Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee OKs compromise extending deadline for some grandfathered inclusionary projects
Summary
After weeks of negotiation, the committee adopted an 18‑month compromise (from entitlement) for projects already entitled before Dec. 7, 2018, with limited exceptions, to preserve a subset of pipeline housing while directing staff to continue project‑specific reviews for unentitled projects.
The Land Use & Transportation Committee on Oct. 29 approved amendments to the city’s inclusionary‑housing rules that extend deadlines for many grandfathered projects while narrowing the scope of relief for others. The committee adopted language that provides 18 months from the date of entitlement for entitled projects to obtain a site or building permit (or until Dec. 7, 2018, whichever is later); projects that received entitlement after Dec. 7 would have a specified later cutoff. The amendment includes exceptions for litigation that pauses deadlines.
Kaneshka Chang of the mayor’s office said the mayor initially proposed a 30‑month extension, but the administration and supervisors negotiated to compromise on a shorter extension for entitled projects to preserve pipeline housing without broadly increasing grandfathering. Chang told the committee that more than 4,000 units — including about 600 on‑site below‑market‑rate units — could be at risk without action.
Supervisors pressed planning staff and project sponsors about which projects might not meet an 18‑month deadline. Planning staff and sponsor representatives identified a small set of projects that appeared at risk (for example, 651 Geary, 1515 South Van Ness, 519 Ellis, and 2140 Market among others) because of historic‑review delays, appeals or slow design review. Project sponsors and advocates asked the committee to ‘‘stress test’’ individual projects and the planning department agreed to provide more granular timelines.
Public commenters from both advocacy groups and project sponsors were split: housing advocates and many project sponsors supported the compromise to preserve units, while neighborhood critics argued extensions undermine voters’ intent behind Prop C. Supervisor Peskin framed the measure as a negotiated, technical compromise intended to maximize housing built from the existing pipeline.
The committee adopted the amendment and moved Item 6 to the full Board with a positive recommendation.
