Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the LGBT Housing Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission backs measure to record out‑of‑state developers’ LGBT nondiscrimination policies
Summary
The Commission unanimously recommended approval of an administrative-code measure requiring applicants for projects of 10+ units to disclose whether their organizations maintain nondiscrimination policies on sexual orientation and gender identity in jurisdictions where they operate; the Human Rights Commission will compile the data annually.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on July 10 unanimously recommended approval of a measure (planning case 2014-434T) to collect information from project sponsors about whether they maintain nondiscrimination policies covering sexual orientation and gender identity in jurisdictions where they own or develop housing.
Carolyn Goosen, representing Supervisor David Campos, told the commission the ordinance aims to protect LGBT housing rights by asking developers with out-of-state properties applying for 10+ units to indicate whether they have policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and to provide copies of such policies if they exist. Diego Sanchez of Planning Department staff explained the proposal would make the planning department’s application intake require this information and would not be considered in project entitlement decisions.
Supporters from legal and advocacy groups said the requirement is a light, informational step that can encourage better corporate practices. Jamie Heuling DeLay of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Brian Basinger of the AIDS Housing Alliance said asking the question alone can spur change by making sponsors confront gaps in their policies. Melaine Ahern of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission said last year about 20 percent of the Commission’s housing discrimination complaints referenced sexual orientation or gender identity.
Commissioners asked for clarifications: the measure would live in the administrative code rather than the planning code; project sponsors could answer “no” and still proceed (the answers would not be a condition of approval), and reporting could occur before certificate of occupancy as currently drafted. Commissioners supported the approach as a modest, low‑burden informational tool that could have national influence because many developers operating in San Francisco are national firms.
The Commission moved to adopt a recommendation for approval with alternatives; the motion passed unanimously, 5–0.
