Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Market Octavia Inclusionary topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission backs Market/Octavia inclusionary land‑dedication option, asks supervisors to review 40% threshold

San Francisco Planning Commission · June 23, 2011
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Planning staff and housing officials described a Market/Octavia code amendment that would allow developers to satisfy inclusionary obligations by dedicating nearby land for affordable housing; the Commission approved the measure and asked that the 40% land/unit threshold be reviewed.

The Planning Commission on June 23 reviewed a proposed planning-code amendment to add a land-dedication alternative for inclusionary housing in the Market/Octavia plan area.

Kirsten Lissinger (Planning) explained the measure: a principal project in the plan area could dedicate a site within a specified radius (half‑mile inside the plan area, quarter‑mile outside) for affordable development rather than provide inclusionary units on-site or pay the fee. Under the draft language cited at the hearing, a dedication would aim to yield roughly 40% of the development capacity as affordable units on the dedicated parcel; staff said the higher percentage reflects that the sponsor is only providing land rather than units.

Lissinger summarized program mechanics: the mayor's office of housing would review and certify any dedicated parcel for feasibility and affordability standards; the Planning Commission would have 90 days to approve or deny a proposed land-dedication arrangement. Shandra Egan (Mayor's Office of Housing) and CAC representatives said the approach is intended as a limited alternative when on-site mixed-income units are impractical.

Commissioners raised questions about feasibility, site size, construction types and whether the 40% threshold unduly encourages feeing-out of on‑site units. The Commission approved the initiative with a recommendation that the Board of Supervisors review and consider adjustments to the 40%/lot-size threshold; the motion passed unanimously.

Quote from staff: "If you provide the inclusionary units on your site, you provide 15%. If you provide off‑site, you provide 20%." (staff explanation of existing options during the meeting.)

Next steps: the Commission transmitted its recommendations; staff and the mayor's office will continue technical review and a five‑year financial feasibility study of the inclusionary program is scheduled this fall.