Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inclusionary Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves interim inclusionary housing increases and orders feasibility study; two supervisors dissent
Summary
After hours of debate, the Board of Supervisors passed interim increases to inclusionary housing requirements and fees for projects in the pipeline and required the Controller to prepare an economic feasibility study by July 31; the ordinance passed first reading 9–2, with Supervisors Weiner and Farrell voting no.
Supervisor Jane Kim led floor debate on an ordinance that raises temporary inclusionary requirements for projects in the planning pipeline, increases off-site and in-lieu fees, and orders an economic feasibility report to guide permanent policy after June’s ballot measure (Prop C).
The ordinance sets tiered interim requirements for projects depending on the year they filed environmental review: a 1 percent rise for projects filing in 2013, 1.5 percent for 2014, and 2.5 percent for 2015; it also sets interim production expectations of 25 percent affordable and middle‑income units on-site in some cases and raises off-site fees to 33 percent for certain projects. The measure creates an Inclusionary Housing Technical Advisory Committee to advise the Controller’s economic feasibility study, which the ordinance directs the Controller to deliver by July 31 so the board can set final inclusionary requirements after the feasibility findings.
Supervisor Kim said the changes are intended to ‘‘bring together a big tent’’ of stakeholders and to recover approximately 200 affordable units she said were lost when the previous requirement was lowered. ‘‘This ordinance codifies the agreement, the major components of the agreement that were included in the resolution…,’’ Kim said, adding that the city will for the first time require middle‑income Below‑Market-Rate (BMR) units under the program.
Supervisor Scott Wiener, who opposed the ordinance, argued the board was ‘‘putting the cart before the horse’’ by setting interim percentages before receiving the feasibility analysis. Wiener noted the lack of empirical basis for the 25 percent figure used as an interim control and warned that across‑the‑board increases could make some projects infeasible and risk reducing total housing production.
Supervisor Kim and several backers said the interim controls were agreed to previously when the board voted to place the charter amendment on the ballot. The board also voted to require an economic feasibility report from the Controller by July 31 and to create the technical advisory committee to advise that analysis.
On the roll call, the ordinance passed first reading with nine votes in favor and two opposed (Supervisors Weiner and Farrell). The ordinance will return to the board for further consideration after the Controller’s report and committee input.
