Board debates charter amendment to create Housing and Development Commission; votes to continue measure to July 26

A charter amendment that would create a Housing and Development Commission to oversee the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) drew a mix of support and concern at a special meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

The measure, a third draft of a charter amendment described by staff as implementing motion M16-91 (approved July 15), would require the new commission to review proposed development agreements, the disposition of certain surplus city property, and changes to inclusionary housing rules before the board considers them. Supervisor Peskin, the measure—s sponsor, opened the hearing and said the commission would create "a single point where discussions will happen about affordable housing, economic development, development agreements, and proposals for the disposition of surplus properties."

Why it matters: Backers said the commission would increase public transparency and provide a standing venue for high-level policy discussions about how housing, economic development and social services fit together. Critics warned the additional layer could delay projects, complicate federal and state-required processes and diminish the mayor—s executive authority over department leadership.

Public supporters and concerns

Fernando Marti of the Council of Community Housing Organizations urged supervisors to place the measure on the November ballot, saying it would "ensure a smoother and more transparent process for bringing affordable housing construction in front of people now" and would help the public understand the city—s affordable-housing commitments, including a reference in public comment to a 33 percent affordability target included in the proposed language.

Malcolm Young of the Chinatown Community Development Center said the commission would allow "a public conversation about how these three pieces work together" — affordable housing, economic development and social services — and recalled Chinatown—s master-plan process as an example of comprehensive community development.

John Droubling of The Taco Group criticized current practices at OEWD and MOHCD as opaque and said, "Secret government is always wrong," arguing the commission would restore public accountability.

Department leadership and procedural concerns

Todd Rufo, director of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, said his office supports "increased community engagement, public review, [and] additional oversight" in principle but warned that the proposed commission would slow OEWD—s grantmaking. He said OEWD administers roughly $23,000,000 in general-fund grants and estimated a three-month delay for some grant processes, and he raised questions about potential conflicts with federally mandated workforce oversight structures.

Olsen Lee, director of the Mayor's Office of Housing, said the commission would increase transparency but "will not expedite the work that we do. It will make it more transparent" and expressed concern about the staff time and opportunity cost of preparing commission memos and staffing additional meetings. He said many projects already come before board committees and existing public housing oversight bodies and cautioned the new commission could duplicate work and add steps that might delay projects now scheduled under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program.

Supervisor debate and procedural outcome

Sponsor Supervisor Peskin said the commission would provide public oversight similar to older redevelopment-era bodies and said the mayor would still have meaningful influence through three mayoral appointees on a seven-member panel. Supervisor Kim and others argued a split-appointment commission is appropriate for departments that oversee major city resources and large development deals and said more process can improve final projects.

Supervisor Weiner and other critics said the charter language goes beyond ordinary split-appointment commissions because it would limit the mayor—s hiring authority for department heads and place both MOHCD and OEWD outside normal executive control. Weiner called the proposal "dramatically" different from earlier planning-commission reforms and warned it would reduce the mayor—s accountability.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to table item 2 (resolution regarding funding/approach for the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing): moved by Supervisor Peskin and seconded by Supervisor Kim; taken without objection; outcome: tabled.

- Motion to continue items 4 and 83 (charter amendment and related item) to the July 26 meeting: motion made by Supervisor Tang and seconded by Supervisor Weiner; roll-call vote recorded as 11 ayes, 0 noes; outcome: continued to July 26, 2016.

- Motion to rescind the prior vote on item 37 and continue item 37 to the July 26 meeting: moved and seconded; roll-call on continuance recorded as 8 ayes, 3 noes (Supervisors Mar, Avalos, Campos); outcome: continued to July 26, 2016.

What was decided and what remains

No final charter amendment vote occurred at the special meeting. The board unanimously approved a motion to continue the charter amendment (item 4) and the related item 83 to the July 26 meeting for further consideration. No public speaker or supervisor action in this session approved or rejected the charter amendment on the merits.

Next steps

The items will return to the board agenda on July 26 for further debate and possible action. Department staff indicated they would continue to brief supervisors and work on amendments; sponsors said they had tried to negotiate compromises with the administration but had not reached agreement before this hearing.