San Francisco lawmakers mulled initial attempts to amend Mayor Daniel Lurie’s “Family Zoning” legislative package at a seven-hour-long committee meeting Monday, which also featured testimony from around 100 members of the public. The meeting was the opening act in an extended legislative play that promises multiple acts before an amended rezoning plan representing a consensus at City Hall is passed, likely right before the year’s end. Meanwhile, political posturing will continue both in and outside City Hall, as opponents threaten to punish supporters in next year’s elections.
The state ultimatum
Per a Sept. 9 letter to San Francisco’s planning director Sarah Dennis-Phillips, California’s Department of Housing and Community Development has set a Jan. 31 deadline for adoption of the rezoning plan, which aims to add over 36,000 new housing units to San Francisco’s neighborhoods, per a state mandate.
Failure to meet that deadline could result in Sacramento taking over San Francisco’s planning process with less opportunity for local input, as well as jeopardizing state funding for subsidized housing and transit– points Lurie has repeatedly made in his stumping for the rezoning plan. Moreover, the board’s own procedures mandate that the process be completed by Dec. 21 to allow for the regular second reading and vote on any legislation.
For the first time in decades, the city is set to reopen its west side neighborhoods to significantly more housing construction — hence, the large amount of public comment, much of which reflected strident opposition to the plan from neighborhood groups, as well as labor and other progressive groups.
Blowback from neighborhoods
Those groups also made their opposition known at a rally and press conference in front of City Hall before the meeting, which featured representatives from the San Francisco Labor Council and Neighborhoods United, the alliance of homeowner groups formed to oppose the rezoning plan.
Given that a majority of supervisors support the rezoning plan in some form, making it likely to pass, the message from the rally was to expect political blowback in next year’s elections should it not include enough amendments to satisfy critics.
Among those present at the rally were San Francisco Labor Council President Mike Casey, Building Trades Treasurer Rudy Gonzalez, Neighborhoods United leader Lori Brooke, and Sunset District activist and businessman Albert Chow, who was a leader in the recent recall campaign against District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio.
Brooke is one of many to have pulled papers early to run for District 2 Supervisor, and Chow has been widely mentioned as a possible candidate in District 4. They were joined by progressive Supervisors Connie Chan, Cheyanne Chen, Jackie Fielder, and Shamann Walton, all of whom either oppose the rezoning plan or want to see significant changes to it.
A complex compromise begins
Once the meeting began, it was up to Land Use Committee Chair Myrna Melgar, who represents District 7 and is often a swing vote on the board, to set a collegial tone for the proceedings.
“Please refrain from applause or audible expressions of support or disapproval, like hissing or anything else,” she cautioned attendees before the proceedings. “If anyone uses foul language or engages in personal attacks, I will stop public comment.”
While officially a meeting of the board’s Land Use and Neighborhood Services Committee, all current supervisors, apart from the recently recalled member for District 4, Joel Engardio, were present for much of the proceedings, including board President Rafael Mandelman.
Mandelman was among those supervisors offering amendments to the plan. That said, he expressed approval for the rezoning plan in basic form.
“There are many things to like about this plan…. Modest increases in height, in neighborhoods throughout the zone, emphasis on height, along transit corridors, and areas that seem to have the infrastructure to be able to absorb more height…. I like it because I live in a city, grew up in one, and believe in density. I think more people living in San Francisco is a good thing, and I think you can get better, more interesting neighborhoods if you add density correctly,” he began. “I, of course, think that my district is getting more than its fair share and that we ought to be doing more on the west side and more in the southern part of the city. But no single supervisor is the czar here. This is a compromise.”
“There are many things to like about this plan…. But no single supervisor is the czar here. This is a compromise.”
— Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman
Mandelman then expressed concern that it could open the door to State Density Bonus projects in more parts of the city, which he called “highly problematic,” as well as the possibility that certain historic buildings could be lost in the process of implementation. To that end, his amendments would exclude landmark and historically contributing sites from the upzoning and also prohibit lot mergers. This last amendment would require sending the plan back to the Planning Commission for review, something that District 5 Supervisor Bilal Mahmood told colleagues that he would oppose.
District 2 Supervisor Stephen Sherrill offered an amendment that includes incentives for building two- and three-bedroom units, which developers usually shy away from due to increased construction costs. Chair Melgar introduced one that would exempt rent-controlled buildings with three or more units, which Lurie has already expressed tacit support for. Meanwhile, Chan and Chen offered amendments, including further limits on demolishing existing housing and excluding the Mission and Bayview districts from rezoning.
It was then left to public commenters to voice support or opposition to the plan. Many commenters addressed the need for more housing to improve affordability, or had concerns about development affecting the quality of life or displacing vulnerable tenants and small businesses; others had more targeted requests.
Every NIMBY for themselves
A representative of the Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association, representing residents of the north Embarcadero, noted continued concerns about the plan despite “some positive changes,” but asked for exemption of what he called “a key block” facing Pier 39. “Please remove that block from the family zoning plan and permanently exclude housing from that block altogether for the future,” He told the supervisors. A representative from the Bellaire Tower homeowners’ association (Bellaire Tower is a historic mid-century high-rise apartment tower atop Russian Hill; Gov. Gavin Newsom lived there while he was Mayor) asked supervisors not to allow development on the north slope of Russian Hill. A representative of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers urged, “At a minimum, please remove North Beach and Telegraph Hill on the northern waterfront from the mayor’s plan.”
Deliberations among committee members after public comment then showed how complicated it will be to navigate the roadmap to adopting the rezoning plan, which includes four separate bills.
Two amendments supported by Lurie — exempting larger rent-controlled buildings from Melgar and allowing the preservation of commercial spaces from Sauter — were adopted. Then, some of the bills had their files duplicated to track changes down the line with the other amendments. These were then continued until the committee’s next meeting on Nov. 3.
It’s worth noting that, back in late 2023, another piece of legislation necessary for compliance with state housing laws — the Constraints Reduction Ordinance — also went through a complex process, even missing the state deadline due to infighting led by then Board President Aaron Peskin.
Setting the stage for next year
Meanwhile, the political fight over rezoning continues outside of City Hall, with Peskin and his allies in the background, threatening blowback in the next elections. On Wednesday night, the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee considered dueling resolutions on the rezoning plan, ultimately passing one that offered unqualified support and rejecting another urging opposition unless amended.
The meeting, held at the Pomeroy Center in the Sunset, featured significant public comment from plan skeptics, including Chinese American Democratic Club president Josephine Zhao, who called attention to the fact that District 4 currently has no representation in the process at City Hall due to Engardio’s recall, which was over related development issues. It also featured some deeper debate among members on the purpose of some amendments to the rezoning plan, including from YIMBY Action director Laura Foote, who acted as state Sen. Scott Wiener’s proxy for the meeting.
Jason McDaniel, associate professor of political science at San Francisco State University, outlined the political risks for supervisors, especially freshmen, for supporting upzoning.
“Supporting the Family Zoning Plan will be one of the most difficult votes some of these supervisors will face in their time on the board. I expect that a yes vote may well spark one or more recall attempts; Supervisor Melgar seems likely to be targeted. I also expect a yes vote will impact the D2 race, potentially becoming a contrasting issue for anyone who challenges Sherrill,” McDaniel told The Voice in an interview. “More broadly, it seems to me that Aaron Peskin sees the family zoning plan vote as a key to reviving the progressive coalition. I expect that he and other progressive leaders will work hard to make that issue the cornerstone of a progressive majority of the board going forward.”