Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Preference topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances 40% neighborhood-preference plan for city-funded affordable housing
Summary
The Land Use & Transportation Committee voted unanimously to send an ordinance creating a 40% neighborhood (supervisorial-district plus half-mile buffer) preference for MOHCD-administered units to the full Board of Supervisors; proponents said it will help longtime residents, while some community groups urged more study and neighborhood-based boundaries.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee unanimously voted to forward to the full Board of Supervisors an ordinance that would reserve 40 percent of units administered or financed by the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) for residents of the supervisorial district where a project is located, plus a half-mile buffer.
Chair Supervisor Malia Cohen, who convened the hearing, said the proposal responds to flaws in San Francisco’s affordable-housing lottery system and the city’s steep out-migration of longtime residents. “This is incredibly bold and important legislation for residents of San Francisco,” Cohen said, adding that the measure is intended to “even the playing field” for communities that have been excluded from new affordable units.
President Breed, who joined the committee for remarks, called the 40 percent figure “definitely the step in the right direction,” and urged the board not to delay implementation while officials continue to refine the ordinance.
Supervisor Scott Wiener, a co-sponsor, said the city needs housing “yesterday” and backed the 40 percent target as a pragmatic compromise. “We need this affordable housing yesterday, and we need it as much as possible,” Wiener said.
Sophie Hayward of the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development told the committee the ordinance as amended would apply to housing financed, administered or owned by MOHCD and include a half-mile buffer around project sites. Hayward said the agency currently has 31 buildings with state funds and 24 with federal funds in its existing portfolio and noted that HUD and the state’s housing agency will review any final program policies where state or federal money is involved.
Public comment ran more than an hour. Dozens of community leaders, tenants’ groups and longtime residents urged the committee to approve the change immediately. Dr. Amos C. Brown, president of the San Francisco NAACP, appealed directly to supervisors: “Do the right thing,” he said, urging passage of the 40 percent preference to stem the loss of black residents from the city.
Other speakers, including representatives of the Chinatown Community Development Center and Mission-based organizations, supported the goal of keeping local people in new housing but urged changes to how “neighborhood” is defined. Several witnesses and housing advocates asked for a continuance or additional outreach so that smaller neighborhood boundaries — rather than full supervisorial districts — could be considered in some areas.
MOHCD committed to return to the Board within a year with a report on implementation and its efforts to work with HUD and the California Department of Housing and Community Development on projects that include federal or state funds. The committee recorded a roll call and sent the item to the Board of Supervisors’ November 17 agenda with a positive recommendation.
Next steps: the full Board will consider the ordinance on November 17. The ordinance’s final implementation in projects that use federal or state funds will depend on subsequent federal and state determinations and any further refinements approved by the Board.
