I take issue with a hard 20% cap on low income units. I'm not against low-income units in general but in practice this is the same exact policy that lead to less affordable housing in SF as a whole. Because these caps were set as hard limits (without equivalent caps on commercial developments) people built office buildings instead of housing which made the problem worse overall...

compare this to a city like Boston where these caps are negotiated and set on a per development basis. As a result, while each new residential building may have proportionally less low-income units, boston as a whole has more affordable units available for rent since more housing was built in the first place due to the flexibility of these caps.

I was born and raised in CA, but for the progressive a state we claim to be, some of these policies are down right counterproductive (despite having great intentions) and should be revisited.

* my source here is I used to rent an apartment from the head of affordable housing commission in boston. If there is published materials that contradict this please correct me!