Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing Preference topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances neighborhood-preference ordinance for affordable housing, raises preference to 40% and refers live/work amendment to planning commission
Summary
After extended public comment and staff presentations, the committee removed the displaced-tenant preference for separate study, amended the ordinance to raise the proposed neighborhood preference from 25% to 40%, duplicated the file to add a live/work citywide preference to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and continued the main file for one week for additional MOHCD data.
Supervisor London Breed introduced an ordinance to clarify and expand preferences for affordable housing allocation — preserving existing certificate-of-preference (COP) and Ellis Act preferences while creating a neighborhood geographic preference and an expanded displaced-tenant priority. Breed framed the measure as remedying long-standing inequities in access to affordable housing for longtime residents.
Planning and Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) staff described the recommendations that emerged from two planning commission hearings. MOHCD recommended splitting the ordinance so the displaced-tenant preference would be handled separately while a geographic preference would be considered now, proposing a 25% preference at the supervisorial-district level (with a half-mile buffer option) based on modeling that sought to limit disparate-impact risk. Charles McNulty outlined tests used to assess disparate impact and said the supervisorial-district geography performed best across the criteria MOHCD evaluated.
Supervisors asked questions about HUD/state funding constraints and data availability. MOHCD and the Deputy City Attorney explained that federal funding typically requires HUD approval of any local residency preference and that state funding rules often require an equal live-or-work preference; MOHCD committed to providing demographic breakdowns and lists of projects and funding sources before the next hearing.
Public comment ran for an extended period. Dozens of speakers — civil-rights leaders, church leaders, neighborhood advocates, senior-service providers and residents — urged higher percentages than 25% (many supported 40% or more), asked for neighborhood-level rather than supervisorial-district geography, and requested better outreach to certificate-of-preference holders. Amos Brown of the San Francisco NAACP said, “give us our 40%.” Many speakers tied the proposal to correcting redevelopment-era displacements.
On amendments, MOHCD’s request to remove the displaced-tenant preference for separate work was adopted without objection; Supervisor Malia Cohen offered a verbal amendment to increase neighborhood preference from 25% to 40%, which passed on a roll-call vote with Supervisor Kim recorded in dissent. Supervisor Wiener moved to duplicate the file and add a fourth preference for people who live or work in the City and County of San Francisco (a live/work preference); that duplicated file was referred to the Planning Commission for its review. The committee continued the main file for one week (to November 9) so MOHCD could supply additional demographic and funding breakdowns.
Legal and implementation notes: Deputy City Attorney John Givner clarified that any state- or federally funded project remains subject to the funding program’s restrictions; if the state or federal program prohibits a local residency preference, the local preference will not apply to that project unless the funder approves it.
Next steps: the main file will return to committee after MOHCD provides requested demographic and funding data; the duplicated file containing the live/work preference will go to the Planning Commission for review before returning to the Board.
