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）140%，但家庭平均收入不超過AMI 120%的家庭提供的住房；(2) 提供相當於場地要求可負擔住房單位數量15%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，不再需要市議會的批准？
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開發項目進行審核並做出批准或拒絕的決定。新住房開發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。
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D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，就不需要市議會的批准。
提案D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住房，並其家庭收入不超過AMI 140%的多戶住房，所有住宅單位的家庭平均收入不得超過AMI 120%。
• 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於至少15%場地要求之數目要求。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，該項目須在場地提供額外3個可負擔房屋單位，即22個場地可負擔單位的15%，總計25個可負擔單位。
• 多戶住房，或是包括住房與其他商業用途的開發項目，其所有住宅單位均提供給家中至少有一名在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，市府會有五至八個月的時間審批這些開發項目，具體時間取決於住房單位數量。
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。
根據這項提案，市議會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。開發項目單位數量為40個或以上的承包商還須提供醫療保健福利和見習機會。
如果提案D通過並且獲得的票數多於提案E，提案E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的審批，包括：
• 所有住宅單位對收入不超過地區收入中位數140% 的家庭均為可負擔房屋的多戶住宅，而且所有住宅單位的家庭平均收入均不得超過AMI 120%；
• 額外可負擔房屋單位數量相當於至少是場地要求可負擔房屋單位數量的15%；或是
• 所有住宅單位提供給家中至少有一名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將不再需要市議會的批准。
市議會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，承包商必須提供醫療保健福利以及見習機會。
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「D」的意見書
市主計官Ben Rosenfield就提案D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會加快以下三種情況的多戶住房的審批：所有住宅單位皆為可負擔房屋的多戶住房； 住宅單位為10個或以上並且比市法律的場地要求可負擔房屋數目至少多出15%；及所有住宅單位均提供給家中至少有一名校區或市立大學僱員的家庭，以及至少80%的住宅單位為可負擔房屋的多戶住房。
建議的市憲章修正案會免除可負擔房屋開發的任何酌情審批，前題是它們符合規劃法規，並且允許開發項目直接進行，不需依州法律的環境評估。三藩市市府會有五至八個月的時間審批這些開發項目，具體時間取決於住房單位數量。
在一定程度上，此項市憲章修正案會縮短審批流程， 本市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的損失。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。
本市憲章修正案還要求10個或以上住宅單位的項目贊助者支付市場工資。若是40個或以上住宅單位的項目，項目贊助者必須支付醫療保險並提供見習計劃。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「D」如何被列入選票
2022年7月13日，選務處確認提案D的創制提案請願書，請願書包含足夠數目的有效簽名，使提案有資格列入選票。
將一項創制市憲章修正案列入選票需有49,794個簽名。此數目相當於「分發請願書意向通知」公布時登記選民人數的10%。創制提案請願書倡議者於2022年7月11日期限之前呈交的簽名，經過隨機審核表明有效簽名的總數超過所需數目。
本提案需要有50%+1的贊成票才能獲得通過。
贊成提案 D 的論據提案D「立即提供可負擔房屋」，將使在三藩市興建三藩市中低收入人士和公立學校教師可負擔的新住房變得更快而且更容易。
我們相信應有更多不同收入水平的三藩市民眾，能夠住在可負擔住宅，並且能賺取支撐家庭的工資。我們強烈支持提案D，這是在11月的選票上唯一能真正加快建造急需的可負擔房屋的提案。
三藩市的可負擔房屋嚴重短缺，因為市府需要四到七年的時間審批興建新住宅的許可證。官僚主義和政治使整體住房成本上升，以及阻延了新的建設，使這座城市變得更難以負擔。
提案D是唯一能消除官僚主義路障和政治姿態的提案。
提案D是選票上唯一真正能使興建房屋變得更容易的提案，它消除市議會用來阻止新建造項目的官僚主義路障，例如469 Stevenson項目，該項目將通過重建市中心空置代客停車場來增加大約100個新的可負擔住房。
提案D簡化了向中低收入勞工提供的可負擔和中等收入住房的程序。
透過簡化許可證和審批程序，提案D為我們的中低收入勞工興建可負擔和中等收入住房，包括教師、護士、消防員、小企業主以及非營利工作者。
提案D要求市場工資和醫療保健。
提案D要求建築商支付可讓支撐家庭的市場工資給建築工人，並為工人及其家庭提供醫療保險費用。它要求承包商為學徒創造機會，藉此建立一個強大、穩定和包容性的勞動力。
加入我們支持提案D——它是選票上唯一將會真正快速興建更多可負擔房屋的提案。
www.AffordableHomesNow.org
大三藩市仁人家園
北加州木匠工會
反駁贊成提案 D 的論據提案D代表欺騙、不誠實和對發展商的施贈。
事實：提案D是欺騙人的。
提案D將「可負擔」重新界定為價格高於市價的房屋。過去八年裡，三藩市已興建超過其房屋開發的目標。然而，房價持續飆升，因為幾乎所有這種新住房都是市價。
事實：提案D是不誠實的。
他們特別強調的項目——469 Stevenson，根本就不符合提案D的加速審批資格！而且，它的住房單位都是市價，不是可負擔的。假裝有了提案D會對這個項目帶來不同的結果是不誠實的，它不會。
事實：提案D是一項對發展商的施贈。
提案D向開發商提供數百萬美元來自加速審批的利益， 但卻沒有針對家庭住房、可負擔性或甚至興建住房的相關要求。這對解決我們的住房危機毫無幫助，但卻豐厚了億萬富翁投資者的口袋。
不要被發展商欺騙了。
提案D說它提供可負擔房屋，但非營利的可負擔住房發展商卻反對這項提案。
提案D說它提供「教育工作者住房」，但教師卻反對這項提案。
提案D甚至受到建築界，也就是建造這類房屋的人的反對。
提案D沒有要求發展商建造任何建築，也不會提供工薪人士和家庭可以負擔的住房。
停止欺騙、不誠實和給發展商的施贈！
投票反對提案D！
種族與平等總計劃聯盟
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
三藩市反迫遷聯盟
社區房屋委員會組織
反對提案 D 的論據
當三藩市建立多元化社區、可負擔房屋以及可公平獲取資源和機會時，我們全都得以蓬勃發展。提案D的作用卻與這願景背道而馳。
提案D是欺騙性的，會讓房屋更加昂貴。我們需要興建更多可負擔房屋來解決我們的住房危機。過去八年來，三藩市興建了比加州所要求的多出一萬個市價房屋單位，但可負擔房屋單位卻嚴重短缺。單單依靠市價房屋只會造成越來越多的迫遷、無家可歸和不平等。
提案D會令我們的住房危機惡化。提高「可負擔房屋」收入資格的做法會使租賃或擁有「可負擔」房屋單位比市價房屋花費更多。一個每月費用將近4,000美元的一房公寓將被視為「可負擔房屋」，而今天的市價是每月3,095美元。
提案D是一項偽裝成「可負擔房屋」給予發展商的施贈。根據這項提案，一旦發展商收到項目批准時，他們就不需要實際建造急需的可負擔房屋單位。他們可以簡單地出售土地，賺取數百萬美元利潤。
提案D沒有要求興建兩房或三房單位，這意味著開發商將不會興建三藩市家庭迫切需要的住房。提案D會破壞公眾監督與透明度，使居民更難參與有關其社區的變化與發展的決策過程。您將永遠無法在開發項目的公聽會上發言來要求真正的可負擔房屋或其他社區需求。
提案D意味著三藩市各地的共管公寓會更昂貴。富有的房地產發展商和投資者將獲利，而工薪家庭則是繼續被房價排斥在外。
如果您想要立即提供可負擔房屋，投票反對提案D。
種族與平等總計劃聯盟
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
三藩市民主黨
三藩市租客聯盟
反迫遷聯盟
社區房屋委員會組織（CCHO）
反駁反對提案 D 的論據反對提案D「立即提供可負擔房屋」的市議員，三番四次地反對加速興建新住房以滿足三藩市市民的迫切需求。
他們反對提案D並不令人驚訝，這提案是一項支持住房的提案，得到強大的支持住房的民選領袖以及非營利組織支持，包括：大三藩市仁人家園和北加州木匠工會，其使命是為工薪家庭興建住房。
三藩市正面臨一個艱難的現實，就是我們必須在2031 年之前興建超過82,000個新住房。我們必須向州政府表明，我們正在消除建造障礙，否則我們有可能失去州與聯邦政府為可負擔房屋和交通提供的數億美元的撥款。除非我們願意作出改變，更快速地興建更多住房，否則我們無法期待一個更美好的未來。
提案D相對其競爭提案而言，將會在三藩市興建更多住房，包括更多可負擔房屋。通過消除不必要並延誤項目的公聽會，我們的市府領導者可以專注於興建本市需要的住房。同樣重要的是，根據本提案，只有遵循市長和市議會所制定的本地規定的項目才會被加速處理。
提案D確保強大的勞動力，他們獲得足夠工資，能夠住在他們正在興建的住房裡。通過要求能提供支撐家庭的工資、醫療保險和學徒機會，我們有組織的勞動力將從返工作崗位，建設未來。
消取阻礙興建更多可負擔房屋的官僚主義。投票贊成提案D。
州參議員Scott Wiener
市長London Breed
市議員Matt Dorsey
贊成提案 D 的付費論據贊成提案D的付費論據
提案D是一項支持住房的措施，將快速建設急需的可負擔房屋，以確保三藩市成為每個人都能負擔得起的城市。
提案D將通過以下方式修復三藩市破碎的住房審批程序:
• 消除官僚主義的繁文縟節，以便能夠更快地建造可負擔房屋。
• 將住房審批非政治化，這樣市議會就不能拒絕和拖延所有符合法律的項目，就像他們對469 Stevenson 的做法一樣。
• 保護100% 的可負擔房屋項目不受滋擾性訴訟的影響。
• 為建築工人提供中層階級工資和醫療保健。
三藩市的住房負擔能力危機需要立即採取行動。
與旨在維持現狀的反住房提案E不同，提案D實際上提供了一條真正的途徑，以消除障礙，為三藩市市民建造更多可負擔和勞動力房屋。
SPUR
灣區理事會
綠化帶聯盟
GrowSF
國際仁人家園大三藩市地區
住房行動聯盟
北加州木匠工會
YIMBY Action
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。
贊成提案D的付費論據
可負擔房屋開發商支持提案D
作為非營利性可負擔房屋開發商，我們支持提案D。
提案D，即“現在就要可負擔住房”（AHN）投票倡議，是更快創造可負擔住房的關鍵。
目前，在該市獲得任何住房項目的批准需要4-7年時間（是的，要幾年時間）。為什麼呢？因為每一個擬議的開發項目都必須經過一個漫長、艱巨、重複的過程，由不同的部門和委員會來審查。
提案D將這一繁瑣的過程精簡為幾個月的時間。
這就是為什麼我們強烈支持提案D，市長London Breed的可負擔房屋措施，該措施得到了廣泛的住房倡導者聯盟以及幫助提案D放在選票上的8萬多選民的支持。
幸運的是，選民將有權利投票支持這一項提案，使現在就更快、更容易地建造更多的可負擔房屋！
Mission住房開發公司
仁人家園大三藩市地區
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。
贊成提案D的付費論據
提案D是唯一能為教師創造住房的提案
三藩市正面臨住房危機，因為市府需要4-7年的時間來批准新房屋的許可證，這使得每個人的成本都在增加。
對於教師來說，住房短缺的情況更加嚴重，負擔能力更低。能負擔的起住在三藩市的教師越來越少，導致教師短缺，影響到本市所有的學校、家庭和學生。拖延住房建設的額外進程和政治因素影響到我們在課堂內外生活的各個方面。
提案D是選票上唯一的提案，通過消除市議會用來阻止建設新項目的官僚主義路障，真正簡化新住房。
通過精簡許可和審批程序，提案D為教師和校區其他工作人員創造了可負擔和中等收入的住房。
提案D是我們現在可以採用的一個重要步驟，以最終建造更多的住房，以提供我們都需要的可負擔房屋，並將我們的教師留在三藩市。
John Lisovsky, 教師, Galileo 高中
Elizabeth Statmore, 教師, Lowell 高中
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。
贊成提案D的付費論據
投票贊成提案D，以應對我們的住房和氣候危機。
通過簡化在三藩市靠近交通和工作場所的可負擔房屋的建設，提案D將減少車輛污染。這將淨化我們的空氣、減少擁堵、並降低氣候污染。三藩市的可負擔房屋的用水量也比郊區少得多，這將有助於我們地區在乾旱惡化時滿足我們對飲用水的需求。在三藩市，更多的可負擔房屋也將有助於保護農場和開放空間，避免被郊區蔓延所覆蓋。實際上，最近的研究表明，建造更多的可負擔房屋是像我們這樣的城市為減少氣候污染和用水所能做的最有效的事情之一。
投票贊成提案D – 其有利於我們的環境，減少氣候和空氣污染、有助於節約用水、並保護我們的農場和開放空間。
三藩市保護選民聯盟
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。
贊成提案D的付費論據
房租太高了!
提案D，即“現在就要可負擔房屋”，將帶來更多可負擔房屋，使每個人都能負擔的起在三藩市生活。
我們想要的城市，有更多的住房、工作、公共交通、開放空間和小商業。現在不是一個無法實現的現實。我們希望有更多熱愛三藩市的鄰居，並能把這個美好的城市當作自己的家。但只有當我們為想要居住在這裡的人騰出空間時，這才有可能實現。只有當我們現在有更多可負擔房屋時，這才會實現。
提案D將為我們城市需要的關鍵工人建造更多房屋。教師、服務提供者、一線救援者、建築工人、護士和其他很多讓我們城市運轉的人。
現在是建設可負擔房屋的時候了。投票贊成提案D。
YIMBY Action
發展列治文區
Northern Neighbors
SF YIMBY
Southside Forward
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。
贊成提案D的付費論據
有人說過，所有的政治都是地方性的，而在三藩市，所有的地方性政治都是關於土地利用。
提案D，即“現在就要可負擔房屋”的投票提案，將通過消除官僚主義和加速建造繼續的住房，在三藩市創造出更多可負擔房屋。遺憾的是，其已成為競爭性提案的政治目標，我們稱之為“永遠沒有可負擔房屋”。
提案D，即支持住房的“現在就要可負擔房屋”提案，對三藩市的未來是非常好的，原因有很多。
• 提案D是唯一能真正為當前和未來居民創造更多可負擔房屋的提案。
• 通過提案D意味著我們實際上更接近成為一個人人共享城市的目標，而在過去30年裡，隨著住房成本的飆升，我們已經失去了這一點。
• 通過提案D意味著建築工人獲得贍養家庭的工資，並真正能夠生活在他們幫助建設的城市。
• 最重要的是，通過提案D意味著我們不再對進步說“反對”，而是對“現在就要可負擔房屋”說“贊成”。
投票贊成提案D。
三藩市婦女政治委員會
Edwin M. Lee 亞太民主黨俱樂部
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。
贊成提案D的付費論據
有很多因素使大城市運作，三藩市有很多這樣的因素。遺憾的是，我們為人們創造一個安全可步行環境的夢想受到了缺乏可負擔房屋的限制。提案D，即“現在就要可負擔房屋”的提案，是朝著正確方向邁出的重要一步，以確保三藩市能夠發揮其作為一個安全、可步行城市的潛力。
簡單地說，我們在和這個城市沒有足夠的住房，是因為我們讓建造這些住房太困難、太昂貴、太官僚化。當我們熟悉使我們街道對人們更安全所需的繁瑣程序時，新的住房項目也遇到了同樣的障礙，即使他們遵守了所有市府的規則。就像每個人都應該能夠安全地步行去學校、工作或到他們的公共交通站一樣，每個人都應該有機會獲得可負擔的安全住房。
提案D將消減阻礙本市建設更多可負擔房屋的繁文縟節，值得你支持。投贊成票。
Streets for People
KidSafe SF
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。
贊成提案D的付費論據結束
反對提案 D 的付費論據反對提案D的付費論據
健康和公共服務非盈利組織反對提案D！
這項措施將給予房地產開發商優惠待遇，讓他們在沒有透明度和公眾意見的情況下，建造市場價的單間公寓，而且這些公寓符合精簡和市府融資條件的“可負擔房屋”。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的可負擔房屋。
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。
反對提案D的付費論據
提案D對工人、家庭和教育工作者不利
“現在就要可負擔房屋”的投票倡議在各個層面上都有誤導性。其不要求“可負擔”的住房；不需要我們的家庭有“家”；也不需要“現在”建造房屋。此外，提案為那些建造住房給我們的工人提供的保障不充分。
如果提案D獲得通過，那些建造我們家園、教育我們子女、在旅遊業和酒店業工作的人將無法在三藩市生活。投票反對提案D。
三藩市建築業工會
三藩市勞工理事會Unite HERE Local 2
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的唯一貢獻者是: UA Local 38。
反對提案D的付費論據
租戶、工薪家庭和老年人反對提案D
不要被愚弄了！提案D承諾建造更多的“可負擔房屋”，但只是通過改變這種住房的定義，同時為更多不負責任的以投機者驅動的開發打開大門。例如，提案D對“可負擔房屋”的重新定義將提高房東可收取的租金 – 將可負擔的兩居室公寓的最高租金從3,740美元提高到4,360美元。提案D的“可負擔”住房對三藩市大多數租戶來說都是不可負擔的。
提案D是給房地產開發商的禮物，被偽裝成“可負擔房屋”措施。投票反對提案D。
三藩市租客聯盟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
無家可歸者聯盟
Haight Ashbury 居民委員會
三藩市住房權利委員會
北灘租戶委員會
老年人和殘障人士行動
人們組織起來要求環境額額經濟正義
SOMA 菲律賓人 -菲律賓文化遺產區
這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是: San Francisco Tenants Union。
反對提案D的付費論據
提案D將迫使搬遷和中產階層化
企業的貪婪和住房投機已經使拉丁裔工薪家庭離開了三藩市。提案D將繼續壓低工薪家庭和有色人種社區的價格，而不是建設社區需要的可負擔房屋。投票反對提案D，以防止進一步的流離失所和中產階層化。
三藩市拉丁裔民主俱樂部
拉美裔工作小組
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的唯一貢獻者是: UA Local 38。
反對提案D的付費論據
投票反對提案D – 其拒絕提供可負擔房屋
提案D是給開發商的贈品，在整個列治文區和日落區建造100%市場價格，沒有家庭規模的單位的公寓樓。它取消了所有酌情審查和附帶條件用途以及任何其他公聽會，同時沒有提供任何社區福利作為回報。提案D是一個騙局 – 只是一張給開發商利潤的空白支票。投票反對提案D!!!
西區社區聯盟
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的唯一貢獻者是: UA Local 38。
法律文本NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain font. Additions to Code are single-underline italics font. Deletions from Code are strikcthrough italics font. Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged subsections.
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:
Section 1. Title.
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “Affordable Homes Now Initiative”
(the “Initiative”).
Section 2. Findings and Purposes.
The People of the City and County of San Francisco hereby find as follows:
(a) San Francisco is experiencing a severe housing shortage. The shortage of affordable housing has forced lower income and middle class families out of the city. There is a need to make it easier to build affordable and middle-income housing to keep our city diverse, and provide homes for lower and middle income workers, including teachers, nurses, firefighters, small business owners, retail and non-profit workers, and Muni drivers. In the midst of this severe housing shortage and affordability crisis, San Francisco must immediately remove barriers to building housing for low and middle income residents and working families.
(b) San Francisco must plan for the development of 82,069 units in its Housing Element for the period between 2023 and 2031, according to the Regional Housing Need Allocation adopted in 2021 by the Association of Bay Area Governments. This includes 13,717 units for moderate-income and middle-income households.
(c) Teachers and other employees of the San Francisco Unified School District and Community College District suffer acutely from the city’s severe housing shortage, with hundreds of teachers leaving the school district every year, many due to frustration with high housing costs and the escalating cost of living. When it comes to providing quality public education for our students, it is far preferable for teachers to live in the city and district in which they teach.
(d) Many of our service sector employers, including homeless service providers, mental health providers, child care facilities, restaurants, retail stores, and other small business operators cannot hire sufficient employees to keep their businesses fully operational because these employees cannot afford to live in San Francisco, leading to storefront vacancies, restaurant closures, and the inability to provide services to the most vulnerable communities in the city.
(e) Affordable housing is a national issue and is an especially paramount concern in San Francisco. San Francisco has one of the highest housing costs in the nation, but San Francisco’s economy and culture rely on a diverse workforce at all income levels. It is the policy of the City to enable these workers to afford housing in San Francisco and ensure that they pay a reasonably proportionate share of their incomes to live in adequate housing and to not have to commute ever-increasing distances to their jobs.
(f) One major obstacle to the goal of increasing affordable housing in San Francisco is that the City’s current planning and appeals process unnecessarily delays the development of new affordable housing, even in locations that have already undergone extensive environmental and neighborhood review. According to a 2018 study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California at Berkeley, it takes an average of four years from the date of application for a housing project in San Francisco to get a permit to start construction, and six years before families are able to move in. This Initiative remedies that cumbersome planning and appeal process by allowing eligible affordable housing projects to move forward without delay. The purpose of the Affordable Homes Now Initiative is to facilitate the development and construction of housing affordable at all income levels in San Francisco.
(g) Another major obstacle to the goal of increasing affordable housing in San Francisco is that the city lacks a large, stable, and productive construction workforce. A 2020 survey by the Association of Bay Area Governments found that “Construction Workforce Availability” is a significant housing production constraint. A 2018 report by the Construction Industry Institute based at the University of Texas, Austin further found that projects with skilled workforce shortages experience cost and schedule overruns and increased safety incidents. Construction trades workers are severely underrepresented within San Francisco’s resident working population, constituting only 2 percent of the civilian workforce contrasted with 5 percent of the civilian workforce nationwide, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics for 2019. Construction workers who do manage to live in the city often struggle financially given low wages and the lack of necessary benefits like health care. Construction contractors often compete for housing construction contracts on the basis of low labor costs rather than on greater productivity and quality, thereby worsening working conditions and lowering compensation to levels that fail to attract and sustain a larger, more stable, and more productive housing workforce. In the San Francisco metropolitan area, residential construction workers receive approximately 40 percent less annual pay than the average employee, according to statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Additionally, one out of every four California construction workers is uninsured, a rate that is two and one-half times greater than the overall rate for working Californians, according to analysis of U.S. Census Bureau survey data. An additional 23 percent of California construction workers are insured by a public health plan such as Medi-Cal. Only one-third of California construction workers are covered by a health plan through their employer. Bay Area construction worker households are nearly 40 percent more likely than all other working households to be burdened by housing expenses that exceed 30 percent of their households’ incomes, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics. Improving the quality of construction jobs will help to achieve San Francisco’s General Plan policy goal of increasing the number of workers that can afford to live in San Francisco.
(h) Encouraging construction employers to contribute towards coverage of workers’ health care costs and invest in state-approved apprenticeship programs will promote the development of a skilled, stable, productive, and diverse construction workforce by growing opportunities for residents to enter the construction industry, gain necessary training and skills, and attain living wages and health security. State-approved apprenticeship programs are proven and regulated methods of career training that introduce workers to new careers and give them high-quality practical and classroom training in all the skills they need to succeed on the job. A majority of state-approved construction trades apprentices and graduates are people of color and come from state-designated low-income and/or disadvantaged census tracts. State-approved apprenticeship programs grow living wages: a majority of apprentices and graduates of state-approved apprenticeship programs earn a living wage according to Strong Workforce Program data published by California’s Community College Office of the Chancellor. Research by Mathematica Policy Research has also shown that state-approved apprenticeships boost participating construction workers’ lifetime career incomes by $240,000. Additionally, state-approved apprenticeship programs increase health security for its participants as all state-approved apprentices are paid a state-regulated hourly rate that includes either employer contributions for a health plan or money sufficient to purchase a health plan.
(i) San Francisco’s General Plan is designed to help the City achieve a variety of policy goals in a way that recognizes the unique nature of San Francisco’s diverse neighborhoods. The General Plan contains 19 neighborhood-based Area Plans and three sub-Area Plans, which represent decades of community-based planning and which helped set the underlying zoning. These Area Plans also contemplate tens of thousands of units of housing needed to support the goals of the General Plan.
(j) Streamlined review enables cities like San Francisco to expedite development of housing projects that conform to general plan and zoning controls, allowing the City to expand its housing and affordable housing supply by reducing the time and expense associated with long project review periods and multiple appeal proceedings. According to a draft report sponsored by the California Air Resources Board, the median time frame for approval of housing development projects in San Francisco is 27 months, significantly longer than other large California cities. For example, median approval time frames are 18 months in San Jose, 14 months in San Diego, and 10 months in Los Angeles. San Francisco’s current lengthy, complicated and ever-changing 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.
(k) San Francisco has a long history of using zoning laws to exclude minority and low income residents. The Cubic Air Ordinance was enacted in the 1880s to limit housing for Chinese immigrants. The first zoning code, adopted in 1921, restricted immigrant owned businesses in residential areas. Over the years, housing density across the city was repeatedly reduced, eliminating an estimated 180,000 legally buildable homes and further concentrating development in communities of color. In 1954, San Francisco began allowing discretionary review of any project, even if it met all zoning requirements, thereby further enabling a system where those individuals with access to resources had a louder voice in how neighborhoods grew. A 2018 study by the Berkeley Law Center for Law, Energy and the Environment found that out of five Bay Area cities, San Francisco is the only city that allows discretionary review on all developments or that requires more than one discretionary approval for each project. Analysis of citizen participants in planning and zoning meetings have found that such meetings amplify the voices of certain communities over those who are more underrepresented.
(l) The purpose of the Affordable Homes Now Initiative is to facilitate the development and construction of housing affordable at all income levels in San Francisco and to grow a skilled, stable, productive and diverse construction workforce. This Initiative remedies the City’s cumbersome and inequitable planning and appeal process by allowing housing projects that advance the City’s affordable housing goals and that provide health care security and participate in state-approved apprenticeship programs to move forward without delay.
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 amending Sections 4.105, 4.106, 4.135, 5.103, and 9.118, to read as follows:
SEC. 16.126. STREAMLINED REVIEW OF AFFORDABLE, INCREASED AFFORDABILITY, AND EDUCATOR HOUSING PROJECTS.
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this Section 16.126 and the streamlined review process contemplated in this Charter Amendment, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
Affordable Housing. Residential units that are restricted as follows: (1) units shall have a maximum affordable purchase price or affordable rent set at 140% of the unadjusted area median family income (AMI) determined by MOHCD on an annual basis and derived from the HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) that contains San Francisco; (2) at a rent that shall not exceed 30% of the applicable household income limit for a rental unit, or at a purchase price with an annual housing cost that shall not exceed 33% of the applicable income limit for an owner-occupied unit, as each may be adjusted for household size and bedroom count; and (3) for the life of the project or a minimum of 55 years, whichever is longer, by a recorded regulatory agreement and consistent with any federal, state or local government regulatory requirements of general application to inclusionary housing projects. MOHCD shall set income eligibility requirements consistent with methodology outlined in the Mayor’s Office of Housing Preferences and Lottery Procedures Manual, as amended from time to time.
Affordable Housing Project. A project for the development of Multi-Family housing where 100% of the residential units are Affordable Housing, with up to a maximum overall average of 120% AMI across all residential units in the project. In the alternative, an Affordable Housing Project is a mixed-use development consisting of Multi-Family residential uses and nonresidential uses on the ground floor, and where all Multi-Family residential uses are restricted as Affordable Housing, with up to a maximum overall average of 120% of AMI across all residential uses in the project. An Affordable Housing Project may also include nonresidential uses that are accessory to and supportive of the residents and the Affordable Housing, and such uses shall not be considered a non-residential use. Notwithstanding the foregoing requirements for an Affordable Housing Project, the maximum affordable rent or sales price for the Affordable Housing in such project may be no higher than 20% below median market rents or sales prices for the neighborhood in which the Affordable Housing Project is located, which neighborhood shall be defined in accordance with the American Community Survey Neighborhood Profile Boundaries Map. MOHCD shall determine the allowable rents and sales prices, and the eligible households for such units accordingly.
Educator Housing Project. A project that meets the requirements of Planning Code Sections 206.9(b) and 206.9(c), as amended from time to time.
Increased Affordability Housing Project. A Multi-Family housing development project consisting of 10 or more residential units that provides on-site Affordable Units required by the City’s Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program, or if applicable, the inclusionary requirements 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 15% of the number of such on-site Affordable Units required by the City’s Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program or Planning Code Section 206.3, as applicable.
MOHCD. The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development or its successor agency.
Multi-Family. Multi-Family housing shall mean two or more residential units and shall not include a single family home.
(b) Eligibility. To be eligible for streamlining under this Section 16.126, projects shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The project is an Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or 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; (B) is not located in a zoning district that prohibits dwelling units; (C) does not cause any removal or demolition of a designated state or national landmark, a designated City landmark, 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; (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 does not demolish, remove, or convert a Movie Theater use or Nighttime Entertainment use; 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) For projects consisting of 10 or more residential units, all construction workers employed in the construction of the development 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 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 under the terms and conditions of Labor Code Section 1777.5.
(4) For projects consisting of 40 or more residential units, prior to the City issuing development entitlements, the project proponent shall certify that the project complies with Planning Code Section 16.126(b)(3) and that each construction contractor at every tier that will work on the project satisfies either (A) or (B):
(A)
(i) A construction contractor that will employ apprenticeable construction craft employees for a total of at least 1,000 hours on the project shall participate in an apprenticeship program approved by the State of California Division of Apprenticeship Standards or has requested and will continue to request the dispatch of apprentices from such state-approved apprenticeship programs under the terms and conditions of California Labor Code Section 1777.5. A construction contractor without construction craft employees shall show a contractual obligation that all of its subcontractors comply with the requirements in this subsection; and
(ii) A construction contractor that will employ construction craft employees for a total of at least 1,000 hours on the project shall also provide medical coverage, or make monetary contributions to a Healthy San Francisco medical reimbursement account, for all of its construction craft employees during periods of employment. A construction contractor contributing to Healthy San Francisco accounts shall do so at a rate of at least $11.90 per hour worked subject to annual adjustment by the Director of Health based on changes since the prior year in the average of monthly premiums for Health Maintenance Organization plans designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to at least 90 percent of the full actuarial value of such plans’ benefits and according to regulations enacted pursuant to this Charter. A construction contractor without construction craft employees shall show a contractual obligation that all of its subcontractors comply with the requirements in this subsection.
(B) A construction contractor is a signatory to a valid collective bargaining agreement that requires participation in a Joint Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California, Division of Apprenticeship Standards, expressly provides for health coverage, and provides for enforcement of such obligations through an arbitration procedure.
(c) Discretionary Approvals. It is the intent of this Section 16.126 to exempt eligible Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, and Educator Housing Projects from any requirements for discretionary review or approvals by the City. Therefore, notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not limited to other provisions of this Charter, Business and Tax Regulation Code Section 26 and Sections 311 and 312 of the Planning Code, no Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project shall be subject to discretionary review or approval by the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Art Commission, the Board of Appeals, or any other body, commission or officer, and no requests for discretionary review shall be accepted by the City for the Project. The exemption shall be construed broadly, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the San Francisco Planning Code, the San Francisco Municipal Code or the San Francisco Charter, any government agency action or approval required or necessary for implementation of the project or any portion thereof, including issuance of permits, including without limitation demolition permits, grading permits, site permits, building permits, sewer and water connection permits, major and minor encroachment permits, street improvement permits, tree removal permits, and certificates of occupancy shall be ministerial, as defined by California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15369, except as required by state or federal law.
(d) Implementation and Application.
(1) The Planning Department, in consultation with MOHCD, and the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement may adopt regulations to implement this Section 16.126.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, the City may enact ordinances applying the controls of this Section 16.126 and Sections 4.105, 4.106, 4.135, 5.103, and 9.118 to additional forms of housing or housing projects but may not limit or otherwise condition the application of Section 16.126 to Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, and Educator Housing Projects.
(3) The City shall not enact or adopt any regulations or requirements that are applicable solely to 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. Regulations or requirements enabling the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement to implement Section 16.126 do not constitute more burdensome regulations under this provision.
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 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 Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or an Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, shall not require approval by the Commission prior to issuance. The Commission may delegate its this approval function over all other permits and licenses 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 Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or an 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 Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, 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. No requests for jurisdiction to the Board of Appeals shall be permitted for an eligible Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project.
* * * *
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 Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or an 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 Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or an 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 Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or an 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 Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or an 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 section 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.
SEC. 9.118. CONTRACT AND LEASE LIMITATIONS.
(a) Unless otherwise provided for in this Charter, contracts entered into by a department, board, or commission having anticipated revenue to the City and County of one million dollars or more, or the modification, amendment, or termination of any contract which when entered into had anticipated revenue of one million dollars or more, shall be subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors by resolution. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, contracts for an eligible Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or an Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, shall not be subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors.
(b) Unless otherwise provided for in this Charter, and with the exception of construction contracts entered into by the City and County, any other contracts or agreements entered into by a department, board, or commission having a term in excess of ten years, or requiring anticipated expenditures by the City and County of ten million dollars, or the modification or amendments to such contract or agreement having an impact of more than $500,000 shall be subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors by resolution. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, contracts or agreements for an eligible Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or an Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, shall not be subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors.
(c) Unless otherwise provided for in this Charter, any lease of real property for a period of ten or more years, including options to renew, or having anticipated revenue to the City and County of one million dollars or more; the modification, amendment, or termination of any lease, which when entered into was for a period of ten or more years, including options to renew, or had anticipated revenue to the City and County of one million dollars or more; and any sale or other transfer of real property owned by the City and County, shall first be approved by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Leases of property under the jurisdiction of the Port Commission for maritime use shall be exempt from the requirements of this sSection 9.118(c). Ground leases of property for an eligible Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or an Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, shall be exempt from the requirements of this Section 9.118(c), provided that the ground lease is no less than 55 years.
Section 4. Planning Code Amendments.
The Planning Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 344, and revising Section 101.1, to read as follows:
SEC. 344. STREAMLINED REVIEW OF AFFORDABLE, INCREASED AFFORDABILITY, AND EDUCATOR HOUSING PROJECTS
(a) Purpose and Amendment. It is the intent of this Section 344 to exempt 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 expand the application of this Section 344, Planning Code Section 101.1, and Business and Tax Regulation Code Section 26 to other forms of housing by ordinance, except the Board shall not restrict or otherwise condition the application of the above sections to Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, or Educator Housing Projects, as defined in Charter Section 16.126. The Board of Supervisors may by ordinance amend any part of this Section 344 if the amendments are technical and non-substantive in nature, and consistent with the intent of this Section 344, and are initiated by the Planning Commission.
(b) Definitions and Eligibility.
(1) Definitions.
Affordable Housing. Affordable Housing shall have the meaning set forth in Charter Section 16.126(a).
Affordable Housing Project. An Affordable 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).
Educator Housing Project. An Educator 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 streamlining 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 authorization by the Planning Commission under the Planning Code. The Planning Department shall publish a checklist of objective standards defining what constitutes a complete application and shall deem an application complete and eligible to use the streamlined process set forth in this Planning Code if the application meets such objective standards. The Planning Department shall not require the completeness or submittal of the application to be conditioned by the completion of other project review processes, such as a Preliminary Project Assessment process or the pre-application meeting process, nor require the application to include materials or information that are more detailed than required to reasonably confirm consistency with objective Planning Code standards. The determination of whether an application is complete shall be made by the Planning Department within 60 days of submittal of an application. If the Planning Department determines that the application is incomplete, it shall provide the applicant with an exhaustive list of items that were not complete. That list shall be limited to those items actually required on the Planning Department’s application checklist. If the Planning Department determines that the application is ineligible for to use the streamlining process, it shall provide the applicant written documentation exhaustively identifying the provision or provisions that the application conflicts with and why the application conflicts with those provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the project not eligible for streamlining. If the Planning Department fails to provide the required documentation for an incomplete or deemed ineligible application within 60 days of the initial application submittal, the application shall be deemed eligible for the streamlined process, except that such 60-day period may be extended at the discretion of the Planning Director for no more than one additional 60 day period if, (i) during the initial 60-day review period, a state of emergency affecting staffing availability is in effect in the City under federal, state, or City law, or (ii) if the Planning Director determines that there is a significant and unusual staffing shortage affecting the number of Planning Department staff available to review applications as compared to the previous year, the duration of which emergency or staffing shortage event may not exceed one year. 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 streamlined 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. 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 streamlined 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 Regulation Code Section 26, and Sections 311 and 317 of this Code, an eligible 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 requires 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 Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, or Educator Housing Projects shall not require review or 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, or for review for new or replacement construction under Planning Code Section 1113.
(4) No requests for discretionary review shall be accepted by the Planning Department or heard by the Planning Commission for eligible Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, or Educator Housing Projects.
(d) Modifications. Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, and Educator Housing Projects may, at the project sponsor’s request, use any of the bonus programs listed in Planning Code Section 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 et seq, or another density bonus program as permitted by state or federal law, 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 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 onto 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 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 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 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. In the event the Planning Department does not provide design review comments within 60 days of submission of a complete development application, the aesthetic elements of the Affordable Housing Projects, or Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project shall be deemed compliant, for no more than one additional 60 day period if, during the initial 60-day review period, a state of emergency affecting staffing availability is in effect in the City under federal, state, or City law, or if the Planning Director determines that there is a significant and unusual staffing shortage affecting the number of Planning Department staff available to review applications as compared to the previous year, the duration of which emergency or staffing shortage event may not exceed one year.
(f) Compliance with Planning Code Article 4. An Affordable Housing Project, an Increased Affordability Housing Project, or an 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. Any additional on-site Affordable Housing unit in an Increased Affordability Housing Project may be provided as a unit affordable to households at any lower average income level of the average income levels specified in Section 415.6(a) for a Rental Housing Project or an Ownership Housing Project, as applicable.
(g) Approval. Building permit applications for eligible 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 90 days of submittal of a complete development application for projects with 150 dwelling units or less, and within 180 days of submittal of a complete development application for projects with more than 150 dwelling units. Building permits shall be issued by the Department of Building Inspection and shall not be subject to Business and Tax Regulation 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) Permit Validity and Expiration.
(1) Building permits issued for Affordable Housing Projects and Educator Housing Projects shall not expire.
(2) Increased Affordability Housing Projects shall commence construction within 36 months of building or site permit issuance, or the permit shall expire. However, the time to commence construction shall be extended for the number of days equal to the period of any litigation challenging its validity.
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 be produced to meet the needs of City residents today and tomorrow;
(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.
(c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 101.1, an eligible 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 shall be amended by revising Section 26 of Article 1, to read as follows:
SEC. 8. METHOD OF APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS.
* * * *
(c) Appeals to the Board of Appeals of permit decisions made pursuant to Planning Code Section 207, subsection (c)(6) and appeals to the Board of Appeals of permit decisions for an Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project made pursuant to Charter Section 4.106 shall be taken within 10 days of the permit decision.
* * * *
SEC. 16. REHEARINGS.
Rehearings may be had only upon motion of a member of the Board and upon the vote of at least four members thereof, or if a vacancy exists, by a vote of three members. No rehearing may be had for building permits associated with an eligible Affordable Housing Project, Increased Affordability Housing Project, or Educator Housing Project, as defined in Charter Section 16.126
SEC. 26. FACTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY DEPARTMENTS.
(a) Subject to Subsection (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 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 shall be amended by revising Chapter 6, Article II, Section 6.24 to add new subparagraph (d) and by revising Chapter 14, Section 14.4 to add new subparagraph (f), to read as follows:
SEC. 6.24. OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT; PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS
* * * *
(d) The Labor Standards Enforcement Officer shall establish an administrative procedure to address allegations of labor standards violations in connection with the Affordable Housing Now workforce standards requirements of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, Section 16.126. Such procedures shall include but are not limited to:
(1) Requiring the project sponsor and construction contractors to provide to the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement, on a monthly basis during development and while the construction contracts are being performed, a report demonstrating compliance with such apprenticeship and health care requirements. A monthly report provided to the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement pursuant to this sub clause shall be a public record under the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) and shall be open to public inspection. Project sponsor and any construction contractor that fails to provide the monthly report shall be subject to a civil penalty of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per month for each month for which the report has not been provided. Any contractor or subcontractor that fails to provide the monthly reports shall be subject to a civil penalty of two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each worker employed in contravention of the apprenticeship or health care requirements.
(2) Requiring the project sponsor and all construction contractors to maintain and verify payroll records pursuant to Section 1776 of the California Labor Code. All Contractors shall submit payroll records directly to the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement at least monthly in a format prescribed by the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement, pursuant to Administrative Code Section 6.22. Such records shall include Statements of Fringe Benefits. Upon request by a joint labor-management cooperation committee established pursuant to the Federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Section 175a), such records shall be provided in a format prescribed by the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement.
(3) Requiring the project sponsor and all construction contractors to report any change in apprenticeship program participation or health care coverage to the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement before the change goes into effect. Such report will constitute a public record pursuant to the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) and shall be open to public inspection.
(4) Enabling a joint labor-management cooperation committee established pursuant to the Federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a) to have standing to enforce this section, including monetary contributions for medical coverage, through the provisions of California Labor Code Sections 218.7 or 218.8 [1].
* * * *
SEC. 14.4. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT.
* * * *
(f) Contributions made pursuant to City and County of San Francisco Charter Section 16.126 (b)(4)(B) shall be $11.90 per hour worked, but not to exceed $476.00 in any week as of the operative date of the Charter amendment. Beginning with fiscal year 2023-2024, and for each following fiscal year, the Director of Health shall propose adjustments to the hourly rate and weekly maximum fee provided in this subsection based on changes since the prior year in the average monthly premiums for Health Maintenance Organization plans in Covered California rating areas that comprise the counties of the San Francisco Bay Area that are designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to at least 90% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan and that provide coverage for all services described in the California Essential Health Benefit Benchmark Plan of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The Health Director shall submit the proposed adjustments, together with proposed adjustments under Section 12Q.3(a)(2), to the Controller by March 1. The Controller shall make appropriate adjustments to the hourly rate and weekly maximum fee without further action by the Board of Supervisors. The adjusted hourly rate and weekly maximum fee shall take effect on July 1. Any dispute as to the determination of the correct rate is directly subject to court review under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085.
* * * *
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 Charter Amendment and Initiative Ordinance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the San Francisco General Plan (including the Housing Element and the Commerce and Industry Element) and the Priority Policies set forth in San Francisco Planning Code Section 101.1 and would affirmatively promote the objectives and policies of the City’s General Plan, and the actions in this ordinance will serve the public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to San Francisco Planning Code Section 302.
Section 8. Conflict with Other Measures.
This 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 Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, or Educator Housing Projects, as defined in Charter Section 16.126, whether the measure does so by specific application or as a more general enactment that could otherwise be applied to Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, or Educator Housing Projects. In the event this Initiative and any other measure 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 any other conflicting measure appearing on the same ballot, this Initiative shall control in its entirety and the other measures shall be rendered void and without any legal effect. If this Initiative is approved by a majority of the voters but not does not receive a greater number of affirmative votes than any other conflicting initiative, this Initiative shall take effect to the extent permitted by law.
Section 9. 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 10. Policy.
It is the Policy of the People of the City that the City shall encourage the timely development of 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 Affordable Housing Projects, Increased Affordability Housing Projects, and Educator Housing Projects.
Section 11. Implementation
(a) Upon the effective date of this Initiative, the Charter amendment contained in this initiative is hereby inserted into the Charter and the Municipal Code amendments are hereby inserted into the Municipal Code.
(b) To the extent permitted and required by law, the City shall amend any other elements or provisions of the General Plan or Municipal Code, and all other City ordinances, policies and implementation programs or practices (including the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Monitoring and Procedures Manual or successor regulations) as soon as possible in order to implement this Initiative and to ensure consistency between this Initiative and other elements of the General Plan or Municipal Code.
Section 12. 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 13. Interpretation.
This Initiative must be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. Subject to the foregoing, the provisions of this Initiative shall be interpreted or implemented in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Initiative. The title of this Initiative and the captions preceding the sections of this Initiative are for convenience of reference only. Such title and captions shall not define or limit the scope or purpose of any provision of this Initiative. The use of the terms “including,” “such as” or words of similar import when following any general term, statement or matter shall not be construed to limit such term, statement or matter to the specific items or matters, whether or not language of non-limitation is used. Rather, such terms shall be deemed to refer to all other items or matters that could reasonably fall within the broadest possible scope of such statement, term or matter. The use of the term “or” shall be construed to mean “and/or.”
Section 14. Statute of Limitations.
Unless a shorter statute is enacted by the state Legislature, all provisions of this Initiative shall be deemed subject to Government Code Section 65009(c), and no action or proceeding challenging all or any part of this Initiative shall be maintained unless commenced and service made within 90 days of the date of the legislative body’s decision. We intend the date of the legislative body’s decision to be the date of the election at which the voters adopt this Initiative. If such date cannot lawfully be deemed the date of the legislative body’s decision, then we intend the date of the legislative body’s decision to be the earliest possible