Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Code Veto topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects attempts to override mayors veto of ordinance on eliminating dwelling units
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors twice voted on a proposed ordinance that would have required conditional-use review before existing dwelling units could be eliminated through mergers, conversions or demolition. On both roll-call attempts the votes failed and the mayors veto was sustained.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted twice and failed both times to override Mayors veto of an ordinance that would have amended the planning code to require conditional-use authorization before existing dwelling units may be eliminated through mergers, conversions or demolition.
Under the charter provision cited by the clerk, a yes vote on the motion would have overridden the mayors veto; a no vote would have sustained it. The first roll-call on the veto resulted in 6 ayes and 5 noes and the ordinance failed. After a procedural motion and a re-vote later in the meeting, a second roll-call produced 7 ayes and 4 noes; the ordinance again failed and the veto was sustained.
The ordinance proposed that any elimination of dwelling units in the citys housing stock by merger, conversion or demolition would require conditional use authorization. Supporters of the change argued during earlier committee processes that requiring conditional use review would preserve existing housing stock and give supervisors and neighbors an additional review step. Opponents, including members of the planning and development community, warned that extra conditional-use steps could complicate redevelopment and add uncertainty for projects intended to produce new housing.
Clerk remarks at the start of the item summarized the vote consequences: "A yes vote overrides the mayor's veto. A no vote sustains the mayor's veto." The board then took roll-call votes as required by Charter section 2.106.
The board did not adopt the ordinance and took no further action to change the mayors veto. The clerk announced the outcome on the record after each vote: "The ordinance fails."
The item drew limited recorded debate on the floor after the roll calls; supervisors who voted against override cited the need to preserve established review standards and to avoid adding barriers they said could slow housing production. Supporters of the override said they believed additional review was warranted to protect existing dwelling units.
The outcome leaves the mayor's veto in place and the planning code unchanged on this point. Any future effort to reintroduce similar language would need new legislation or a new override attempt with the higher vote threshold required by charter.
