After three years of debate, the deadline is near to approve a plan for taller, denser housing across much of San Francisco. It also seems the deadline is now about a month closer — Dec. 21 — than expected.
More than half of SF’s supervisors are trying to make final changes to protect renters, small businesses, and historic resources. But there’s a caveat. Anything that messes too much with SF’s ability to produce new housing could draw the ire of California regulators, with potentially severe punishments to follow.
SF’s goal is to make room for 82,000 new homes by 2031. Under state rules, thousands of homes already in development can count toward that goal. But that still leaves more than 36,000 to plan for.
The new zoning map — which state regulators have already approved — would boost height limits along many major transit and commercial corridors, including up to 65 feet (about six stories) along most of Haight Street, 85 feet (eight stories) along Fulton Street, and 160 feet along key sections of Upper Market.
So far, most of the supervisors’ proposed changes seem uncontroversial, even drawing SF’s version of bipartisan support, such as Sup. Chyanne Chen’s bid to strengthen tenant rights which a state law already grants. (Thanks to state and local laws, SF has some of the nation’s strongest tenant protections.)
One proposal, however, seems designed to negate major elements of the city’s plan. Sup. Connie Chan, who represents the Richmond District, wants to exclude from upzoning all sites with “existing residential uses.”
According to city planners, Chan also wants to pull the plug on two of their key proposals. If Chan gets her way, the city wouldn’t be able to raise height limits along many streets or allow more apartments per property even where heights stay the same – what’s called “density decontrol.”
“The change the city needs must not hurt people,” Chan said at last week’s marathon hearing of the Land Use Committee, which included more than four hours of public comment.
Shrinking the pool
As the basis for her proposal, Chan is using a document, the Housing Element, which is the blueprint for the far more detailed redesign now on the table. The city and state regulators approved the Housing Element in 2023.
Deep in one Housing Element appendix is a list of 11 “site exclusion” criteria — sites that planners believe builders will be less inclined to redevelop.
The list includes public buildings, hospitals, college campuses, registered landmarks, sites that already have development plans, condominiums, and buildings that are likely rent-controlled. (There are also more technical distinctions, such as residential buildings that are less dense than their maximum zoning but probably aren’t worth demolishing just to add a couple stories.)
Chan’s staff cite this broad list as evidence that the city can exempt all residential buildings from the upzoning, and — just as important — state regulators will be fine with it, since the regulators already approved the Housing Element.
Chan says her proposal will still leave room to build at least 36,282 new units. That’s close to what the unamended zoning plan will provide.
But here’s the big difference. Chan’s plan wants to cut by about half the pool of potential sites that could produce those 36,000-plus new homes. The Housing Element appendix counts on about 87,000 properties, but the exceptions Chan cites could bring that to as low as 46,000, according to The Frisc’s estimates.
By shrinking the pool of available sites so drastically, Chan’s plan could make hitting the target much less likely. The Frisc asked Chan and staff multiple times for comment but did not receive an answer.
Director of Citywide Planning Rachael Tanner agrees that the Chan plan would remove properties “in the tens of thousands” from the map but declined to be more specific without a deeper analysis.
Chan’s numbers don’t make sense to some observers. “I don’t know how she is supporting her math,” says Jane Natoli, SF organizing director for YIMBY Action.
At last week’s hearing, Chan pressed Tanner about the site exclusion list. Tanner acknowledged that it won the state’s approval three years ago, but she was unclear about Chan’s conclusions. “I’ll be honest, I wasn’t completely sure what she was asking,” Tanner tells The Frisc.
Lori Brooke of Neighborhoods United SF, which has campaigned against the upzoning plan from its earliest days, says “Chan’s amendments are common sense.”
Whichever version the supervisors pass must pass muster with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the state body that enforces housing law. If HCD isn’t happy, they can order a do-over or even take over housing regulation in the city and implement what’s called the Builder’s Remedy.
Maintaining the spirit of the programs and statute is of the utmost importance. Any changes should be carefully evaluated and could negatively impact compliance.
california hcd spokesperson alicia murrillo
Asked about Chan’s proposal, HCD assistant deputy director of housing policy David Zisser said the department “cannot comment on an idea or a concept without a complete and thorough review.”
More generally, HCD spokesperson Alicia Murrillo tells The Frisc that “maintaining the spirit of the programs and statute is of the utmost importance, and any changes should be carefully evaluated and could negatively impact compliance.”
Murrillo says “removing and replacing sites” is the kind of change that could get the city in trouble.
Sooner than expected
Until last week’s hearing, lawmakers and others had cited a deadline of Jan. 31 to finalize and approve the housing redesign, which the Lurie administration calls the Family Zoning Plan.
But a city attorney informed the supervisors that a 90-day clock started ticking when the Planning Commission approved the plan in September. If the clock expires without a supervisor vote on an amended plan, the unamended version will become law.
At least two amendments have the mayor’s blessing. One, from Sup. Danny Sauter, would give builders more perks to redevelop a site if they preserve commercial spaces and historic storefronts. Another, from Sup. Myrna Melgar, would ban demolition or redevelopment of rent-controlled buildings with three or more units.
The Land Use Committee, chaired by Melgar, approved those two amendments last week.
A larger set of proposals will get more scrutiny at the committee’s Nov. 3 hearing. These include Chan’s rollbacks and her call for a developer “shot clock”; Chen’s renter protections; a plan by Sup. Rafael Mandelman to protect historic buildings; and one from Sauter and others to encourage more apartments with at least two bedrooms to accommodate more families.
Political capital
Mayor Lurie and allies like Sup. Stephen Sherrill have spent political capital stumping for the plan. At a recent town hall, one audience member warned Sherrill about “supervisors who don’t listen” — a reference to the Joel Engardio recall, which has emboldened housing plan critics.
Chan’s amendment could be the biggest sticking point. Sups. Jackie Fielder and Shamann Walton, whose districts mostly won’t be affected by the upzoning, joined her last week at a City Hall rally. “We see so many holes that will not protect our tenants,” Walton said of the current map.
Sup. Bilal Mahmood sits with Melgar and Chen on the Land Use Committee. He said last week he would not vote for amendments that delay the timeline or risk the state’s wrath. If two of three committee members vote against an amendment, it cannot go to the full board for a vote.
Sup. Matt Dorsey, Mahmood, Sherrill, Melgar, Sauter, and Lurie’s replacement for Engardio should provide a slight majority to carry a plan past the finish line, as long as it meets HCD’s muster.
Even if that happens, SF could face a larger political wild card: How much of the Engardio recall anger was about housing, and how much of it will spill over to other districts?
SFSU political scientist Jason McDaniel thinks it could be more than expected: “This vote could easily result in attempts to recall a supervisor who supports it in a district that is mostly opposed.”
All of which means public comment in upcoming hearings could make last week’s four-plus hour marathon seem more like a sprint.