Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission backs Geary‑Masonic change to unlock 101 rental units, $4.5M in‑lieu fee
Summary
The Planning Commission recommended approval of a change to the Geary‑Masonic Special Use District that would allow a developer to provide an in‑lieu affordable housing fee instead of on‑site units, enabling 101 rental homes and generating $4.5 million for the cityaffordable housing pipeline; the vote was unanimous.
The San Francisco Planning Commission voted to recommend legislation amending the Geary‑Masonic Special Use District to allow an affordable housing in‑lieu fee in place of on‑site inclusionary housing, a modification the sponsor says will enable construction of 101 rental units and provide $4,500,000 for city affordable housing programs.
Supervisor Stephanie, the legislationsponsor, told the commission the site is "blighted, unproductive, and a deteriorating site" and warned that without the change the project could remain vacant. "I come before you today asking you to help me build 101 new homes in District 2," she said, and added the $4.5 million could be leveraged to create subsidized housing in the citypipeline.
Veronica Flores of the Planning Department summarized staffs recommendations and cautioned that the project already receives a density bonus typically granted in exchange for on‑site affordable housing; staff recommended modifications and asked commissioners to weigh the tradeoffs between on‑site units and deferred fees. "If the SUD does move forward with the option for the affordable housing fee, the project will receive this greater density, but we will not receive that on‑site affordable housing," Flores said.
Supporters from multiple labor unions and construction trades urged approval. Presidio Bay Venturesrepresentatives and union witnesses told the commission that the sponsor has committed to 100% union labor and that market and cost pressures make the in‑lieu option necessary to get the project built. "This is a project that can happen if you approve it," said Tony Rodriguez of Local 43.
Commissioners pressed staff and the sponsor on where in‑lieu funds would be used. Several commissioners said they favored a strong preference for the dollars to be spent in or near District 2; Supervisor Stephanie said she and the mayors housing office (MOHCD) would explore mechanisms to prioritize the funds locally. City Attorney Kate Stacy said the special use district legislation could be amended to earmark the money for District 2 if legal and administrative changes are coordinated.
After deliberation the commission approved the recommendation—without the staffmodifications being forced into the motion—and added a statement encouraging the supervisor to aim to keep the in‑lieu funds in or near District 2. The motion passed unanimously 6‑0.
What happens next: The commissions recommendation proceeds to the Board of Supervisors for final legislative action. If the board approves the ordinance the project sponsor will be able to pursue entitlements consistent with the SUD modification; MOHCD will ultimately administer any collected in‑lieu funds.
