By John Ferrannini

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed legislation 8-3 at its April 22 meeting requiring tenants, businesses and property owners to be notified about zoning changes proposed for parts of the City’s west side.

The vote tally is significant because it is veto-proof. Mayor Daniel Lurie presented the zoning proposal.

District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan authored the legislation.

“I am heartened by a supermajority of my colleagues joining in agreement that this legislation is important, and that they support San Franciscans right to know about upzoning citywide,” she said.

Lurie has proposed upzoning (raising the threshold of construction heights) neighborhoods along east-west commercial thoroughfares, where on the west side current rules cap height.

The legislation would allow 65-foot-tall buildings on California, Clement and Balboa streets, and 85-foot-tall buildings on Geary Boulevard and Taraval, Judah and parts of Noriega streets.

The mayor terms it “family zoning.”

“Our Family Zoning plan focuses on neighborhoods that haven’t added new units of housing since the 1960s,” Lurie said in a speech commemorating his first 100 days in office.

“We will protect rent-controlled housing and preserve our City’s historic charm while ensuring the next generation of San Franciscans can afford to raise their kids here,” he added.

Lurie’s office did not return a request to comment for this report.

Proponents of upzoning say it will increase the City’s housing stock, leading to lower rents due to the laws of supply and demand. Opponents say it will negatively impact existing property owners and tenants in a number of ways, that new housing may be unaffordable anyway and that it will harm the unique character of the City’s current landscape.

Chan said many of her constituents can be counted among opponents.

“In the neighborhoods I represent, many have a lot of concerns and doubts about displacement,” Chan said. “Not just tenants, but small businesses and aging homeowners, are worried they could fall victim to speculative real estate investors and be displaced.”

Chan acknowledged termed-out Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin. He was “anticipating the potential upzoning for our City that’s coming up, and now we’re going through that process,” Chan said. “After he left office, I made the commitment to pick up where he left off. I made the commitment to make this move forward.”

“God bless Connie Chan and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors – at least eight of them – for doing the right thing and not wanting to make one of San Francisco’s most impactful decisions quietly,” Peskin said. “It was kind of interesting that the people who voted ‘no’ said we shouldn’t give the public notice because we don’t want to scare them,” he speculated.

Among the “no” votes was District 7 Supervisor Myrna Melgar. Melgar declined to comment for this report, but in the supervisors’ meeting, she said, “I feel (the legislation) adds to a climate and the conversation that has been alarming needlessly, when there are legitimate issues that arise.”

District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey, also a “no” vote, pointed out the lack of precedence for the legislation. Dorsey said it was not done before upzoning in the eastside neighborhoods he represents.

“The noticing requirement marks a departure from precedents I’m aware of, including the upzoning that took place in eastern neighborhoods, many of which I represent,” Dorsey said during the meeting. “To live in a major American city today – especially a city like ours, with a crisis of housing affordability and access, reflecting an issue routinely rated as issue one or two – is to know we have an obligation to further fair housing. This noticing requirement is potentially needlessly alarming and a departure from past precedents.”

The third “no” vote was District 5 Supervisor Bilal Mahmood.

District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio, was a “yes” vote.

“As the City is mandated by the state to build more housing, it’s important for residents to know when and where the housing will be built,” he said.

“If you’re for turning Ocean Beach into Miami Beach, you should be for people knowing about it,” Peskin said.

“This is a very complicated rezoning of half of San Francisco that has all sorts of different proposals for all different parts of town, from North Beach to the Sunset, to West Portal,” Peskin said. “So, I think this will benefit from public participation, from people sitting down and negotiating, and that starts with people understanding what’s being proposed.”

Chan also gave a shout out to neighborhood groups like Neighborhoods United SF, a group whose website states it is “deeply concerned” about upzoning, for their support of the legislation. Neighborhoods United SF did not return comment by press time.

Chan said she is a “no” vote on Lurie’s housing plan as it is currently, but is open to negotiating.

“We understand that we have to think about our City’s future and build housing and be a welcoming City, and the question is where and how and whether or not the policies we put forward can actually build housing that people can afford,” she said. “I know from my conversations with Mayor Lurie’s team this is just the beginning of a conversation. The plan as currently proposed? I’m not with it. I’m not a yes vote at this time, but that doesn’t mean I won’t get there, so I look forward to continuing the conversation to get us there.”

Chan’s legislation was voted on a second time April 29.