Board continues vote on general plan amendment and 100% affordable housing bonus to June 28

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors continued two linked land-use items — a general plan amendment and a separate ordinance creating a 100% affordable housing density bonus program — to the board's meeting of June 28, after supervisors debated the scope of the general plan change and a series of amendments to the bonus program.

Supporters said the bonus could unlock new affordable units on existing development parcels; critics said the general plan amendment that accompanies it is too broad and risks unintended rezoning. The continuance passed by roll call (6 in favor, 4 opposed) after the board's deputy city attorney advised how a 5'5 tie would be interpreted under the charter.

The debate focused on two related but separable issues: whether the board should approve a broad general plan amendment that would allow future zoning changes tied to density bonuses, and whether the 100% affordable bonus program now before the board includes sufficient protections for existing housing and neighborhood-serving ground-floor businesses. Supervisor Aaron Peskin urged the board to reject the general plan amendment unless planning staff substantially narrowed its scope; Supervisor Jeff Sheehy (referred to in the transcript as Supervisor Tang) and others argued the general plan language sets policy parameters, not automatic rezone, and said they would work to refine the language.

Supervisor Peskin highlighted a procedural question about the charter's 90-day deadline for board action on general plan amendments. Deputy City Attorney John Givner told the board that a 5'5 tie would constitute rejection of a proposed general plan amendment, and that the board should decide whether to act within the 90-day window or return the matter to the planning commission for further work.

Supervisor Sheehy offered and the board accepted a set of amendments to the 100% affordable bonus ordinance. Key changes discussed include a prohibition on approving projects that demolish existing residential units, a requirement that ground-floor space include neighborhood-serving uses (for example grocery or health services, as defined in planning code Section 102), and direction to city planning and housing offices to study additional safeguards and report back. Sheehy also proposed narrowing the conditional-use review for 100% projects to fewer findings and directing appeals to the Board of Supervisors rather than the Board of Appeals.

Supporters, including Supervisor Scott Wiener, argued the bonus program would accelerate production of affordable units at little or no cost to the city by allowing additional height and density in exchange for 100% affordable housing. Wiener cited planning-department estimates discussed in committee that the proposed approach could produce thousands of additional affordable units compared with alternatives he said would yield very few.

Opponents worried the general plan amendment's language could be used to rezone broad areas of the city and urged a narrower, neighborhood-specific approach. Supervisor Peskin said he would work with Sheehy and planning staff to craft a narrower general plan amendment and urged more neighborhood outreach before final action.

Because the board could either approve the general plan amendment, reject it, or continue consideration, supervisors voted to continue both items to June 28. Deputy City Attorney Givner advised that the continuance would leave the board with a final decision point next week on whether to approve the general plan amendment within the 90-day window. The continuance passed on a 6-4 roll-call vote.