SFGov Watch

1. Key Topics
   1. Continuance Items and Consent Calendar
   2. Pro-Housing Designation and Community Impact
   3. Central SoMa Plan Amendments and Housing Legislation
      1. Background
      2. Proposed Changes
      3. Community Response
   4. Commissioners’ Concerns and Proposed Modifications
   5. Planning Department’s Response and Recommendations
   6. Public Comments and Community Engagement

Key Topics

Continuance Items and Consent Calendar

The Commission addressed administrative matters, moving several items (including housing cases on Jefferson Street, Broad Street, and Staples Avenue) to future sessions for further review. There was little public feedback on these items, and the commission approved the continuances unanimously.

Pro-Housing Designation and Community Impact

Commissioner Braun acknowledged San Francisco’s new “Pro-Housing” designation from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. This recognition could prioritize San Francisco in state funding applications related to housing and infrastructure, providing access to grants and resources vital for housing development and community support. Commissioner Moore noted potential political challenges from federal authorities, particularly regarding California’s infrastructure funding, indicating the need for cautious optimism.

Central SoMa Plan Amendments and Housing Legislation

Background

San Francisco’s Central SoMa district has long been intended for mixed-use development with a strong office presence. However, post-pandemic shifts have left planned office spaces vacant, prompting proposed legislation to encourage residential construction in this area. This policy pivot aligns with city priorities to increase housing availability, especially near employment hubs.

Proposed Changes

The Planning Department recommended amendments that would loosen commercial requirements on large sites, enabling them to focus on residential uses. This change aims to address the evolving needs of the district by promoting housing over office spaces, which are less in demand.

Community Response

Representatives from SOMA Pilipinas and other community organizations raised concerns about the amendments. Key points included:

• Perceived lack of public engagement in the legislative process, with groups advocating for a more thorough community-involved planning process.
• Potential loss of promised community benefits, including affordable housing allocations, public parks, and neighborhood amenities.
• Concerns about gentrification and displacement, with calls to maintain the 33% affordable housing target established in the original Central SoMa Plan.

Commissioners’ Concerns and Proposed Modifications

Commissioners voiced concerns about preserving community benefits:

• Commissioner Imperial questioned how benefits like affordable housing, parks, and cultural preservation would be preserved and suggested protecting these site-specific benefits.
• Commissioner Moore advocated for a comprehensive approach, proposing that Central SoMa should involve more neighborhood planning, like improved infrastructure and walkable spaces, rather than isolated residential towers.
• Commissioner Williams supported residential development but echoed concerns about retaining public benefits and ensuring affordable housing commitments remain intact.

Planning Department’s Response and Recommendations

The Planning Department presented the following strategies:

• Height Limit Recommendation: They recommended height limits for new developments using state density bonuses to prevent out-of-scale buildings in the area.
• Affordable Housing Commitments: While the 33% target remains, funding from office developments may not materialize if sites transition to residential. Housing fees and on-site inclusionary requirements would partially replace these funds, though the exact impact on affordable housing totals is uncertain.
• Maintaining Community Benefits: The department acknowledged the possibility of maintaining site-specific community benefits, especially relating to public amenities, through a more deliberate planning process.

Public Comments and Community Engagement

The public had mixed responses, with SOMA Pilipinas and other advocates emphasizing the need for affordable housing and cultural integrity in SoMa. Developer representatives supported the amendments, citing the infeasibility of office construction and suggesting that residential projects would still contribute to community benefits through impact fees.