San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors continued their extended legislative play to process a rezoning plan sponsored by Mayor Daniel Lurie in furtherance of state mandates, as the body’s Land Use and Transportation Committee approved some amendments and voted down others at their meeting on Monday. Those hoping for a more significant watering down of the Family Zoning Plan left disappointed. Committee members Chyanne Chen, Bilal Mahmood, and chair Myrna Melgar mulled the changes as they heard testimony from the Planning Department and members of the public.
In the end, amendments from Chen, such as a limit on luxury development in lower-income neighborhoods, failed, as well as changes proffered by District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan that would ban demolition of existing residential units, lower heights in commercial corridors, eliminate form-based zoning, and limit development in coastal zones.
Deliberations over the amendments were accompanied by elevated rhetoric from Chan and Chen.
“But I have to say today, as elected leaders, we cannot simply agree to demolish San Francisco for the sake of meeting a state mandate,” Chan told colleagues, going further and describing it as the product of “a single-minded legislator based on unproven ideology,” an oblique reference to State Senator Scott Wiener, who has championed pro-housing legislation in Sacramento.
“Tenants shouldn’t be competing with each other to get apartments. Apartments should be competing to get tenants.”
Brian Braunlich, member of D9 Neighbors for Housing
Later in the hearing, Chen, urging adoption of her amendments, said, “Today, I think I’m being put on the spot to swallow a very bitter pill. But I feel we can add a little sugar to my bitter pill.”
Notably, staff from the Planning Department testified that the changes desired by Chan and Chen would have “represented a significant hit” to the required increase in capacity, and that making up for that loss “would be hard to do at this point in the process.”
The committee also approved amendments from board President Rafael Mandelman that would exempt around 500 landmarked properties from the plan, as well as amendments submitted by Supervisors Stephen Sherrill that would shift requirements from specific sites in his district, including the Marina Safeway. The Planning Department determined that Sherrill’s amendments, which shifted around rather than cut height limits, were “not negatively affecting our capacity calculations.”
During public comment, former Homelessness Advisory Commissioner Christin Evans testified that, without Chan’s amendments, the zoning changes “would displace small businesses” and urged appropriation of up to $3 million in funds for small business relocation assistance.
Marc Salomon, a Mission resident and longtime antigrowth activist, told the committee, “This plan has as much of a chance of lowering housing prices as the Egyptian pyramids did of ushering in the pharaoh’s souls into the afterlife … the east side voted against upzonings, and we got upzoned. Whiter and more Asian districts get a better deal than blacker or browner districts … more Jim Crow planning.”
Supporters of upzoning were also present during public comment.
Jacinta McCann, a retired design consultant, told the committee that she supported the plan incorporating amendments from Melgar, instituting a small business protection fund, and from Sherrill, along with Supervisor Danny Sauter, to incentivize rather than mandate larger housing units.
“I oppose the proposals to exclude nearly all the residential sites from rezoning, or imposing restrictions that would undercut housing capacity and jeopardize our state housing obligations,” she added. “If these proposals are approved, the purpose of this zoning plan will be basically eliminated, along with a viable path for affordable housing.”
A member of the YIMBY group D9 Neighbors for Housing, Brian Braunlich, also spoke in support.
“My housing experiences across San Francisco have consistently reinforced the housing shortage that plagues our city. I once viewed a one-bedroom apartment surrounded by dozens of other applicants, and at the bottom of the application, it asked, ‘Are you willing to pay more for this apartment? And if so, how much?’” Braunlich told the committee. “The housing shortage in San Francisco breeds these kinds of predatory tactics and higher prices. Tenants shouldn’t be competing with each other to get apartments. Apartments should be competing to get tenants … we need to level the playing field.”
The committee will likely finalize the amendments to the Family Zoning Plan on Dec. 1, after which the full board will vote on the plan. Chair Melgar noted that while that didn’t preclude further amendments, even when the plan arrives at the full board vote, “we do have a timeline that we need to follow. Our general plan amendment becomes law on the 19th; if we fail to vote, it means all the amendments, including the ones we’ve already agreed on, won’t make it there. I can’t live with that.”
This article has been updated.