Committee advances package of amendments to Family & Senior Housing Opportunity Special Use District, continues ordinance for further review

The Land Use and Transportation Committee heard an ordinance on Feb. 5 to amend the planning code to create the Family Housing Opportunity Special Use District (SUD), with amendments to allow greater density on merged lots, expanded eligible zoning (including some RM1 areas), and revised corner‑lot and rear‑yard standards.

Veronica Flores of the Planning Department summarized modifications requested by the Planning Commission, including correcting a density exception, adding RM1 to eligible zoning in a defined geography, allowing certain lot mergers, and clarifying rear‑yard rules. Flores also noted a pending suggested reduction in corner height from 65 feet to 55 feet that had not been incorporated.

Supervisor Joel Engadio described the policy rationale, citing a 'missing middle' of housing for families and seniors and proposing a 'domicity' model that places 5–6 story mixed‑use anchors on corner lots to provide housing and neighborhood amenities. “Think of it as anchors on residential blocks,” Engadio said, arguing the approach would create options for multigenerational households and seniors who want to stay in their neighborhoods.

Committee members asked whether the proposed 'family and senior' language would reserve units for seniors. Engadio said the change was intended to signal purpose, not to add mandatory deed restrictions or set‑aside requirements. Deputy City Attorney Anne Pearson said the package contains substantive amendments that will require rereferral to the Planning Commission; the committee agreed to incorporate the Planning Commission edits and continue the item for further review.

Public comment reflected both support and concern: housing advocates and development partners urged the policy as a feasible way to produce 80–120% area‑median‑income homeownership or rental opportunities; Sunset neighborhood residents raised infrastructure, parking and livability concerns and questioned whether the city had analyzed demand and impacts.

The committee incorporated amendments, moved to continue the ordinance to allow Planning Commission review, and the motion passed. The item will return to committee after rereferral for additional review of substantive changes.