Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mission Rock Housing Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee continues Mission Rock housing-plan amendment after public concern over affordability changes
Summary
The committee voted 3-0 to continue consideration of a resolution proposing changes to Mission Rock's housing plan, including lowering the per-phase minimum inclusionary percentage from 30% to 20% for Phase 1; the item was continued to allow further community conversations.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee on April 7, 2025, voted 3-0 to continue to the call of the chair a resolution proposing an amendment to the Mission Rock housing plan that would lower the minimum percentage of inclusionary affordable housing units required per phase for Phase 1 of the Mission Rock project.
Chair Supervisor Mirna Melgar said several community members had asked for more time to understand and negotiate the proposed adjustments to affordability requirements and moved to continue the item; Vice Chair Supervisor Cheyenne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood voted aye.
Committee members and staff discussed the scope of the proposed change during committee questioning. A staff representative said the change under consideration affects phase 1 only and does not change the project-wide voter-approved percentage. The transcript records the following clarifications from staff: the housing plan currently states 40% (as read at the hearing), the project‑wide voter-approved threshold referenced during the hearing was 33%, and the proposal under discussion would lower the per-phase minimum in Phase 1 from 30% to 20%. Staff also described the proposal as “financially neutral,” saying it would reduce the number of certain units (the clerk's transcript indicates the elimination of some 50 AMI units) and increase other units at 90% AMI that have higher demand, with the stated effect of deepening affordability while reducing unit counts to keep financial parity. The committee record shows questions from Vice Chair Chen about whether changes would affect the voter-approved threshold; staff reiterated the adjustment applies only to Phase 1 and does not change the overall project-wide requirement.
A public commenter, Cynthia Gomez, urged more public engagement, noting that the original ballot measure and the prior negotiations had been highly visible and that community members who fought for higher affordability levels should be given an opportunity to review proposed changes before the committee acts. After public comment the chair moved to continue the item to the call of the chair to allow the developer and community additional time to discuss the proposal; the motion passed with three ayes and the item was continued.
No final amendment or formal vote on the housing-plan amendment occurred at the hearing; the committee action was to continue the item to allow further negotiation and public involvement.
