Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission backs revisions to HomeSF to encourage local housing production
Summary
The commission supported a package of amendments to HomeSF aimed at making the local housing bonus more attractive relative to the state density bonus: tiered affordability options, clarified timelines and entitlement pathways, and modified inclusionary provisions; commissioners asked for TAC follow‑up and a 'use it or lose it' option on entitlements.
The San Francisco Planning Commission voted to support a suite of staff‑recommended amendments and sponsor refinements to the HomeSF local housing bonus program, intended to make the program more competitive with the state density bonus and to produce more middle‑income and family‑sized units. Supervisor Katie Tang framed the changes as a pilot with three tiers of incentives tied to height and density, while Planning Department staff recommended detailed amendments on inclusionary rates and processing timelines.
Key changes discussed: a three‑tier approach (tier 1: density decontrol without additional height and ~20% on‑site affordability; tier 2: one extra story with higher on‑site affordability; tier 3: two extra stories and the highest on‑site share), a proposed 120‑day review timeline that staff recommended be modified to align with CEQA and practical processing (commission ultimately asked to set 180 days or CEQA‑end timing), and options for administrative approval for 100% affordable projects. Planning staff urged modifications — for example, keeping tier 1 effective rates at levels that would not undercut existing inclusionary requirements for larger projects and allowing AMI levels to function as maxima to enable deeper affordability when financeable.
Speakers for housing advocates and developer representatives debated incentives: some warned that raising the tier‑1 requirement to 23% would disincentivize participation for small projects, while community groups sought strong safeguards for vulnerable neighborhoods and a 'use it or lose it' approach to avoid speculative holding of entitlements. The commission amended the staff recommendations to set timelines, request that the sponsor ask the Technical Advisory Committee to reassess rates, and add a two‑year 'use it or lose it' provision requiring filing for a building permit within a specified time frame. The amended motion passed unanimously on the record.
