Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee refers Lucky Penny special-use change to full Board after split vote on on‑site affordable housing
Summary
Supervisors debated an amendment that would restore an on‑site affordable housing requirement for the Lucky Penny (Laurel) site; a motion to restore on‑site language failed 1–2, and the committee voted to send the unamended ordinance to the full Board without recommendation so sponsors and opponents can continue talks.
The Land Use Committee on April 13 debated whether a proposed amendment to the Geary Masonic Special Use District (SUD) should allow the Lucky Penny redevelopment project to pay an inclusionary‑housing fee instead of providing affordable units on‑site.
Supervisor Stephanie introduced the ordinance, saying the SUD amendment would permit an option to pay the inclusionary housing fee and that without the change the Lucky Penny project would not be built. She told the committee the change could yield roughly 100 new homes in District 2 and generate about $4.5 million for affordable housing programs in the district.
Veronica Flores of the Planning Department and other staff explained the change is specific to the Lucky Penny site and that the Planning Commission had recommended approval with a caveat that collected fees be earmarked for District 2 or the vicinity.
Supervisor Dean Preston pushed back, arguing the original SUD up‑zoned the site to allow many more units specifically on the premise that inclusionary units would be provided on‑site. Preston moved to restore the on‑site requirement and strike the in‑lieu option. The sponsor and the project representative, Cyrus, said construction costs had increased by roughly $10 million since the original approvals, that the building is Type I concrete (more costly than wood frame), and that a commitment to 100% union labor and permit delays worsened feasibility. Cyrus said the sponsor had examined multiple financing options and faced a gap that could only be bridged by either abandoning the union‑labor commitment or adopting the in‑lieu option.
The committee voted on Supervisor Preston’s amendment; the roll call recorded Preston as Aye and Supervisors Safaie and Peskin as No, so the amendment failed (1–2). After further discussion, the committee voted to forward the unamended ordinance to the full Board without a committee recommendation to allow more time for the sponsor and supervisors to negotiate; that motion passed by a recorded vote (three ayes).
Because the committee sent the item without a recommendation, the full Board will consider the ordinance at its next meeting. The committee record includes the sponsor’s commitment to work with neighboring supervisors and to pursue trailing legislation to hold the $4.5 million fee in a special fund while the city looks for sites to build affordable housing near the district.
