Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors send housing trust fund to ballot and adopt changes to inclusionary rules after heated debate
Summary
The board ordered a charter amendment to expand and extend the Housing Trust Fund (a measure supporters said would enable bonding and target $125 million over time) and approved planning-code changes that lower citywide on-site inclusionary rates but preserve higher Mission-area protections after an amendment. The housing package drew lengthy debate and multiple roll calls.
The Board of Supervisors advanced a two-part housing package on July 14 that will move a charter amendment expanding and extending the Housing Trust Fund to the November ballot and adopted a set of planning-code changes that adjust inclusionary affordable-housing requirements.
Supervisor Melgar described the charter amendment as a way to create a steady, bondable funding stream for affordable housing that could eventually reach $125,000,000 by dedicating a portion of future assessed value growth. “This will provide the ability to bond against it because it is based on the valuation certification of the assessor,” Melgar said.
On the planning-code package (Item 39), the board voted to raise the threshold at which inclusionary rules apply from 10 to 25 units and to set a new citywide on-site rate intended to increase feasibility for development under current market conditions. Supervisor Fielder successfully moved an amendment to require an 8% on-site inclusionary rate in the Mission Area Plan (6% low‑income, 2% moderate), arguing the Mission carries distinct displacement pressures and a special planning history that merits stronger on-site protection.
The package prompted intense back-and-forth. Some supervisors warned that lowering inclusionary percentages risks long-term loss of affordable units; others said the city needs to restore feasibility to stalled projects so development and associated fees actually materialize. Supervisor Dorsey, Supervisor Chen and others stressed the importance of the Technical Advisory Committee’s nexus work and the trade-offs involved. The record shows repeated references to the TAC report and to legal constraints on how inclusionary fees are set.
Board action and vote counts: the charter amendment (Item 8) was ordered submitted to the ballot (unanimous on the board at the moment of record for that item). The inclusionary package, as amended with Fielder’s Mission adjustment, passed on first reading after a series of roll calls and procedural rescinds; the final tally on the amended ordinance recorded nine ayes and two noes on the final roll call.
What’s next: the charter amendment will appear on the November ballot; the planning-code changes proceed through the board’s ordinance process (first reading passed) and will return for subsequent readings consistent with municipal procedure. Sponsors framed the items as a trade-off: lower immediate inclusionary rates on some projects in exchange for a durable funding stream to finance units and enable bonding. Opponents cautioned that voter approval of the trust fund is not guaranteed and that the policy mix creates risks if the funding measure fails to pass.
