Protect SF's Unique and Historic Character,
Not More Luxury Condos
Stand with neighborhood organizations as we come together to express our collective opposition to these drastic and ineffectual upzoning plans.
Addressing affordable housing is a complex challenge that demands precise, considerate solutions—rather than resorting to sweeping upzoning that could irrevocably transform our cherished San Francisco. Help safeguard our community's character and quality of life from the encroachment of towering luxury condos.
Take Action Today!
- Sign Up: Stay informed and receive updates on ways to help (letter writing campaign coming soon).
- Take Survey - Planning Department is collecting resident comments on their plans
- Support "Our Neighborhood Voices": 2026 State ballot measure aiming to restore local control over zoning
- Spread the Word: Share this webpage with others to preserve neighborhood character and quality of life
Upzoning Overreach
This drastic upzoning approach represents an oversimplified and outdated solution to a multifaceted and dynamic problem. San Francisco currently has surplus office space, vacant commercial areas, over 72,000 entitled but unconstructed projects, and a surge in tall luxury towers, often unoccupied due to high costs or purchased solely as investments by offshore or commercial entities. Does the extensive upzoning across San Francisco genuinely reduce housing costs, or does it merely serve as a developer's opportunity to construct towering buildings, reap profits, and leave behind a permanently altered cityscape?
"London School of Economics and UCLA Professor Michael Storper cautions that the idea that blanketed upzoning will cause affordability to trickle down is a flawed premise that will lead to bad urbanism that we will live to regret.” - read more
Upzoning Excuse
"The mantra today is that red tape is holding up development of housing and increasing our homelessness. The narrative you hear in the mainstream media is that if we remove all zoning and red tape, the market will meet the housing demand. We argue that the market has demonstrated a long track record of neglecting to build housing truly affordable to most of our population. Instead, reliance on the market has and will continue to make our affordability crisis worse." - read more
City's Upzoning Proposal
|
Under the new Housing Element, the SF Planning Department's blanketed upzoning plans are an overzealous approach to encourage production of more housing by drastically increasing the allowable building heights across large swaths of San Francisco's neighborhoods, in particular the northern and western parts of the city. There is no requirement or guarantee this scattershot, unpredictable and unmanageable method will yield even a fraction of the targeted affordable housing goals (44,000 units by 2031). There is no statistical modeling to support this approach.
|
Click Picture to View Map of Proposed New Heights
|
See interactive map to view the specific height changes in your neighborhood. A couple examples:
- Marina, Cow Hollow, Pacific Heights:
- 6-stories on Chestnut, Fillmore, and Union Streets
- 8-stories along Lombard
- 14-stories on Lombard at Divisadero and Fillmore intersections
- Fisherman's Wharf, Russian Hill, Telegraph, North Beach, Barbary Coast:
- 6-stories from Van Ness to Mason and Francisco to Fisherman's Wharf
Upzoning is Overkill
|
Current Zoning is Sufficient: If the intended height limit is truly 8-stories, we are already close to that threshold. Developers can currently build up to 7-stories (comprising the existing 4-story heights plus the SDB, which mandates 10-15% affordable units). However, if Planning decides to upzone Lombard to 8-stories, developers would no longer be obligated to include any affordable units in their projects. Given that the SDB is a key method for the City to attempt to reach its goal of 44,000 affordable housing units, it raises the question: why eliminate this incentive? Gain insights from this brief video by an Oakland State Assembly candidate who resonates with our concerns.
|
Upzoning Is Not the Answer: Upzoning not only undermines affordability incentives like the State Density Bonus (SDB) but also overlooks critical infrastructure upgrades for an anticipated surge in population (82,000 units equating to approximately 200,000 new residents, a 25% increase). Unaddressed traffic and parking issues compound the problem. The intended goal of diverse housing options falters as luxury condos dominate, impacting property values and creating a disruptive corridor through our neighborhoods. Removing the resident's voice exacerbates these issues, with no notifications for proposed projects using SDB and no avenue to express concerns.
|
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
Planning Commission approved on 12/19/23 Mayor London Breed’s proposal to let the planning director approve, without public or commission input, all housing development that use the State Density Bonus plan - which will be most of the luxury condo projects. That translates into 75' tall buildings on Lombard and surrounding streets being approved by-right. - read full article
Planning Commission approved on 12/19/23 Mayor London Breed’s proposal to let the planning director approve, without public or commission input, all housing development that use the State Density Bonus plan - which will be most of the luxury condo projects. That translates into 75' tall buildings on Lombard and surrounding streets being approved by-right. - read full article
We're Not Alone in This Fight: San Francisco neighborhood organizations are diligently resisting the misguided statewide zoning laws. Our Neighborhood Voices is preparing for a 2026 California ballot initiative to return zoning authority to local jurisdictions. Catalysts for Local Control hosts weekly Zoom sessions, engaging hundreds of elected officials, neighborhood leaders, and residents statewide in discussions on reclaiming local control over zoning. Your support strengthens these efforts - the more voices, the greater our chances of success.
How We Got Here
Proponents of upzoning argue that adding more housing units will ease the demand-driven price surge, making housing more accessible. By allowing builders to construct denser housing developments, the theory goes, the overall housing stock will expand, diluting the market power of existing landlords and developers.
However, critics contend that upzoning isn't a magic bullet. They argue that, without careful regulation and community involvement, upzoning can simply turn into a land grab for developers, leading to:
However, critics contend that upzoning isn't a magic bullet. They argue that, without careful regulation and community involvement, upzoning can simply turn into a land grab for developers, leading to:
- Luxury-only construction: Increased density alone doesn't guarantee affordability. Developers, naturally, gravitate towards projects with the highest profit margins, often favoring luxury condos over middle-income housing. This can exacerbate gentrification and displacement, pushing out existing residents with no guarantee of their return.
- Speculation and profiteering: Upzoning can create windfalls for existing homeowners, whose property values skyrocket with the potential for denser development. This influx of money can attract speculative investors, further inflating the housing market and making it even harder for ordinary residents to buy.
- Community character concerns: Some residents worry that upzoning will overwhelm existing infrastructure and services, straining schools, transportation, and open space. Additionally, concerns about changes to neighborhood character and architectural harmony often fuel opposition to denser development.
- Inclusionary zoning: Mandating a percentage of units in new developments be set aside for affordable housing can help ensure broader affordability gains.
- Community benefits agreements: Negotiating agreements with developers that secure community amenities, infrastructure improvements, and job opportunities for local residents can mitigate negative impacts.
- Robust planning and oversight: Transparent and democratic planning processes, coupled with strong regulatory frameworks, are vital to ensure upzoning serves the public good, not just developer profits.
Inflated Housing Estimates: The State's directive to build 2 million homes by 2030 was aimed at the perceived 'housing crisis,' emphasizing the need for affordable housing. However, a report by the Embarcadero Institute raises doubts, asking, 'But what if the math is wrong?'
"Senate Bill 828, co-sponsored by the Bay Area Council and Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener in 2018, has inadvertently doubled the “Regional Housing Needs Assessment” in California.
Use of an incorrect vacancy rate and double counting, inspired by SB-828, caused the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to exaggerate by more than 900,000 the units needed in SoCal, the Bay Area and the Sacramento area.
The state’s approach to determining the housing need must be defensible and reproducible if cities are to be held accountable. Inaccuracies on this scale mask the fact that cities and counties are surpassing the state’s market-rate housing targets, but falling far short in meeting affordable housing targets. The inaccuracies obscure the real problem and the associated solution to the housing crisis—the funding of affordable housing." - read more
"Senate Bill 828, co-sponsored by the Bay Area Council and Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener in 2018, has inadvertently doubled the “Regional Housing Needs Assessment” in California.
Use of an incorrect vacancy rate and double counting, inspired by SB-828, caused the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to exaggerate by more than 900,000 the units needed in SoCal, the Bay Area and the Sacramento area.
The state’s approach to determining the housing need must be defensible and reproducible if cities are to be held accountable. Inaccuracies on this scale mask the fact that cities and counties are surpassing the state’s market-rate housing targets, but falling far short in meeting affordable housing targets. The inaccuracies obscure the real problem and the associated solution to the housing crisis—the funding of affordable housing." - read more
Inaccurate RHNA: The exaggerated premise of 2 million housing units sets the stage for flawed Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) figures, particularly the allocation of 82,000 units for San Francisco by 2031. The California State Auditor's evaluation of the Department of Housing and Community Development's RHNA process reveals inadequacies, emphasizing that "HCD does not ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and adequately supported." San Francisco's inflated RHNA lacks consideration for economic and post-pandemic factors, raising concerns about transparency and the potential misuse of the "Builder's Remedy" without achieving public input. An audit is urged to scrutinize the RHNA goal and assess the city's infrastructure readiness for such extensive and ineffectual transformation.
Unequal Audit Standards: While all cities are mandated to undergo Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) audits midway through the 8-year Housing Element cycle, a last-minute amendment uniquely exempts San Francisco. This exception singles out San Francisco for an early audit after just one year, raising concerns. A potential failure to meet affordable target goals in this audit triggers the Builder's Remedy, enabling housing projects to proceed even if they do not adhere to local zoning laws, creating an unequal playing field.
Luxury Housing as a Piggybank: The City's upzoning plans fall short in ensuring affordable housing for essential workers and families. Instead, they treat neighborhoods like ours as the piggybank, proposing to redirect impact fees from luxury condo projects to non-profit developers for affordable housing elsewhere. This approach, seen as the big idea behind building 44,000 affordable units by 2031, is deemed likely to fail, paving the way for the Builder's Remedy to take precedence.
Risking Tourism Reputation & Income Source: Iconic public vistas are integral to San Francisco's history, serving as shared landmarks for residents and tourists alike. The views of Coit Tower from Fisherman's Wharf, the hills from the Golden Gate Bridge, or the water from Pacific Heights contribute significantly to our city's rich history and its appeal as a tourist destination. These panoramas are essential to San Francisco's biggest industry: tourism, making it not only a beautiful place to visit but also a vibrant community for residents. The proposed upzoning plans overlook the unique history and contribution to the state's tourism revenue, risking the desecration of landscapes and the loss of our collective history.
Transit Hub Excuse: Despite claiming an 'intended' 8-story height limit on Lombard, the plan designates intersections at Divisadero and Fillmore for 14-story buildings, citing them as 'transit hubs.' This raises questions, especially considering that multi-million dollar luxury condo owners are unlikely to rely on Muni, even if it's conveniently located outside their door.
Alternative
Sensible Approach: Introducing 'Dark Blue' Zoning. Before the city proceeds with a massive overhaul of long- established zoning laws for northern San Francisco, we urge the City to reconsider the maps by adding alternatives such as a "dark blue" zoning where you keep existing height limits, but allow greater density when the state density bonus is not applied. This approach allows for a realistic assessment of effectiveness and adjustments based on economic conditions, all while preserving the cherished character of San Francisco neighborhoods.