Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hope Sf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards HOPE SF Potrero and Sunnydale entitlements to full Board amid residents’ praise and cautions about timing
Summary
Supervisors unanimously sent land‑use entitlements for the HOPE SF Potrero and Sunnydale redevelopment projects to the full Board; presenters emphasized resident protections (right of return), funding complexity (project‑based vouchers, LIHTC, city funds) and phased buildout to avoid displacement.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee unanimously voted to forward a package of land‑use entitlements (general plan amendments, planning‑code changes, special use districts and zoning map amendments) needed to advance HOPE SF redevelopment at Potrero Hill and Sunnydale.
Sponsor Supervisor Malia Cohen described HOPE SF’s scope — four neighborhoods and roughly 5,000 residents across public housing sites — and said the program aims to transform dilapidated public housing into mixed‑income developments while preserving resident protections and adding services. Theo Miller of the Mayor’s Office (Hope SF) summarized HOPE SF principles including resident voice, trauma‑informed approaches, and a pledge of right of return/right of first refusal so no existing public‑housing resident will be involuntarily displaced during redevelopment. Miller and other presenters said the program intends to replace public housing at least 1 for 1 and to increase the city’s deeply affordable housing stock.
Kate Hartley, deputy director at the Mayor’s Office of Housing, said the package includes land‑use approvals, development agreements and a master development agreement with the Housing Authority; she described financing sources including project‑based vouchers, low‑income housing tax credits (LIHTC), market‑rate cross‑subsidies, and city funds, and said the EIR has been certified and many city agencies already approved the plans. Presenters stressed the long, phased buildout needed to protect residents and to align financing.
Residents, housing providers and development partners (Bridge Housing, Mercy Housing, Related California, Mercy Now and others) spoke in support during public comment, citing years of community engagement and urging timely implementation. Several longtime residents said they appreciated the resident protections but expressed skepticism given past broken promises and urged speed and accountability in delivering new units and services.
Supervisor Peskin moved to send the entitlements (Items 3–8) to the full Board with positive recommendations; the motion passed unanimously.
Next steps: The full Board will receive the land‑use entitlements and later consider the remaining fiscal components, including the development agreement, in the Board’s Budget Committee.
