Supervisors advance HomeSF with amendments after hours of testimony

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee on May 16 advanced HomeSF, a local density-bonus ordinance sponsored by Supervisor Katie Tang, to the full Board with a set of amendments and additional language pending.

Planning Department staff described HomeSF as a local alternative to the state density bonus law that would offer developers increased density and two extra stories in exchange for 30% of a project’s units being provided as on-site below-market-rate housing. Paolo Ikezoy of the Planning Department told the committee the program is tailored to San Francisco’s needs, targets middle‑income and working families, and includes family-friendly features such as a minimum of 40% of units with two bedrooms or larger. Ikezoy said HomeSF’s soft-site analysis suggests the program could increase total housing from roughly 6,400 units under current zoning to about 16,000 over 20 years and raise on-site affordable units from about 1,600 to roughly 5,000 over the same period.

The committee heard more than a hundred public commenters. Supporters included parents, teachers and labor representatives who said HomeSF could help keep middle‑income workers — Muni operators, nurses, firefighters and teachers — in the city. “This legislation is important because San Francisco has left the middle class behind,” said Michelle Parker, who identified herself as a single working parent and local schools volunteer. Several business and development groups, including the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and SF City (a tech‑sector trade group), also urged approval as a way to bring the city into compliance with state law while protecting small businesses.

Opponents and critical commenters raised several recurring concerns: that the program’s income bands and pricing will still be out of reach for many teachers and low‑wage workers; that bedroom‑size and unit‑mix rules could produce small two‑bedroom units (commenters cited concerns about 600‑square‑foot two‑bedrooms); and that extending HomeSF into neighborhood commercial corridors could lead to loss or displacement of legacy small businesses. Ben Becker, a local Democratic Party delegate, said the program’s middle‑income brackets (which some commenters referenced in the $80,000–$125,000 range) are not affordable to many workers; tenants‑rights advocates urged deeper affordability for households under 60% AMI.

Supervisor Tang and staff described multiple amendments added during the committee meeting. Tang said the HomeSF package now: clarifies that the 30% below‑market rate requirement applies to the entire project including bonus units; preserves a required bedroom mix (40% two‑bedrooms or an alternative 50% two‑ and three‑bedrooms); requires sponsors to give commercial tenants at least 18 months’ notice and to provide OEWD relocation guidance; and removes specific Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT) corridors (Fillmore and Divisadero) from the program pending further community discussion. Planning staff also said projects with existing residential units, or known historic resources, would be ineligible for HomeSF.

Committee members pressed staff and the city attorney on legal details. City Attorney Audrey Pearson explained that HomeSF is an optional local program and that local regulatory restrictions for HomeSF projects can be permanent; state density bonus projects, by contrast, are subject to a 55‑year regulatory term under state law. Planning and Housing staff confirmed that inclusionary‑program requirements and minimum unit‑size standards will apply to HomeSF units where the ordinance ties to existing inclusionary rules, and said the Mayor’s Office of Housing follows Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) guidelines as a backstop for minimum unit sizes.

On a specific amendment, Supervisor Tang moved — and the committee directed the city attorney to draft — a prohibition on new formula‑retail occupying ground‑floor space that had been smaller neighborhood retail, a measure aimed at protecting legacy and small businesses from replacement by chain retailers. Tang said the package also adds conditional‑use findings for the Planning Commission to examine potential impacts to legacy or formula‑retail uses during project review.

The committee voted to send HomeSF to the full Board without recommendation and with a number of staff‑requested technical and cross‑reference edits pending. Supervisors asked planning staff to study additional “density‑equity” options for portions of the city (notably the Northeast/city center neighborhoods) and signaled openness to more amendments on unit mix and neighborhood pricing at the full‑Board stage.

Procedurally, the committee continued other items: an ordinance to narrow sidewalk width on a portion of Mission Street was continued one week, and an inclusionary‑rate/item (Agenda Item 3) was continued as negotiations continued. The committee also advanced two related ordinances for 1500 Mission Street — a zoning map, planning‑code and general‑plan amendment to create a 1500 Mission special‑use district to enable a mixed office and residential project — and sent those items to the full Board as a committee report.

Next steps: HomeSF will return to the full Board with the adopted amendments and with additional edits and analyses to be circulated in advance of the full‑Board vote; the city attorney will prepare the formula‑retail ground‑floor prohibition language for insertion into the ordinance.