Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Inclusionary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission backs ordinance to extend grandfathering deadline for inclusionary housing
Summary
The Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to give certain grandfathered projects more time to obtain site permits, a change city staff and the mayor’s office said would preserve thousands of planned housing units including hundreds of permanently affordable homes.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on Oct. 18 unanimously approved an ordinance from Mayor London Breed that shifts the deadline by which earlier-entitled projects must obtain site permits in order to keep their grandfathered inclusionary housing rates.
The change affects projects that filed environmental applications before Jan. 12, 2016, and staff said it would prevent the loss of roughly 4,000 units citywide — “including over 600 permanently affordable units,” City project manager Chrisia Tano said during the commission’s hearing.
Why it matters: Voters’ approval of Proposition C and subsequent code changes raised inclusionary rates for newly entitled projects and created grandfathered rates for a defined set of earlier applicants. Staff and the mayor’s office argued that the original deadline — a hard December 7 date — penalized projects that were entitled late in that window and gave unequal time to reach post-entitlement milestones like a site permit. Tano told the commission the amendment “levels the playing field and ensures that projects like these get the same amount of time that other projects before them have had.”
What supporters said: Developers, trade unions and housing advocates urged approval. Speakers for project sponsors described construction, permitting and CEQA timelines that can stretch for years, and labor representatives warned that losing entitlement would mean losing thousands of jobs tied to construction of the affected projects.
What opponents said: Community groups and neighborhood advocates urged caution. Some speakers said the city should not change rules mid-process and pressed the commission to protect negotiated community benefits that were part of existing project approvals.
Commission discussion: Commissioners focused on two tensions: fairness to projects that were entitled late in the grandfathering window, and the risk that extensions could encourage speculation or delay. Staff explained the ordinance sets a 30-month clock tied to the date of entitlement rather than a single calendar deadline, and that a narrow subset of earlier projects would actually benefit.
Outcome and next steps: The commission voted to recommend approval; the ordinance will move to the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use Committee for further consideration.
Provenance: Topic introduced in presentation by Chrisia Tano and staff (transcript SEG 567–SEG 693) and discussed throughout public comment and deliberation (SEG 694–SEG 1793).
