Planning staff outline Central SoMa plan; public pushes for more affordable housing and Old Mint funding

Planning Department staff brought the Central South Of Market (Central SoMa) plan back to the Planning Commission on Feb. 1 as an informational presentation, laying out assumptions, benefits and a timeline toward initiation.

The Department said the proposal anticipates roughly 7,000 housing units and substantial new office development in the plan area tied to an estimated $2 billion public‑benefits package. Staff said the plan would yield “over 35% of units affordable to low‑ and moderate‑income San Franciscans,” slightly above the city’s 33% goal, and that adding certain state density bonuses could add roughly 500 more units and about $100 million in benefits to the package.

Why it matters: Commissioners and dozens of public speakers framed Central SoMa as a high‑stakes tradeoff between producing jobs near transit and protecting the neighborhood’s existing residents and cultural assets. Several speakers argued the plan as drafted would not deliver enough deeply affordable homes and pressed for clearer implementation steps and more explicit funding for cultural preservation.

Community pushback and demands: Organized groups and residents urged changes during a long public‑comment period. TODCO and We Are SoMa called for stronger affordable‑housing requirements and a permanent community advisory committee to oversee benefits and implementation. The California Historical Society and preservation groups emphasized funding for the Old Mint restoration; staff proposed allocating $20 million from the public‑benefits package for that restoration, a sum many speakers called a floor rather than a cap. As one presenter noted, the plan “could net potentially up to 500 more units” if certain large‑site thresholds are changed to favor housing.

Staff response and next steps: Planning staff said they will deliver a legislative package in about two weeks and asked the Commission to consider initiation on March 1, kicking off the public‑notice and comment period required for environmental review. Commissioners requested a more granular breakdown of the $2 billion benefits, including site identification and sequencing for 100%‑affordable projects, and asked staff to provide an analysis of job‑housing fit and tradeoffs before adoption hearings.

The Commission did not vote on initiation at this meeting; staff set March 1 as the target to begin the formal legislative process and signaled additional hearings on housing and the jobs‑housing balance to follow.