San Francisco supervisors are set to cast initial votes on some consequential bills this Tuesday, before taking their summer recess this week, including a bill on homeless shelter zoning that has been the subject of a compromise between Mayor Lurie and its sponsors, and some other contentious issues.
(This article was updated on July 30, 2025.)
When District 5 Supervisor Bilal Mahmood first introduced the One City Shelter Act, it was drafted to require the establishment of at least one homeless shelter or other support facility in every Supervisorial district within a year and to mandate a 1,000-foot buffer between facilities. The bill was introduced amid continuing concerns over at-risk neighborhoods, such as the Tenderloin, which is in Mahmood’s district, and the Bayview, represented by co-sponsor Shamann Walton, being unfairly burdened with such facilities. Meanwhile, other neighborhoods where such facilities were rare or absent had concerns of their own.
The version of the bill now coming to the full board has been revised significantly with input from Mayor Lurie’s office, in a committee process that took up much of July. The current version would prohibit the establishment of a narrower class of facilities in neighborhoods where the number of existing shelter beds already exceeds the number of people experiencing homelessness, with possible exceptions, and the buffer zone would be reduced to 300 feet.
Mahmood, speaking at the July 23 meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee, described the amendments as “not changing the intent or core mechanics of the legislation.” He added,“Instead, they serve to sharpen the focus, ensure legal clarity, and reinforce what the ordinance is and isn’t designed to do. They reflect the thoughtful feedback we’ve received from departments, the city attorney, and community partners.”
At the same meeting, Budget Chair and District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan continued to express reservations about the bill. They hinted at further legislation, such as the ability to impose moratoria on shelters in specific neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the legislation, as amended, was sent to the full board with a positive recommendation.
(Update: On Tuesday, Chan joined District 11 Supervisor Chyanne Chen as the only two votes against the bill, which passed 9-2. Board President Mandelman commented: “I think that this is a geographic equity resolution that I can support. I’m happy to vote for it, but I think the conversation continues… we don’t want to see shelters dotting the land and creating the impacts in all of the neighborhoods of San Francisco, in the way that they have impacted a few . That’s not what this legislation does… I want to thank Supervisor Mahmood for the extensive work and outreach and willingness to be flexible.”)
Easing storefront sizes
Another bill up for Tuesday’s board meeting would abolish size limitations on many commercial uses in some specific Neighborhood Commercial Districts, such as on Castro Street, Polk Street, West Portal Avenue, and in North Beach. Sponsored by District 7 Supervisor Myrna Melgar, along with District 2 member Stephen Sherrill and District 3 Member Danny Sauter, the ordinance is a response to ongoing issues with vacant storefronts, compliance difficulties faced by new businesses, and the evolving retail landscape brought on by delivery services and other factors.
The Planning Commission has already cleared the bill, but with some opposition. Many prominent merchant groups, defending the interests of already established businesses, predictably oppose the bill. Meanwhile, others are supporting the expansion of existing vacant storefront taxes as a solution. After discussion by committee members and public commenters, the bill cleared the Land Use Committee on Monday, but not without further amendments, and without a recommendation.
(Update: This bill ended up passing 9-2 at the full board Tuesday after Chan proffered a motion to continue the item which failed. Before the final vote Melgar noted that the alternative to this bill for many businesses would be to continue seeking problematic spot zoning, where “you have that access to your supervisor who can write legislation just for your business and you can pay a land use lawyer $700 an hour or pay a permit expediter to do this for you. It is not the small immigrant businesses that are benefiting from our current, really restrictive controls. It is the people who have access, who have money to pay the land use lawyers. And I think that we are doing a disservice to a small immigrant, non English speaking people, by having these restrictions that only allow access for some and not others.”)
Less and less cooking with gas?
San Francisco has already banned many appliances that run on natural gas, such as water heaters, in new construction to curb carbon emissions. Some exemptions were made for gas stoves due to public and business concerns over cooking quality, increased cost for renovations, and possible delays in performing seismic upgrades. Since then, other cities, such as Berkeley, have tried to pass more restrictive laws but have been rebuffed by the courts. Meanwhile, San Francisco continues to enforce its more flexible ordinance. Board President Rafael Mandelman, the main sponsor of the original ordinance, now wants to expand the curbs to major renovations. The bill was referred to the full board with recommendation, but a duplicate file was left in committee to allow for future amendments.
(Update: this legislation passed unanimously on Tuesday, without discussion.)
The Board of Supervisors will return from recess on Sept. 2.