and the addition of other small units on properties would also have a positive impact.

Lowering minimum parking requirements by 10 percent could produce 1,139 housing units over 20 years, the institute’s report found.

“Practicality is really important,” said Micah Weinberg, president of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. “We’re looking for the San Francisco policymakers to really do their research, and we’re really trying to help out with that.”

Jessica Floum is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jfloum@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @jfloum