Planning Commission recommends approving Shared Housing Reform Act with modifications, 4–2

The San Francisco Planning Commission recommended approval on Nov. 13 of an ordinance to modernize the planning code’s definition of who can occupy a dwelling unit, advancing a substitute sponsored by Supervisor Bilal Mahmood.

Raynel Cooper, a legislative aide for Supervisor Mahmood, told commissioners the measure replaces the planning‑code term “family” with “household,” removes shared‑meal and blood‑relationship requirements, and creates a lease cap intended to preserve inclusionary housing triggers. "Moving away from a relationship based definition of dwelling unit helps bring our definition better in line with those at the state level," Cooper said.

Planning staff explained the proposal would allow households that share at least one living expense and have 24‑hour access to a kitchen and bathroom to qualify as dwelling units; it would also reclassify small residential care facilities (six or fewer residents) as residential uses to align with state law. The department recommended approval with modifications, including monitoring implementation.

Chinatown Community Development Center urged a continuance and deeper outreach, warning that removing "family housing" as a category could remove a policy tool for prioritizing families with children. Abby, a planner with Chinatown CDC, told commissioners the change could enable corporate or shared housing models that lack tenant protections and recommended more analysis before moving forward.

Brianna Morales of the Housing Action Coalition argued the change modernizes the code. "Updating this language to household is common sense," she said, calling it an equity and housing access measure.

Commissioners debated potential unintended consequences, especially the nine‑lease threshold that could allow existing buildings to avoid inclusionary triggers and whether recategorizing residential care facilities might inadvertently subject them to inclusionary fees. Planning staff said the nine‑lease limit was intended to prevent abuse and could be applied only to new construction in the sponsor’s substitute; staff also said they would support excluding residential care facilities from inclusionary fees and would monitor implementation.

Commissioner Braun moved to recommend approval with staff modifications as amended to explicitly exempt residential care facilities from inclusionary requirements, to ask the sponsor to clarify language to prevent loopholes, and to shorten the staff report‑back period from 36 to 24 months. The motion passed 4–2, with Commissioners Imperial and Moore voting no.

The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for further action; staff were directed to monitor implementation and return to the commission after the adopted report‑back period.