Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inclusionary Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors clear charter amendment to raise inclusionary housing ceiling, set trailing ordinance and feasibility study timeline
Summary
The Board voted to place a charter amendment on the June ballot that removes a fixed inclusionary cap from the charter, sets interim inclusionary targets and directs a feasibility study and trailing ordinance; the board also adopted a companion policy resolution setting near-term drafting dates and analysis requirements.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to put a charter amendment on the June 7, 2016 ballot that would remove the charter’s existing ceiling on inclusionary (on-site affordable) housing obligations and return authority to the Board to set inclusionary requirements by ordinance.
Supervisor Jane Kim, the measure’s author, described the amendment as a tool to raise the city’s inclusionary housing obligations to help meet local affordable- and middle-income housing goals and said the interim proposal asks market-rate developers to meet a 15 percent on-site affordable requirement and an additional 10 percent middle-income requirement (25 percent combined) while the board works through permanent rules.
The board also approved a companion resolution (moved later and considered as item 22) that lays out a timeline and feasibility commitments: it directs the Controller and relevant city departments to produce an economic feasibility analysis before May 31, 2016; requires that the Board review the analysis within three months; and calls for a trailing ordinance to be introduced by April 19, 2016 that will include grandfathering language for pipeline projects and set final affordability levels based on the feasibility study.
Supporters framed the amendment as a way to remove a charter constraint and let the elected Board and the Mayor negotiate inclusionary policy responsive to market conditions. Supervisor Norman Yee and other supporters highlighted the amendment’s aim to increase affordable housing production and described the resolution as a roadmap to address feasibility, grandfathering and implementation intervals.
Several supervisors urged caution about the speed of the timeline and asked for the trailing ordinance language to be available for review in committee; supervisors also emphasized the need for clear grandfathering and feasibility language before voters decide. Supervisor Mark Farrell moved to defer consideration earlier in the meeting so the board and the mayor’s office could finalize trailing language; ultimately the board took the item and later adopted the companion resolutions as amended.
The charter amendment and the policy resolution were both adopted by the board as amended. The board recorded unanimous action when the item returned later in the meeting, and related procedural language in the accompanying resolution sets dates for the Controller’s feasibility analysis and for the introduction of the trailing ordinance.
