Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Central SoMa Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff lays out Central SoMa plan: up to 7,500 homes, 40,000 jobs and a $2 billion public‑benefits package
Summary
Staff presented the Central SoMa plan proposing growth capacity for about 7,500 housing units (33% affordable), roughly 40,000 jobs and a potential $2 billion public‑benefits package; public commenters and developers raised concerns about fees, phasing and jobs‑housing balance.
Planning staff presented the Central SoMa plan on July 27, describing objectives, projected capacity and a public‑benefits strategy intended to fund affordable housing, transit, parks and other neighborhood improvements.
Steve Wertheim (planning staff) said the plan area — roughly between downtown and Mission Bay — could accommodate about 20 million square feet of development, which staff estimates would translate to roughly 7,500 housing units (about 33 percent affordable, or approximately 2,500 affordable units) and about 40,000 new jobs, 25,000–30,000 of them office positions. Staff said the plan could generate as much as $2 billion for public benefits drawn from value capture, impact fees and potential Community Facilities Districts (CFDs).
City agencies participating in the presentation praised the plan’s potential to create jobs, affordable housing and transit investments. Lisa Pagan (Office of Economic and Workforce Development) called it a “job enabler.” Amy Chan (Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development) emphasized the opportunity for up to 2,500 affordable units and noted two immediate affordable‑housing projects the office is pursuing near the plan area.
Public commenters were divided. Developers and property owners including Kilroy and Tishman Speyer supported the plan’s vision but cautioned that proposed fees and special taxes could undermine project feasibility. Community members and housing advocates urged adding more housing capacity and attention to job‑housing balance; several speakers requested clearer phasing and asked the commission to create a meaningful community advisory committee (CAC) and stronger measures to protect existing PDR (production, distribution and repair) employers.
Commissioners and staff discussed phasing, Prop M office allocations, sequencing priority sites, and CAC design. Staff said they would return with more detailed phasing options, an analysis of office‑housing alignment, and suggested CAC structures. No action was taken; the hearing was informational and staff asked commissioners for guidance on priorities and next steps.
