Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Balance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reconsiders and adopts biannual housing balance report; supervisors seek formal funding-gap calculation
Summary
The Board rescinded and then adopted the biannual Housing Balance Report No. 8 (04/01/2019); supervisors demanded a formal calculation of the funding needed to reach the city's 33% affordable-housing target and asked MOHCD to expand the report’s scope in future iterations.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors rescinded an earlier vote and then unanimously adopted the biannual Housing Balance Report No. 8 (dated April 1, 2019) during the April 2019 meeting. The item reopened at the request of supervisors who wanted further discussion and clarification.
Supervisor Mar (District 4) used the opportunity to highlight the city’s gap in affordable-housing production, citing the report's figures showing a shortfall of affordable units and a pronounced geographic imbalance. Mar said District 4 had a cumulative housing balance of negative 260.7% and had built only 21 affordable units; she described structural barriers including lack of small-site acquisition activity and limited affordable-housing developer capacity on the West Side.
Supervisor Haney and other supervisors pressed the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) for a formal calculation of the funding required “to bring the city into the required minimum 33%” affordable-housing threshold specified in Planning Code Section 103. Amy Chan of MOHCD said the office does not typically produce a formal gap analysis of that form, though staff said it can provide a supplemental, “rough calculation” based on per-unit subsidy assumptions and pipeline needs. Chan agreed to provide that number as a supplement to future reports.
Supervisors discussed preservation versus production, noting examples such as small-site acquisitions, RAD and HOPE SF replacements, and units lost to Ellis Act and owner move-in buyouts. Supervisor Fewer and others said figures that exclude replacement units present a more realistic picture of new-affordable production. Board members asked MOHCD to include additional information in future reports: ADUs, major institutional housing (for example, student housing), and large private projects in the pipeline (e.g., Balboa Reservoir, private developments) that affect housing demand and supply.
Following discussion and the supplemental clarifications requested from MOHCD, the Board adopted the report unanimously.
