Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Central Soma topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors advance many Central SoMa amendments, defer final adoption and restore mint funding
Summary
After extensive testimony the committee advanced several amendments to the Central South Of Market plan (POPOS changes, childcare rules, SRO restrictions, technical rezones), temporarily set aside more contentious items (Flower Mart rezoning) and restored a $5 million allocation to Old Mint restoration recommended by the Planning Commission.
The committee spent much of its Oct. 29 session on the Central South Of Market (Central SoMa) plan, considering 11 amendments that address public‑open‑space incentives (POPOS), childcare provisions, restrictions on single‑room occupancy and group housing, key‑site rezoning and PDR ground‑floor heights.
Supervisor Jane Kim said she introduced the amendments to increase housing potential, protect family‑sized units, require childcare on key sites (with planning commission discretion for exceptions tied to set‑aside slots at below‑market rates), and to ensure key sites contribute housing or land for affordable units. She proposed rezoning a portion of the Flower Mart site to Mixed‑Use Residential (MUR) to require some housing on that parcel; Kilroy Realty and flower‑market vendors testified that residential uses would conflict with long‑standing wholesale operations that begin in the early morning and rely on heavy truck access.
Planning, OEWD and the California Historical Society briefed the committee about the Old Mint and the planning commission’s recommended $20 million allocation for restoration. At Chair Tang’s request, the committee restored an additional $5 million from the regional transportation fund to the Mint line recommended by planning to help leverage philanthropic and state dollars for a cultural/reuse project.
Several amendments were adopted as noncontroversial and the committee decided to continue the full package to Nov. 5 to allow more negotiation on the most contested changes (notably Flower Mart rezoning and certain PDR height exceptions). Supervisors and the project sponsor agreed to continue talks about off‑site options — land dedication or small‑site acquisition funds — as alternatives to on‑site housing in locations that create operational conflicts.
What’s next: The committee continued Items 11–15 to the Nov. 5 Land Use meeting; staff and project sponsors were asked to continue negotiations and provide written proposals for development agreements and off‑site housing mitigation options.
