Jump to navigation

  • 網站導引
  • 字型大小
  • 純文字
Mobile menu button
San Francisco Voter Guide logo
線上版三藩市選民資料手冊和選票樣本 聯合普選
2022年11月8日

Elections and accessibility

  • sfelections.org
  • 無障礙通行
  • English
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Filipino
  • 一般信息
    • 2022年11月8日選舉快速指南
      • 有疑問嗎?
      • 處長的信
      • 官方的選民資訊資源概覽
      • 選票簡釋委員會
      • 選舉委員會
      • 2022年新的選區分界線
      • 三藩市市議會選區地圖
      • 投票方法的選擇
      • 三藩市的官方選票投遞箱
      • 志願者! 成為投票工作人員!
      • 選民權利
      • 協助三藩市未來選舉的外展宣傳!
      • 無障礙投票和服務
      • 多種語言的選民服務:中文協助
      • 免費英文班
      • hide
      • 2022年11月8日選舉的選票
      • 標記您的選票
      • 三藩市選民登記和投票的常見問題
      • 關於被禁止的選舉活動
      • 三藩市投票系統概要
      • 確保您的選民登記資料處於最新狀態!
      • 選民登記資料隱私
      • 居家安全計劃
      • 重要提示!
      • 停止收到印刷版的《選民資料手冊》
      • 找到您的投票地點和您的選票樣本
      • XML Streams
      • Site Guide
  • 候選人資料
    • 候選人和職位資料
      • 自願經費限制
      • 候選人的政黨支持
      • 本次選舉中即將選出三藩市市縣的職位
      • 加州的選舉
      • 您的候選人聲明
      All Candidate Statements
      所有候選人聲明
      Todas las declaraciones de las candidatos
      Lahat ng mga Pahayag ng mga Kandidato
    • 國會眾議員第11選區候選人
    • 國會眾議員第15選區候選人
    • 州眾議員第17選區候選人
    • 州眾議員第19選區候選人
    • 教育委員會候選人
    • 社區大學董事會候選人
    • 灣區捷運董事第8選區候選人
    • 估值官-記錄官候選人
    • 地方檢察官候選人
    • 公共辯護律師候選人
    • 市議會第2選區候選人
    • 市議會第4選區候選人
    • 市議會第6選區候選人
    • 市議會第8選區候選人
    • 市議會第10選區候選人
  • 地方選票提案
    • 地方選票提案和論據的資料
      • 三藩市債務概覽
      • 名詞解釋
      • 提案 A: 退休人員補充生活費調整; 退休委員會與執行總監的合約
      • 提案 B: 工務局及委員會、衛生與街道局及委員會
      • 提案 C: 無家可歸者監督委員會
      • 提案 D: 可負擔房屋 — 創制提案請願書
      • 提案 E: 可負擔房屋 — 市議會
      • 提案 F: 圖書館保護基金
      • 提案 G: 學生成功基金 — 對三藩市聯合校區的撥款
      • 提案 H: 在偶數年舉行的市府選舉
      • 提案 I: 金門公園內甘迺迪大道(JFK Drive) 以及大公路(Great Highway)的車輛
      • 提案 J: 金門公園內甘迺迪大道(JFK Drive) 的休閒使用
      • 提案 K: 按三藩市高等法院命令, 提案K已在選票上移除。
      • 提案 L: 用於交通項目的銷售稅
      • 提案 M: 住宅單位的空置稅
      • 提案 N: 金門公園地下停車設施; 金門公園廣場管理委員會
      • 提案 O: 用於市立大學的額外地塊稅

您在這裡

  1. 首頁 ›
  2. 地方選票提案 ›
E
可負擔房屋 — 市議會

市府是否應修改市憲章,簡化可負擔房屋的審批,包括:(1)為收入不超過地區收入中位數(AMI)120%,但家庭平均收入不超過AMI 80%的家庭提供的住房;(2)提供相當於整個項目住房單位總數8%的額外可負擔住房;或(3)為家中至少有一名校區或市立大學僱員的家庭提供的住房,但有若干的家庭收入限制;如果這些類型的項目使用市府財產或資金,繼續需要市議會的批准?

摘要 由選票簡釋委員會撰寫

現況:根據市法律,市府各董事會、委員會和官員通常必須對新住房發展項目進行審核並做出批准或拒絕的決定。新住房發展項目必須遵守本市的規劃與建築法規。州法律通常要求此類項目進行環境影響評估。

本市府有可負擔房屋項目,以低於市場的價格提供出售或出租型的住房。可負擔房屋對家庭申請資格設有限制,例如家庭收入的上限。

截至2022年7月,各家庭人數的地區收入中位數(AMI)如下: 

收入水平

1人

2人

3人

4人

AMI的80% 

$77,600 

$88,700 

$99,750 

$110,850 

AMI的100% 

$97,000 

$110,850 

$124,700 

$138,550 

AMI的120% 

$116,400 

$133,000 

$149,650 

$166,250 

AMI的140% 

$135,800 

$155,200 

$174,600 

$193,950 

建議:提案E會簡化審批程序,在開發項目符合規劃與建築法規的情況下,免除某些可負擔房屋的發展中的一些市府批核流程。當市府租賃其物業或對這些住房項目提供資金時,就可能需要市議會的批准。

提案E會簡化以下三類多戶可負擔房屋的審批: 

• 當所有住房單位均為可負擔房屋,並其家庭收入不超過AMI 120%的多戶住房,所有住宅單位的家庭平均收入不得超過AMI 80%。

• 有10個或以上住宅單位,要求提供按市法律要求之場地要求可負擔住房的多戶住房,並加上額外可負擔住房單位相等整個項目至少8%的單位總數。這8%將包括兩房和三房住房單位的要求。例如,在2022年7月,如果一個項目有100個住宅出租單位, 該項目必須包括有22個場地要求的可負擔住房單位。根據這項提案,該項目必須在場地提供8個額外可負擔住房單位,即整個項目住房單位總數的8%,總計30個可負擔單位。此外,如果開發商沒有在規劃局批准後24個月內開始動工,此批准將到期失效。

• 多戶住房,或是包括住房與其他商業用途的發展項目,其所有住宅單位均提供給家中至少有一名三藩市聯合校區或市立大學僱員的家庭,但有若干的家庭收入限制。

根據這項提案,市府會有六個月時間審批這些開發項目,另外,市議會批准可能需要的時間。

這項提案還可能允許這些開發項目得以直接進行,無需根據州法律進行環境審查。

這項提案要求市長提出預算並提供年度可負擔房屋報告。

根據這項提案,市議會不可修訂市法律將這些簡化審批流程應用於其他類型的住房項目。

根據這項提案,興建項目的承包商必須支付僱員的市場工資。此外,興建教育工作者住房項目或住房項目規模為25個或以上並提供額外可負擔住房單位的承包商,必須使用有技能並受過訓練的員工,其中有一定比例的工人須從學徒制計劃畢業。

如果提案E通過並且獲得的票數多於提案D,提案D即不具法律效力。

投「贊成」票的意思是:如果您投「贊成」票,即表示您同意簡化可負擔房屋項目的審批,包括: 

• 多戶住房,其中所有單位提供給收入不超過地區收入中位數(AMI)120%,而且所有住宅單位的家庭平均收入不超過AMI 80%的家庭; 

• 在項目場地提供相當於整個項目住房單位總數8%的額外可負擔住房;或

• 所有住宅單位提供給家中至少有一名三藩市聯合校區或市立大學僱員的家庭,但有若干的家庭收入限制。

使用市府財產或資金的項目會繼續需要市議會的批准。

市議會不可修訂市法律將這些簡化審批流程應用於其他類型的住房項目。

對於某些項目,承包商必須使用有技能且受過訓練的員工,其中包括須從學徒制計劃畢業的工作者。

投「反對」票的意思是:如果您投「反對」票,即表示您反對進行這些變更。

市主計官對提案「E」的意見書

市主計官Ben Rosenfield就提案E對本市財政的影響發表以下聲明: 

在我看來,如果建議的市憲章修正案和創制提案獲得選民通過,它對政府支出將有些微影響。

建議的市憲章修正案將加速審查與批准符合條件的100%可負擔房屋項目、教育工作者住房項目以及可負擔性大增的市價住房項目。規劃局會對這些項目以部長級審查取代現行規定由規劃委員會、歷史古蹟保存委員會、藝術委員會、市議會和上訴委員會執行的審批。

在一定程度上,此市憲章修正案會縮短審批流程,市府的可負擔房屋項目可能由於開發與建造時間縮短而得以節省項目成本。在一定程度上,此項市憲章修正案會導致可負擔房屋與市價房屋數量增加,無論以物業估值減少或以免物業稅的方式,它可能會造成未來物業稅收損失。由於符合本提案加速審查條件的可能項目之規限,因此我們認為上述兩者的影響將不大。

本修正案還要求項目贊助者在建造100%可負擔房屋項目、教育工作者住房項目、住房單位數量為10個或以上的提升可負擔性住房項目期間支付市場工資。此外,教育工作者住房項目和住房單位數量為25個或以上的提升可負擔性住房項目會被要求使用有技能並受過訓練的員工。這需要市府通過一項法令,允許勞工標準執行辦公室執行這些要求。

提案「E」如何被列入選票

2022年7月26日,市議會以7票對4票通過將提案E列入選票。市議員的投票情況如下: 

贊成:Chan、Mar、Peskin、Preston、Ronen、Safai、Walton。

反對:Dorsey、Mandelman、Melgar、Stefani。 

本提案需要有50%+1的贊成票才能獲得通過。

贊成提案 E 的論據

三藩市有一個住房危機。提案E將幫助我們興建更多三藩市民眾能夠負擔得起的房屋。

可負擔房屋的短缺阻礙我們城市的發展。工人們為留在這兒正在苦苦掙扎,家庭正在離開這座他們所愛的城市。有些居民正被推到無家可歸的境地。

提案E為我們提供應對這個挑戰的工具。

提案E將加快房屋開發的批核,包括興建更多可負擔房屋給非常低收入、低收入和中等收入的三藩市民眾。提案E將提供更多的家庭住房,包括在新建築物內的可負擔兩房與三房住宅。提案E還將透過要求僱用有技能且受過培訓的工人來支援我們的勞動力隊伍,並要求支付工人市場工資,使得那些建築房屋的人能夠負擔得起住房的費用。

提案E還會透過預算程序,要求年度報告,讓市府在如何使用可負擔房屋經費上帶來更大的透明度和問責。它將提供立即開始建造的鼓勵措施,因為我們需要更多可負擔房屋。

提案E沒有重新界定可負擔性,它確保最需要可負擔房屋的人能夠獲得它。

市議會主席Shamann Walton 

市議員Connie Chan 

市議員Aaron Peskin 

市議員Dean Preston 

市議員Hillary Ronen 

市議員Gordon Mar 

三藩市建築行業

三藩市勞工理事會

三藩市教育工作者聯盟

UNITE HERE工會本地2號分會

三藩市民主黨

社區房屋組織委員會

所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
反駁贊成提案 E 的論據

提案E不會解決我們的住房危機

我們正處於一場住房危機之中。

我們陷入這樣的住房危機,大部分原因是將提案E列入選票的市議員造成的。

他們對提交市議會,那些原本可以簡化可負擔房屋和教師住房的項目,一再投反對票。

正因他們的反住房行動,才使得提案D——由仁人家園、市長London Breed和州參議員Scott Wiener主張的支持住房提案——透過超過80,000名想要更多住房的三藩市市民簽名,而被列入選票。

提案E被這些反住房的市議員列入選票,用意在於混淆選民的視聽。不要被愚弄了——提案E不會簡化可負擔房屋的流程,因為市議會仍將對可負擔房屋項目具有否決權,例如469 Stevenson項目。這個被他們扼殺的項目原本可以在Nordstrom代客泊車停車場興建495個住房單位。

提案E是一項反住房的提案,由一直阻礙興建新住房的市議員列入選票,他們只是為了混淆選民的視聽。不要相信他們,要相信提案D,它才是真正「立即提供可負擔房屋」的提案,它能透過簡化新住房程序來幫助解決我們的住房危機。

北加州木匠工會

房屋行動聯盟

SPUR 

YIMBY行動組織

GrowSF

所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
反對提案 E 的論據

提案E是阻擋可負擔房屋的毒藥 

由市議員陳詩敏(Connie Chan)和佩斯金(Aaron Peskin)放在選票上的提案E,充滿了阻止新建設的毒藥條款。提案E有一個漏洞,允許市議會繼續通過擱置他們不喜歡的項目來扼殺住房。 

提案E的毒藥顯示,市議員Chan和Peskin將繼續施加控制,並阻擋三藩市民眾急需的新住房。 

毒藥#1——官僚主義路障 

提案E,Chan和Peskin的提案,強制100%可負擔項目接受加州環境質量法案(CEQA)審查和訴訟,更多相同的官僚主義路障阻止可負擔房屋,例如469 Stevenson 項目,該項目原可在代客泊車的停車場興建495個住房單位,但遭到這些市議員反對。

毒藥#2——不可行 

根據三藩市規劃局可負擔住房可行性策略研究,提案E 要求的可負擔房屋單位數量是不可行的。市議員Chan 和Peskin都知道他們的提案要求的數量會阻止住房的建造。 

毒藥#3——勞動力隊伍的排除標準阻礙了住房建設 

提案E要求承包商對混合收入的住房項目採用勞動力隊伍的排除標準。大比例的工人必須完成學徒計劃。整個加州只有不到十分之一的住宅建造工人符合這項標準。州簡化法律內含有這項混合收入住房的要求已實施將近5年,然而到今天為止沒有一個單位被建成。 

我們是可負擔房屋的長期倡議者,反對提案E這項由Chan與Peskin提出的反住房提案。 

請加入我們反對這項誤導提案的行列。

GrowSF 

房屋行動聯盟 

北加州木匠工會 

SPUR 

YIMBY行動組織 

所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
反駁反對提案 E 的論據

提案E是為大家的 

提案E由社區領導——租客、教師、消防員和建築工人——因為他們最需要可負擔房屋。提案E的反對者重視發展商的利益過於對工薪階級的三藩市市民的住房需要。 

提案E的反對者想要給私人發展商數百萬美元的利益, 沒有監督保證,沒有可負擔性的保證,沒有建造保證,也沒有員工要求。 

本市已有幾個破土新項目提供超過30%的可負擔房屋單位,例如681 Florida項目,包括42%的可負擔單位(包含兩房單位),以及33%(包含長者和家庭住房)的5M項目。 

我們還能以優薪的工會工作更快地興建更多可負擔房屋。1629市場街項目將提供500個住房單位和100個可負擔單位,同時創造1,800個工會工作。提案E將興建更多可負擔住房,並僱用數千名工會工人。 

提案E的反對者一再企圖透過加州環境質量法案(CEQA) 上訴來阻擋住房項目。然而,他們卻將住房項目的延誤歸咎於其他人。這種雙重標準證明他們的主要目的不是興建住房,而是要賺取最大的利益。 

工人支持提案E,因為提案E支持工人,而不是支持億萬富豪投資者。 

市議員Connie Chan 

市議會主席Shamann Walton 

市議員Aaron Peskin 

市議員Dean Preston 

市議員Hillary Ronen 

三藩市勞工理事會 

三藩市建築行業 

三藩市消防員工會本地798分會

三藩市教育工作者聯盟

UNITE HERE工會本地2號分會 

所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
贊成提案 E 的付費論據

贊成提案E的付費論據

健康和公共服務非營利組織支持提案E!

這個提案簡化了為低收入居民、家庭和教師建造真正可負擔房屋的程序,同時保留了透明度和公眾意見的機會。投票反對提案D,投票贊成提案E,以優先考慮三藩市需要的真正可負擔房屋。

三藩市公共服務網

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: San Francisco Human Services Network。

贊成提案E的付費論據

我們建造的可負擔房屋不到我們所需的一半,市場價格卻是150%。提案E將有助於縮小這一差距。提案D將擴大這一差距。投票反對提案D,投票贊成提案E。

Haight Ashbury 鄰里委員會

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council。

贊成提案E的付費論據

我們需要為我們的勞動力提供可負擔房屋 – 投票贊成提案E

 

長期以來,三藩市建造了我們工人負擔不起的房屋。提案E將創造急需的就業機會,以建造更多房屋,並確保建築工人能夠負擔得起他們建造的住房。提案E支持工人要求獲得生活工資和強有力保護工人的運動。與勞工組織一起,投票讚成提案E。

三藩市勞工理事會三藩市建築業工會

國際勞工聯盟 NCDC 

三藩市消防員798 地方工會

UNITE HERE Local 2

三藩市教育工作者聯合會

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Homes for Families and Workers。

向委員會提供資金的真正來源唯一貢獻者是: UA Local 38。

贊成提案E的付費論據

租戶、工薪家庭和老年人支持提案E

房地產投資商和公司房東正在推高租金和住房價格,使得工薪人士和老年人更難居住在這個城市。我們需要建造更多可負擔房屋,以打擊這種正摧毀我們所愛社區中流離失所的現象。

只有提案E能加快住房建設,並確保開發更多真正的可負擔房屋。投票贊成提案E。

三藩市反流離失所聯盟

艾滋病法律轉介小組

可負擔房屋聯盟

社區租戶協會

Haight Ashbury 社區委員會

三藩市住房權利委員會

北灘租戶委員會

人們組織起來要求環境和經濟正義 (PODER)

三藩市租戶聯盟

老年人和殘障人士行動

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Homes for Families and Workers。

向委員會提供資金的真正來源唯一貢獻者是: UA Local 38。

贊成提案E的付費論據

可負擔房屋組織贊成提案E

多年來,對三藩市住房危機的回應一致都是建造更多的市價住房。然而,危機仍在繼續,因為要真正解決這一危機,我們必須建造更多可負擔房屋。太多家庭和工人因房價過而無法居住在三藩市 – 迫使他們搬離他們所熱愛的城市,甚至陷入無家可歸的困境。

我們需要加速建造可負擔房屋,以確保工薪家庭、老年人和必要工作者能夠在三藩市生活和發展,這就是可負擔房屋開發商贊成提案E的原因。

社區住房組織理事會

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Homes for Families and Workers。

向委員會提供資金的真正來源唯一貢獻者是: UA Local 38。

贊成提案E的付費論據

民主黨人支持住房協會贊成提案E

在為家庭、教育工作者和我們必要工作者建造更多住房方面,三藩市已經遠遠落後。提案E意味著為每個人提供更多的住房。我們知道我們在家庭住房方面的差距更大了。建造各種規模的單位,為工薪家庭提供更多的機會可居住在自己熱愛的城市。

三藩市民主黨領袖們贊成提案E。

三藩市民主黨

David Campos, 副主席,加州民主黨*

Leah LaCroix, 副主席,三藩市民主黨

Keith Baraka, 副主席,三藩市民主黨

Peter Gallotta, 副主席,三藩市民主黨

Queena Chen, 成員,三藩市民主黨

前任市長Art Agnos

*僅供識別身份;作者以個人名義簽名,並非代表某一組織。

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Homes for Families and Workers。

向委員會提供資金的真正來源唯一貢獻者是: UA Local 38。

贊成提案E的付費論據

亞裔美國人支持真正可負擔房屋!

我們需要真正的可負擔房屋,是我們的家庭和老年人 能夠負擔得起在三藩市生活。提案E要求提供兩居室和三居室單位,已經更多老年人能負擔得起的住房。提案E將幫助更多三藩市家庭安居下來已經子孫後代在此茁壯成長。

冠狀病毒疫情傷害了我們的經濟,並使三藩市的負擔能力危機變得更糟。我們需要重建和恢復 – 我們可以通過提案E開始這樣做,創造就業機會、建造我們家庭和老年人都能負擔得起的住房。

為了恢復和重建,我們需要通過提案E,投票贊成提案E。

前市議員Sandra Lee Fewer

前市議會主席Norman Yee

市議員Connie Chan

Queena Chen, 成員,三藩市民主黨

Anni Chung, 安老自助處*

華協中心SOMA 菲律賓人 – 菲律賓文化遺產區

*僅供識別身份;作者以個人名義簽名,並非代表某一組織。

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Homes for Families and Workers。

向委員會提供資金的真正來源唯一貢獻者是: UA Local 38。

贊成提案E的付費論據

非裔領袖贊成對可負擔房屋。投票贊成提案E。

三藩市的住房危機對我們社區產生不成比例的影響- 在我們城市中,37%的無家可歸者是非裔,然而,我們只佔城市人口的6%。缺乏可負擔房屋和不斷上升的驅逐率意味著非裔租戶不成比例地被迫搬離 – 包括自從1990年以來,三藩市非裔居民下降了43%。

我們不能讓我們社區被迫離開我們的家園,離開我們的城市。這就是為何我們需要通過提案E,該提案將加速可負擔房屋的建設和審批。我們需要更多的可負擔房屋,而且我們現在就需要。

與我們一起投票贊成提案E。

市議會主席Shamann Walton

Leah LaCroix, 副主席,三藩市民主黨

Keith Baraka, 副主席,三藩市民主黨

Gloria Berry, 成員, 三藩市民主黨

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Homes for Families and Workers。

向委員會提供資金的真正來源唯一貢獻者是: UA Local 38 。

贊成提案E的付費論據

投票贊成提案E – 人人平等,人人可享有可負擔房屋

三藩市近一半的無家可歸青少年是LGBTQ+群體的 – 這項提案將增加可負擔住房的存量,以幫助確保有需要的低收入者能夠得到住房。

我們需要為所有需要的人提供和可獲得的支援性住房。要做到這一點,我們需要投票贊成提案E。

Harvey Milk LGBTQ+ 民主俱樂部

前參議員Mark Leno

前眾議員Tom Ammiano

Peter Gallotta, 副主席,三藩市民主黨

灣區捷運總監Bevan Dufty*

*僅供識別身份;作者以個人名義簽名,並非代表某一組織。

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Homes for Families and Workers。

向委員會提供資金的真正來源唯一貢獻者是: UA Local 38。

贊成提案E的付費論據

拉丁裔領袖支持提案E

三藩市的住房和可負擔能力危機對我們社區造成了嚴重的打擊 – 在過去10年中,有8,000名拉丁裔居民離開了米慎區。我們不能讓這種趨勢繼續下去 – 一個多元化不足的城市不可能興旺發達。

這就是為什麼我們需要通過提案E,確保我們建造更多的房屋,以解決住房可負擔能力危機,並確保我們建造更多的可負擔房屋。

拉丁裔民主俱樂部

David Campos 副主席,加州民主黨*

Carolina Morales, 財務主管,三藩市民主黨

通訊秘書Anabel Ibañez

前市議員John Avalos

Calle 24 – 拉丁裔文化區

Jackie Fielder, 社區組織者

*僅供識別身份;作者以個人名義簽名,並非代表某一組織。

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Homes for Families and Workers。

向委員會提供資金的真正來源唯一貢獻者是: UA Local 38。

贊成提案E的付費論據

西區需要真正的可負擔房屋 – 投票贊成提案E

西區已經變得越來越昂貴,對工薪家庭和租戶來說,越來越難以找到住房。我們需要建造更多可負擔住房,以防止流離失所,並提供機會給那些正在被擠出我們社區的個人和家庭。只有提案E才能建造真正的可負擔房屋,以及家庭規模的住房。投票贊成提案E。

所有人種族和平等規劃聯盟

西部社區聯盟

列治文區的崛起

西區租戶協會

D4ward

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Homes for Families and Workers。

向委員會提供資金的真正來源唯一貢獻者是: UA Local 38。

贊成提案E的付費論據結束

所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
反對提案 E 的付費論據

反對提案E的付費論據

空洞的承諾會破壞為三藩市居民提供更多可負擔房屋 

市議員Chan和佩斯金(Peskin)是提案E的規劃者,他們應該把他們的提案命名為《可負擔房屋預防法案》。他們精心設計了提案E,以保留他們的權利,拒絕或嚴重拖延符合三藩市區域劃分和發展標準的住房項目。

通過繁文縟節、收費和強制規定,三藩市已經使數以千計已獲批准房屋的建設變得不可行。提案E設置了更多不切實際的障礙。

例如,提案E要求承包商對混合收入住房項目採用排除性勞動力標準。在加州住宅建築工人中,只有不到十分之一的人可以在符合這個提案E的先決條件下工作。包含混合收入住房這一要求的州立精簡法律已經生效5年了,但沒有建造一間新的住宅。

想要現在建造更多的可負擔住房,請投票反對提案E。

北加州木匠工會

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Affordable Homes Now San Francisco。

向委員會提供資金的真正來源的三大貢獻者是: 1. John Wolthuis, 2. Marco Zappacosta, 3. Emmett Shear。

反對提案E的付費論據

反對提案E的論據 – 可負擔房屋生產法案

投票反對提案E,該提案是一項反住房提案,維持房屋無法負擔的現狀。

其將允許地方政客和擾民訴訟繼續拖延和扼殺可負擔房屋項目。提案E保留了同樣的制度,使市議會能阻止在三藩市市中心469 Stevenson的代客停車場上建造495個新住房。

提案E充滿了毒藥丸策略,將阻止新的住房建設。

·       提案E使市議會能阻止100% 可負擔房屋項目。

·       提案E允許提起滋擾訴訟,以妨礙或大規模拖延100% 可負擔房屋提案。

·       提案E阻止簡化針對中等收入首次購房者100% 可負擔住房。

相反,請投票贊成提案D,這實際上將提供一個真正消除障礙的途徑,為三藩市居民建造更多可負擔房屋和勞動力住房。

SPUR 

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Affordable Homes Now San Francisco。

向委員會提供資金的真正來源的三大貢獻者是: 1. John Wolthuis, 2. Marco Zappacosta, 3. Emmett Shear。

反對提案E的付費論據

提案E對環境和氣候不利。

提案E將繼續阻止三藩市建造其所需的可負擔房屋,並將把更多的中低收入家庭趕出城市推向郊區。除了改變他們的生活之外,這對環境也不利。這導致了更多人要駕駛汽車,從而造成空氣污染、氣候污染和擁堵;在乾旱中更多不可持續的用水;以及要鋪設更多的農場和空地為在郊區建造住房。最近的研究表明,在像三藩市這樣的城市停止新建住房,是像我們這樣的城市可以對環境造成破壞最大的事情之一。

投票反對提案E,因為這將增加污染並惡化負擔能力危機。相反,請投票贊成提案D,這將對三藩市低收入家庭真正有利,並會減少污染和城市無序擴展。

綠化帶聯盟

城市環保主義者

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: Affordable Homes Now San Francisco。

向委員會提供資金的真正來源的三大貢獻者是: 1. John Wolthuis, 2. Marco Zappacosta, 3. Emmett Shear。

反對提案E的付費論據

提案E沒有簡化100%可負擔房屋的審批程序,反而導致更多的官僚主義聽證會,增加了三藩市县建造可負擔房屋的成本。提案E繼續允許鄰避症候群的人和市議會阻止可負擔房屋項目,這正是我們面臨住房短缺的原因。

提案E充滿了毒丸條款,將阻止新的住房建設。將提案E放在選票上的市議會成員沒有規定建築審批程序的最後期限,這意味著急需的住房項目將繼續被政治化和拖延。

提案E是由那些投票反對在SOMA一個空置的代客停車場建造近500個新住房的市議員們放在選票上的。

他們的提案要求混合收入項目包括如此多的可負擔單位,項目將不可行,並將組織住房項目的建設,這就是他們的意圖。三藩市房屋可負擔能力戰略可行性研究已經詳細說明了為什麼這一要求在經濟上是不現實的,其將導致幾乎沒有新可負擔房屋的建造。

住房行動聯盟

所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
法律文本

Describing and setting forth a proposal to the voters at an election to be held on November 8, 2022, to amend the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco to provide for accelerated review and approval of eligible 100% affordable housing projects, educator housing projects, and market-rate projects that provide significant increased affordability, and providing for Planning Department ministerial review in lieu of approvals by or certain appeals to City boards and commissions; to make corresponding amendments to the Planning Code and the Business and Tax Regulations Code; to amend the Administrative Code to provide for an Annual Affordable Housing Allocation Report as part of the City’s budget deliberation process; and to declare as City policy the need to accelerate approval of 100% affordable housing projects, educator housing projects, and market-rate projects that provide significant increased affordability; to make findings of compliance with the General Plan and Planning Code, Section 101.1 and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under Planning Code, Section 302; and affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act. 

Section 1.  CEQA FINDINGS.  The Planning Department has determined that the actions contemplated in this proposed Charter Amendment and ordinance comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). Said determination is on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 220631 and is incorporated herein by reference. The Board affirms this determination.

Section 2.  The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of the City and County, at an election to be held on November 8, 2022, a proposal to amend the Charter of the City and County, the Planning Code, and the Business and Tax Regulations Code, and to declare a City policy, as follows:

NOTE: Unchanged Charter and Code text and uncodified text are in plain font.

Additions to Charter and Code text are single-underline italics Times New Roman font.

Deletions of Charter and Code text are strike-through italics Times New Roman font.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Charter and Code text.

Section 1. TITLE.  This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “Affordable Housing Production Act” (the “Initiative”). 

Section 2.  PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.  The People of the City and County of San Francisco hereby find as follows:

(a)  San Francisco is exceeding its market-rate housing goals and continues to fall far behind on its goals to build affordable housing, as set forth in the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan. The lack of affordable housing has led to the displacement and outmigration of low- and middle-income families and individuals, and communities of color. There is a need to accelerate affordable housing production in the City, to keep our city diverse and provide housing for healthcare workers, firefighters, teachers, janitors, construction workers, hospitality workers, small business owners, retail and non-profit workers, and transit operators. Teachers, staff, and faculty at public schools in San Francisco are struggling to remain in the city, citing high rent costs and the ever-increasing cost of living. Our educators need to be able to afford to live in the district they work in to ensure our city can provide high-quality public education for our students. Likewise, it is important that our first responders and essential workers be able to live in the city they serve to ensure fast response times to an emergency and provide quality healthcare and other vital services. Many essential workers including service providers, restaurant workers, and grocery workers cannot afford to live in San Francisco, leading to staffing shortages in the city. To provide a solid foundation for the local economy, the City and County of San Francisco recognizes the need to create the land use policies, planning and permitting processes, affordability standards, and financing that will contribute to the production of ample amounts of housing and economic security for the low- and middle-income resident-workers upon whom the City’s economy depends. It is therefore incumbent on the City to immediately remove barriers to building housing for low- and middle-income residents and working families.

(b)  According to the San Francisco Housing Inventory Report published by the Planning Department in April 2021, production of new unrestricted units targeted to above-moderate-income households was on track to exceed the 2015-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) at 150% of the goal set by the state of California, while there has been a severe underproduction of units for moderate-, low-, and very- low- income households, reaching only 49% of the target for affordable housing.

(c)  Affordable housing is an especially predominant concern in San Francisco. San Francisco’s Housing Element 2022 Update of the General Plan will need to show that the City can accommodate the creation of 82,069 total units in San Francisco by 2031, of which 57% (or 46,598 homes) need to be below-market-rate units affordable for very low- to moderate-income San Franciscans, a target set by State and Regional agencies that is triple the City’s current target. This translates to an average of about 10,260 new units per year, of which 5,825 units per year need to be below-market-rate affordable homes. The City’s Housing Element will include goals and policies that are designed to allow San Francisco to meet these regional targets.

(d)  The current lengthy permit approval process favors larger developers who are able to hire lawyers and expediters to navigate the City’s bureaucracy, translating into a higher cost of housing and less transparency in the approval process.

(e)  Policies that incentivize unrestricted market-rate development without consideration of vulnerable communities result in additional concentrations of development marketed to higher-wage households that is unaffordable and inaccessible to existing lower-income and Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities and exclusionary to new lower-income and BIPOC households, and can lead to increased gentrification and displacement. Researchers at UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project have found that development of affordable housing in the Bay Area can have more than double the impact of market-rate units at reducing displacement pressures.  

(f)  In January 2021, Mayor Breed and Supervisors Ronen, Mar, and Mandelman wrote to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) expressing the concern of San Francisco’s elected leadership that “one of the main drivers of economic inequality has been the decades long push to focus housing production to limited areas most often occupied by communities of color.”

(g)  There is a long history in California and San Francisco of racial covenants, banking practices, and zoning laws being used to maintain high real estate values and exclude immigrants, people of color, and low-income residents. Even after explicit racial covenants were outlawed, the combination of systemic exclusionary policies such as blockbusting, redlining, and zoning that maintained or increased land values were often used to legally segregate the nation’s housing stock by creating barriers for low-income communities and communities of color to enjoy certain housing opportunities and privileges. Their plight compounded by decades of disinvestment from public schools and infrastructure, and from the disparate impact of environmental racism, these same communities today bear the brunt of evictions, gentrification, and displacement pressures, and are often the target for unrestricted market-rate luxury development that is unaffordable to them. Unlike more resourced neighborhoods, lower-income and BIPOC communities, after decades of disenfranchisement on development decisions that affect their neighborhoods, are still fighting to claim the right to community planning and self-determination.

(h)  San Francisco has long benefited from the public’s participation in the design and creation of programs designed to assist tenants, particularly tenants with limited incomes, including the protection of tenants in subsidized housing, the creation of standards for relocation benefits, the right to counsel in eviction proceedings, neighborhood preference and certificates of preference for households displaced by urban renewal, community land trusts and cooperatives, and residents’ active participation in the design of affordable housing projects and related programs and services. Without civic participation and transparency, the public and City policy-makers have limited ability to measure the efficacy of these programs, thus undermining the public trust.

(i)  San Francisco residents who work in the City need adequate levels of affordable housing to maintain their economic security, and would benefit from greater transparent and collaborative policy-making and budgetary decision making, public input and oversight of affordable housing programming and financing within the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, the Human Services Agency, the Department of Public Health, and other City agencies responsible for the planning and financing of affordable housing projects and related programs.  

(j)  Policies incentivizing increased development in any part of the City should also specifically preserve at-risk existing housing, which provides long-term stability to existing communities. State law provisions that provide displacement mitigations for redevelopment of existing multifamily housing, prohibit demolition of price restricted or rent-controlled housing without one-for-one replacement at the same affordability level or rent-controlled status, require resident relocation for the length of construction and a right to return, restrict development on sites where evictions have occurred in the last five years, and prohibit short-term rentals should be strengthened.

(k)  The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values, which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to compete for land.

(l)  To attain the City’s housing production goals, housing developments must promote skilled construction workforce development and retention through utilization of state-approved apprenticeships, payment of area-standard wages, and increased construction worker access to employment-based fringe benefit plans. The employment of skilled and trained labor is critical to ensuring wages and benefits are competitive to attract and retain enough qualified workers. According to the Bureau of Labor Standards, productivity per unit of labor in the construction industry declined across the United States 13% between 1987–2016, while productivity in other business sectors increased by 31%, dramatizing the need for a skilled and trained residential construction workforce. Additionally, the need for safe, high-quality installation and construction practices will only continue to grow amidst increasing demand and requirements for the installation and retrofit of technologies and building practices necessary to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

(m)  In recent years, San Francisco voters have approved several measures to create robust funding for the production, preservation, and protection of affordable housing. These measures include the establishment of the Gross Receipts Tax and Affordable Housing Trust Fund in 2012, the Affordable Housing General Obligation Bond of 2015, the Our City Our Home increase to the Gross Receipts Tax in 2018, and the Real Estate Transfer Tax increase accompanied by Proposition K, a policy measure to dedicate the increase for social housing in 2020. Despite voters approving these measures, the City has failed to expend these funds under a coherent strategic plan or with a level of transparency to provide the public with programmatic input and oversight. Moreover, the City agencies and departments – the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, the Human Services Agency, and the Department of Public Health – charged with the delivery of projects from these voter-approved funding streams have failed to provide adequate transparency, oversight, and acceptance of voter-approved guidelines and public input to allocate funding. Instead, many of these departments make programmatic and budgetary decisions without regard to the experiences and recommendations from the public in need of affordable housing.

(n)  Accelerated review will allow San Francisco to incentivize and accelerate the development of housing projects that specifically expand the city’s affordable housing supply by reducing the time and expense associated with obtaining planning approval.  

(o)  The purpose of the Affordable Housing Production Act is to provide an Annual Affordable Housing Allocation Report as part of the City’s budget deliberation process, and to accelerate the development and construction of affordable housing in San Francisco.

Section 3.  CHARTER AMENDMENT.  The Charter of the City and County of San Francisco shall be amended by adding new Section 16.126 and by revising Sections 4.105, 4.106, 4.135, and 5.103, to read as follows: 

SEC. 16.126.  ACCELERATED REVIEW OF 100% AFFORDABLE,  INCREASED AFFORDABILITY, AND EDUCATOR HOUSING PROJECTS.

(a) Definitions. For purposes of this Section 16.126 and the accelerated review process contemplated in the Charter Amendment establishing this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

“100% Affordable Housing Project.”  A project that meets the requirements of Planning Code Section 206.9, as amended from time to time. 

“Educator Housing Project.”  A project that meets the requirements of Planning Code Section 206.9, as amended from time to time. 

“Increased Affordability Housing Project.”  A Multi-Family housing development project that provides on-site Affordable Units, as defined in Planning Code Section 401, required by the City’s Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program, or if applicable, the inclusionary requirements as set forth in Planning Code Section 206.3, as such provisions may be amended from time to time, plus additional on-site Affordable Units in an amount equal to 8% of the total number of units in the Increased Affordability Housing Project, including any units granted under state or local density bonus programs. The additional on-site Affordable Units shall have maximum affordable purchase prices or affordable rents consistent with the range of affordability tiers required by the City’s Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program set forth in Planning Code Section 415 et seq., as such provisions may be amended from time to time. In no case shall studio units have rents or purchase prices set above 80% AMI. The additional on-site Affordable Units shall include at least 30% of units as two-bedroom units and 20% of units as three-bedroom units with minimum unit sizes consistent with the minimum unit sizes set forth by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee as of December 31, 2021, and no smaller than 300 square feet for studio units. 

“MOHCD.”  The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development or its successor agency. 

“Multi-Family.”  Multi-Family housing shall mean ten or more residential units and shall not include a single-family home.

(b)  Eligibility.  To be eligible for acceleration under this Section 16.126, projects shall meet all the following requirements: 

(1)  The project is (A) an 100% Affordable Housing Project, or (B) an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or (C) an Educator Housing Project; and

(2)  The project (A) is not located on a site that is under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department; and (B) is not located in a zoning district that prohibits dwelling units; and (C) does not cause any removal or demolition of a designated state or national landmark, or designated City landmark, or a contributory building in a designated historic district as provided in Planning Code Article 10, or a Significant Building designated Category I or II as provided in Planning Code Article 11; and (D) does not demolish, remove, or convert any residential units, and does not include any other parcel that has any residential units that would be demolished, removed, or converted as part of the project; and (E) contains two or more Residential Units, not including any additional units permitted by a density bonus, and is not a single family house; and

(3)  All workers employed in the construction of a 100% Affordable Housing Development, an Educator Housing Development, or an Increased Affordable Housing Project of 10 or more units, must be paid at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic location of the development, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the California Labor Code, except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code, the requirement that employer payments not reduce the obligation to pay the hourly straight time or overtime wages found to be prevailing shall not apply if otherwise provided in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement covering the worker. The requirement to pay at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages does not preclude use of an alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to Section 511 or 514 of the Labor Code; and

(4) The project sponsor of an Increased Affordability Housing Project of 25 or more units, or of an Educator Housing Project, shall certify that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to complete the development if the application is approved. For purposes of this subsection (b)(4), a “skilled and trained workforce” has the same meaning as provided in Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the California Public Contract Code, as amended from time to time.  

(A)  The Project Sponsor shall provide a report to the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement on a monthly basis while the project or contract is being performed, demonstrating compliance with the skilled and trained workforce and prevailing wage requirements.

(B)  Within 30 days of the effective date of this Section 16.126, the City Administrator shall introduce at the Board of Supervisors, and within 180 days of the effective date of this Charter provision the City shall enact, an ordinance to establish civil penalties for failure to comply with the requirement to use a skilled and trained workforce, including a civil penalty for each month for which the report referenced in subsection (b)(4)(A) has not been provided, and a civil penalty per day for each worker employed in contravention of the skilled and trained workforce requirement. The Office of Labor Standards Enforcement shall collect such penalties, which shall be used to fund the San Francisco City Build program, or a similar successor program that provides construction training.

(c)  Discretionary Approvals.  It is the intent of this Section 16.126 to exempt eligible 100% Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, and Educator Housing Projects from any requirements for discretionary review or approvals by the City, including but not limited to the Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Arts Commission, Board of Supervisors, and Board of Appeals, except for approval required by the provisions of Charter Section 9.118.  

(d)  Implementation and Application.

(1)  The Planning Department and Department of Building Inspection, in consultation with MOHCD, may each adopt regulations to implement this Section 16.126.

(2)  The City shall not enact or adopt any regulations or requirements that are applicable solely to 100% Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, and Educator Housing Projects and that are greater or more burdensome than City regulations and requirements that are broadly applicable to other housing developments in the City. 

SEC. 4.105.  PLANNING COMMISSION.

*   *   *   *   

REFERRAL OF CERTAIN MATTERS.  The following matters shall, prior to passage by the Board of Supervisors, be submitted for written report by the Planning Department regarding conformity with the General Plan: 

1.  Proposed ordinances and resolutions concerning the acquisition or vacation of property by, or a change in the use or title of property owned by, the City and County; 

2.  Subdivisions of land within the City and County;

3.  Projects for the construction or improvement of public buildings or structures within the City and County;

4.  Project plans for public housing, or publicly assisted private housing in the City and County;

5.  Redevelopment project plans within the City and County; and

6.  Such other matters as may be prescribed by ordinance.

Notwithstanding the foregoing list of matters requiring a report regarding General Plan conformity, any eligible 100% Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, that the Planning Department determines to be consistent with the applicable zoning as set forth in the Planning Code shall be deemed to be consistent with the General Plan and shall not require referral for a separate report of conformity by the Planning Department for the foregoing matters.  

The Commission shall disapprove any proposed action referred to it upon a finding that such action does not conform to the General Plan. Such a finding may be reversed by a vote of two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors. 

All such reports and recommendations shall be issued in a manner and within a time period to be determined by ordinance. 

PERMITS AND LICENSES.  All permits and licenses dependent on, or affected by, the City Planning Code administered by the Planning Department shall be approved by the Commission prior to issuance except that permits, licenses, or other approvals for an eligible 100% Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or an Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, do not require approval by the Commission prior to issuance. The Commission may delegate this approval function to the Planning Department. Notwithstanding the foregoing, certificates of appropriateness for work to designated landmarks and historic districts and applications for alterations to significant or contributory buildings or properties in designated conservation districts that have been approved, disapproved, or modified by the Historic Preservation Commission shall not require approval by the Commission prior to issuance. 

*   *   *   *

SEC. 4.106.  BOARD OF APPEALS.

*   *   *   *   

(b)  The Board shall hear and determine appeals with respect to any person who has been denied a permit or license, or whose permit or license has been suspended, revoked, or withdrawn, or who believes that his or her interest or the public interest will be adversely affected by the grant, denial, suspension, or revocation of a license or permit, except for a permit or license under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission or Department, or the Port Commission, or a building or demolition permit for a project that has received a permit or license pursuant to a conditional use authorization, or any permit or license for an eligible 100% Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126; provided that the Board shall hear and determine appeals of building permits for an eligible 100% Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project solely to consider whether such permits comply with the objective standards set forth in the Building Code, including the Electrical, Housing, Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes. 

*   *   *   *

SEC. 4.135.  HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.

*   *   *   *

LANDMARK AND HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS. The Historic Preservation Commission shall have the authority to recommend approval, disapproval, or modification of landmark designations and historic district designations under the Planning Code to the Board of Supervisors. Any recommendation of approval, disapproval, or modification of landmark designations and historic district designations under the Planning Code shall include a finding that the Historic Preservation Commission has considered the effect of such approval, disapproval, or modification on affordable housing. The Historic Preservation Commission shall send recommendations regarding landmarks designations to the Board of Supervisors without referral or recommendation of the Planning Commission. The Historic Preservation Commission shall refer recommendations regarding historic district designations to the Planning Commission, which shall have 45 days to review and comment on the proposed designation, which comments, if any, shall be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors together with the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation. Decisions of the Historic Preservation Commission to disapprove designation of a landmark or historic district shall be final unless appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS.  The Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, disapprove, or modify certificates of appropriateness for work to designated landmarks or within historic districts. For minor alterations, the Historic Preservation Commission may delegate this function to staff, whose decision may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be required for construction of an eligible 100% Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, in a historic district.

For projects that require multiple planning approvals, the Historic Preservation Commission must review and act on any Certificate of Appropriateness before any other planning approval action. For projects that (1) require a conditional use permit or permit review under Section 309, et seq., of the Planning Code and (2) do not concern an individually landmarked property, the Planning Commission may modify any decision on a Certificate of Appropriateness by a 2/3 vote, provided that the Planning Commission shall apply all applicable historic resources provisions of the Planning Code. 

*   *   *   *

ALTERATION OF SIGNIFICANT OR CONTRIBUTORY BUILDINGS OR BUILDINGS IN CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IN THE C-3 DISTRICTS.  The Historic Preservation Commission shall have the authority to determine if a proposed alteration is a Major Alteration or a Minor Alteration. The Historic Preservation Commission shall have the authority to approve, disapprove, or modify applications for permits to alter or demolish designated Significant or Contributory buildings or buildings within Conservation Districts. The Historic Preservation Commission shall not have the authority to approve, disapprove, or modify applications for permits to alter buildings for an eligible 100% Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126. For Minor Alterations, the Historic Preservation Commission may delegate this function to staff, whose decision may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. 

*   *   *   *

REFERRAL OF CERTAIN MATTERS.  The following matters shall, prior to passage by the Board of Supervisors, be submitted for written report by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding effects upon historic or cultural resources: ordinances and resolutions concerning historic preservation issues and historic resources; redevelopment project plans; waterfront land use and project plans; and such other matters as may be prescribed by ordinance. An eligible 100% Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, shall not require review by the Historic Preservation Commission under this paragraph. If the Planning Commission is required to take action on the matter, the Historic Preservation Commission shall submit any report to the Planning Commission as well as to the Board of Supervisors; otherwise, the Historic Preservation Commission shall submit any report to the Board of Supervisors. 

*   *   *   *

SEC. 5.103.  ARTS COMMISSION.

*   *   *   * 

In furtherance of the foregoing the Arts Commission shall: 

1.  Approve the designs for all public structures, any private structure which extends over or upon any public property and any yards, courts, set-backs, or usable open spaces which are an integral part of any such structures, except that an eligible 100% Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, is not subject to design approval by the Arts Commission; 

2.  Approve the design and location of all works of art before they are acquired, transferred, or sold by the City and County, or are placed upon or removed from City and County property, or are altered in any way; maintain and keep an inventory of works of art owned by the City and County; and maintain the works of art owned by the City and County; 

3.  Promote a neighborhood arts program to encourage and support an active interest in the arts on a local and neighborhood level, assure that the City and County-owned community cultural centers remain open, accessible and vital contributors to the cultural life of the City and County, establish liaison between community groups, and develop support for neighborhood artists and arts organizations; and 

4.  Supervise and control the expenditure of all appropriations made by the Board of Supervisors for the advancement of the visual, performing, or literary arts. 

Nothing in this sSection 5.103 shall be construed to limit or abridge the powers or exclusive jurisdiction of the charitable trust departments or the California Academy of Sciences or the Library Commission over their activities; the land and buildings set aside for their use; or over the other assets entrusted to their care. 

SECTION 4.  PLANNING CODE AMENDMENTS.  The Planning Code is hereby amended by adding Section 344, and revising Section 101.1, to read as follows:  

SEC. 344.  ACCELERATED REVIEW OF 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS, INCREASED AFFORDABILITY HOUSING PROJECTS, AND EDUCATOR HOUSING PROJECTS. 

(a)  Purpose and Amendment.  It is the intent of this Section 344 to exempt 100% Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, and Educator Housing Projects, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, from any requirements for discretionary review or approval by the Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Board of Supervisors, or Board of Appeals consistent with the Charter. The Board of Supervisors may by ordinance amend any part of this Section 344 if the amendment is technical and non-substantive in nature, is consistent with the intent of this Section 344, and is initiated by the Planning Commission.

(b)  Definitions and Eligibility.  

(1)  Definitions.

“100% Affordable Housing Project.”  An 100% Affordable Housing Project shall have the meaning set forth in Charter Section 16.126(a). 

“Educator Housing Project.”  An Educator Housing Project shall have the meaning set forth in Charter Section 16.126(a).

“Increased Affordability Housing Project.”  An Increased Affordability Housing Project shall have the meaning set forth in Charter Section 16.126(a).

“MOHCD.”  The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development or its successor agency.

(2)  Eligibility.  To be eligible for accelerating under this Section 344, projects (A) shall meet the eligibility requirements of Charter Section 16.126(b), and (B) shall not include non-residential uses that require conditional use approval by the Planning Commission under the Planning Code. Within 60 days of submittal of a complete development application, the Planning Department shall determine whether an application is eligible to use the accelerated process set forth in this Section 344. Prior to submitting a development application, the project applicant shall place a poster at the subject property for 30 days, describing the project and informing the public that the project is expected to be subject to the accelerated review process under Planning Code Section 344. The poster shall be placed in a manner to be determined by the Zoning Administrator that is visible and legible from the sidewalk or nearest public right-of-way. 

(c)  Ministerial Review.  Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to Business and Tax Regulations Code Section 26, and Sections 311 and 317 of this Code, an eligible 100% Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project that complies with the Zoning Maps, Height and Bulk Maps, and objective standards of the Planning Code or state law, including but not limited to the modifications permitted by Planning Code Section 344(d), shall be deemed consistent with the Planning Code. Review and approval of such projects shall be considered ministerial actions, as defined by California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15369. 

(1)  No conditional use authorization shall be required except where other sections of the Planning Code require conditional use authorization for inclusion of on-site parking, approval of non-residential uses, modifications to a dwelling unit mix requirement, or the location of curb cuts.

(2)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, cannabis retail uses shall not be permitted ministerially as part of this Section 344.  

(3)  Eligible 100% Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, or Educator Housing Projects shall not require authorization by the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission that otherwise may be required by the Planning Code, including any requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness under Planning Code Article 10 or a Permit to Alter under Planning Code Article 11. 

(4)  No requests for discretionary review shall be accepted by the Planning Department or heard by the Planning Commission for eligible 100% Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, or Educator Housing Projects.  

(d)  Modifications.  100% Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, or Educator Housing Projects may, at the project sponsor’s request, use any of the bonus programs listed in Planning Code Sections 206 et seq., including modifications listed therein, and any exceptions listed in Planning Code Section 328(d), and shall be considered compliant with objective standards. If a project does not elect to use the bonus programs listed in Planning Code Section 206, the project may receive any of the following modifications, and Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator discretionary approval shall not be required:

(1)  any of the zoning modifications set forth in Section 206.3(d)(1), (3), and (4);

(2)  modifications to dwelling unit exposure requirements under Section 206.3(d)(4)(B) may be satisfied by an unobstructed open area that is no less than 15 feet in every horizontal direction; and, 

(3)  a minimum lot coverage percentage of 80% at all residential levels except on levels in which all residential units face a public right-of-way in lieu of the rear yard requirements of Section 134.

(e)  Design Review.  The Planning Department shall conduct a review of the aesthetic elements of 100% Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, and Educator Housing Projects within 60 days of the submission of a complete development application from the sponsor of an 100% Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project or an Educator Housing Project. Design review shall be limited to the aesthetic aspects and design of the 100% Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project, and shall not include review of the uses, density, height, zoning modifications, or any other approval or disapproval of the proposed eligible project.  

(f)  Compliance with Planning Code Article 4.  An 100% Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project shall comply with the requirements of Article 4, “Development Impact Fees and Project Requirements that Authorize the Payment of In-Lieu Fees,” except as such projects or any portion of such projects may otherwise be exempt from such requirements, or in the event such requirements are reduced, adjusted, or waived as provided in Planning Code Article 4. 

(g)  Approval.  Building permit applications for eligible 100% Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, or Educator Housing Projects that comply with the controls set forth in this Section 344 shall be ministerially approved by the Planning Department within 180 days of submittal of a complete development application. Building permits shall be issued by the Department of Building Inspection and shall not be subject to Business and Tax Regulations Code Section 26 or an appeal to the Board of Appeals, except as specifically provided in Charter Section 4.106. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in the Municipal Code, such projects shall not require a Planning Code Article 3 authorization, discretionary review hearing, or any other Planning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission hearing. 

(h)  Expiration of Permit.  Planning Department approval of an Increased Affordability Housing Project shall automatically expire by operation of law 24 months after the date of the Planning Department approval, except that it shall remain valid so long as a site permit has been issued by the Department of Building Inspection and construction of the development has begun and is in progress. 

SEC. 101.1.  GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND IMPLEMENTATION.

(a)  The General Plan shall be an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies for San Francisco. To fulfill this requirement, after extensive public participation and hearings, the Planning Commission shall in one action amend the General Plan by January 1, 1988.

(b)  The following Priority Policies are hereby established. They shall be included in the preamble to the General Plan and shall be the basis upon which inconsistencies in the General Plan are resolved:

(1)  That existing neighborhood-serving retail uses be preserved and enhanced and future opportunities for resident employment in and ownership of such businesses enhanced;

(2)  That existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods;

(3)  That the City’s supply of affordable housing be preserved and enhanced, and that new housing for households of all income levels in accordance with San Francisco’s Regional Housing Needs Allocations by household-income levels be produced to meet the needs of City residents now and in the future;

(4)  That commuter traffic not impede Muni transit service or overburden our streets or neighborhood parking;

(5)  That a diverse economic base be maintained by protecting our industrial and service sectors from displacement due to commercial office development, and that future opportunities for resident employment and ownership in these sectors be enhanced;

(6)  That the City achieve the greatest possible preparedness to protect against injury and loss of life in an earthquake;

(7)  That landmarks and historic buildings be preserved; and,

(8)  That our parks and open space and their access to sunlight and vistas be protected from development.

(c)  The City may not adopt any zoning ordinance or development agreement authorized pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865 after November 4, 1986, unless prior to that adoption it has specifically found that the ordinance or development agreement is consistent with the Priority Policies established above.

(d)  The City may not adopt any zoning ordinance or development agreement authorized pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865 after January 1, 1988, unless prior to that adoption it has specifically found that the ordinance or development agreement is consistent with the General Plan.

(e)  Prior to issuing a permit for any project or adopting any legislation which requires an initial study under the California Environmental Quality Act, and prior to issuing a permit for any demolition, conversion, or change of use, and prior to taking any action which requires a finding of consistency with the General Plan, the City shall find that the proposed project or legislation is consistent with the Priority Policies established above. For any such permit issued or legislation adopted after January 1, 1988, the City shall also find that the project is consistent with the General Plan.  

(f)  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 101.1, an eligible 100% Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, shall be deemed to be consistent with this Section 101.1 and shall not require a separate finding of consistency with this Section 101.1.

SECTION 5.  BUSINESS AND TAX REGULATIONS CODE AMENDMENTS.  The Business and Tax Regulations Code is hereby amended by revising Section 26 of Article 1, to read as follows:  

SEC. 26.  FACTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY DEPARTMENTS.

(a)  Subject to sSubsection (b), in the granting or denying of any permit, or the revoking or the refusing to revoke any permit, except for permits associated with an eligible 100% Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, the granting or revoking power may take into consideration the effect of the proposed business or calling upon surrounding property and upon its residents, and inhabitants thereof; and in granting or denying said permit, or revoking or refusing to revoke a permit, may exercise its sound discretion as to whether said permit should be granted, transferred, denied, or revoked. 

*   *   *   * 

SECTION 6.  ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AMENDMENTS.  The Administrative Code is hereby amended by revising section 120.5 of Chapter 120, to read as follows.  

SEC. 120.5. ANNUAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALLOCATION REPORTS REPORTS TO THE BOARD.

(a)  Director’s Annual Report.  The Director shall submit an annual report to the Board, within 180 days following the end of each fiscal year, with a summary of all Loans and Grants from all sources made under this Chapter 120 for the prior fiscal year. The Director’s report shall include the primary purpose of the Loan, principal amount, term, and interest rates, income levels served, and other information, if any, regarding this Chapter that the Director chooses to include in the report. The Director’s report may be combined with any other reporting obligations.

(b)  Mayor’s Budget Submission.  No later than June 1 of each year, the Mayor shall submit an Annual Affordable Housing Allocation Report (“Allocation Report”) to be included with the Mayor’s proposed budget presented to the Board of Supervisors. The Allocation Report shall follow the budget process as set forth in Chapter 3 of the Administrative Code. The Allocation Report shall include all sources and proposed allocations of funds that are specifically earmarked for, or could potentially be allocated to, affordable housing, including but not limited to affordable housing production, affordable housing preservation, such as small site acquisition, affordable housing and supportive housing rehabilitation, and capital maintenance, and operating subsidies, as recommended by the Board of Supervisors or any advisory boards appointed in whole or in part by the Board of Supervisors. The Allocation Report shall provide a target projection of the number, size, and type of sites (including improved or vacant) to be acquired; the scope of rehabilitation work for improved sites; the number of units to be developed or to be funded by MOHCD and the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH); the neighborhood/geography of projects funded; the impact on racial, disability, and aging equity; and overall program implementation goals and priorities broken down by income levels served for the next fiscal year.  Upon receipt of the Allocation Report, the Board may modify the proposed allocation(s) that shall be included in the annual city budget, consistent with Charter Section 9.103.

(c)  Affordable Housing Allocation Progress Report. MOHCD, or any successor agency, in consultation with HSH, or any successor agency, shall compile a combined Annual Affordable Housing Allocation Progress Report (“Progress Report”). The Progress Report shall discuss progress on all affordable housing and supportive housing efforts from MOHCD, HSH, and other departments and agencies that design or plan affordable housing and supportive housing programs, including the Human Services Agency and the Department of Public Health. MOHCD shall submit the Progress Report on or before February 15 of each year to the Board of Supervisors to be presented at a public meeting, as set forth in Chapter 3, Section 3.3 of the Administrative Code, as may be amended from time to time, on the progress of expenditures from the preceding year and the proposed allocation of monies from all possible sources of funds that are specifically allocated for, or could potentially be allocated to, affordable housing, for the development of affordable housing within the City during the next two fiscal years, with a detailed projection for the next fiscal year. The Progress Report shall include but need not be limited to: what income levels are being served on a per project and per unit basis; the total amounts approved for disbursement to affordable housing and supportive housing, including housing preservation, small sites acquisition projects, operating subsidies, and affordable housing and supportive rehabilitation; the number and size of sites acquired and type (including improved or vacant); the scope of rehabilitation work for improved sites; the number of units developed or funded by MOHCD and HSH; the neighborhoods/geography of projects funded; the impact on racial, disability, and aging equity; the difference between funding needed to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for below-moderate income households and the actual funding allocated and expended; and overall program implementation goals for the current fiscal year and proposed priorities for the next fiscal year. The Progress Report shall include an assessment from the Budget and Legislative Analyst of potential new revenue strategies for the City to fund any difference between the funding needed to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for below-market income households and the actual funding allocated and expended, and all the sources of funding allocated to these affordable housing and supportive housing programs, and shall guide the Mayor’s Office and Board of Supervisors in the approval of the annual budget.  The Progress Report shall be accompanied by a draft motion for the Board to accept the report.  

(d)  Advisory Committee. By subsequent ordinance, the Board of Supervisors may create an advisory committee that would be composed of, but not limited to, members of the Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board, members of organizations whose members are affordable housing residents, individuals who are housing insecure, and individuals with experience as affordable housing providers. The committee would advise MOHCD and HSH in preparation of the Affordable Housing Allocation Progress Report and provide guidelines on MOHCD’s annual budget submission.

SECTION 7.  ADDITIONAL FINDINGS.  The People of the City and County of San Francisco specifically find that, for the reasons set forth in Section 2, this ordinance is consistent with the San Francisco General Plan and the Priority Policies set forth in Planning Code Section 101.1, and the actions in this ordinance will serve the public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to Planning Code Section 302. 

SECTION 8.  AMENDMENT.  The provisions of this Initiative amending the Charter and the Municipal Code may only be amended by the voters of the City and County of San Francisco except as specifically provided in the terms of the Initiative.  

SECTION 9.  POLICY.  It is the Policy of the City that the City shall encourage the timely development of 100% Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, and Educator Housing Projects, so that the City and its residents can obtain the benefits that such projects will provide. To that end, the People of the City encourage the City, its officers, employees, and consultants to take all appropriate steps to expeditiously assist the construction of 100% Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, and Educator Housing Projects.  

SECTION 10.  SEVERABILITY.  If any provision of this Initiative or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any provision or application of this Initiative that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. To this end, the provisions of this Initiative are severable.

SECTION 11. CONFLICTS WITH OTHER MEASURES.  This Initiative is intended to regulate housing development in the City. The Initiative shall be deemed to conflict with any other measure appearing on the same ballot if such other measure addresses planning or zoning controls, project approval processes, or the standard of review that would be applicable to 100% Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, or Educator Housing Projects, individually or collectively, as defined in Charter Section 16.126 or as defined in the other measures, whether the measure does so by specific application or as a more general enactment that could otherwise be applied to affordable housing projects, housing for educators, or housing with additional on-site inclusionary housing above that required by City codes, or addresses review of such projects pursuant to Charter Section 9.118. In the event this Initiative and any other measure as described above appearing on the same ballot are approved by the voters at the same election, and this Initiative receives a greater number of affirmative votes than the conflicting measure, this Initiative shall control in its entirety and the other measure shall be rendered void and without any legal effect. If this Initiative is approved by a majority of the voters but does not receive a greater number of affirmative votes than any other conflicting measure, this Initiative shall take effect to the extent permitted by law.  

  • 地方選票提案和論據的資料
    • 三藩市債務概覽
    • 名詞解釋
    • 提案 A: 退休人員補充生活費調整; 退休委員會與執行總監的合約
    • 提案 B: 工務局及委員會、衛生與街道局及委員會
    • 提案 C: 無家可歸者監督委員會
    • 提案 D: 可負擔房屋 — 創制提案請願書
    • 提案 E: 可負擔房屋 — 市議會
    • 提案 F: 圖書館保護基金
    • 提案 G: 學生成功基金 — 對三藩市聯合校區的撥款
    • 提案 H: 在偶數年舉行的市府選舉
    • 提案 I: 金門公園內甘迺迪大道(JFK Drive) 以及大公路(Great Highway)的車輛
    • 提案 J: 金門公園內甘迺迪大道(JFK Drive) 的休閒使用
    • 提案 K: 按三藩市高等法院命令, 提案K已在選票上移除。
    • 提案 L: 用於交通項目的銷售稅
    • 提案 M: 住宅單位的空置稅
    • 提案 N: 金門公園地下停車設施; 金門公園廣場管理委員會
    • 提案 O: 用於市立大學的額外地塊稅

關注我們!



© SF Department of Elections all rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

  • 一般信息
  • 候選人資料
  • 地方選票提案