It was Mayor Daniel Lurie’s first town hall to discuss his plan to upzone the low-slung Richmond District, among several other neighborhoods, mostly in the west and north of the city.
As the night wore on, the crowd was tough, and the normally even-keeled mayor grew increasingly feisty.
Residents asked repeatedly how he would protect the district’s rent-controlled housing from being demolished and replaced with new, market-rate units, and keep tenants from being displaced.
Why couldn’t the mayor’s zoning plan be changed to provide more protections for the local businesses and residents of the Richmond? Surely, there must be alternatives?
Lurie’s response was, essentially, that protections against these kinds of demolitions do exist: The city has some of the strongest rent-control protections in the state, he said, and that will continue under the new plan.
Due to these protections, for the past decade when the city’s eastern neighborhoods have already been upzoned, demolition of rent controlled units was “extremely rare.” On average, only seven units of multifamily housing were demolished every year, said Rachael Tanner, director of citywide planning.
And, Lurie said, community feedback has already been taken and the time for alternatives is over. To say, as speakers did, that the mayor’s office hasn’t listened “is unfair,” Lurie said.
The alternatives could be worse, he added. Any more compromises and the state could impose the “builder’s remedy,” he said, to completely remove San Francisco’s ability to approve or reject future housing projects within city boundaries.
“If we don’t do it the San Francisco way, it’s going to get done to us the Sacramento way,” he said. The crowd hissed.
“People have said, ‘Sue the state.’ Just sue them and fight,” Lurie said. At this, the audience gave out a loud cheer.
“Other counties have,” Lurie continued. “And they have lost. And builder’s remedy has come in and they have lost funding.”
“We are in an environment where we have a federal government that is not going to be helpful to our city,” he said. “We’re going to have a budget deficit that is worse this coming year. I don’t want to risk losing more state funding.”
The mayor’s upzoning plan has already been reviewed by state officials to make sure that it was in alignment with state housing goals. Supervisors this week passed what will likely be the plan’s final amendments before it will be voted on by the full Board of Supervisors in December.
As the questions began to repeat themselves, Lurie got increasingly frustrated. The plan has already gone through a lot of changes that incorporated feedback from the community, he said, including an amendment from District 7 Supervisor Myrna Melgar that will exempt buildings with three or more rent-controlled units from the new zoning plan.
The District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan had proposed amendments to the zoning plan that would have exempted all existing housing, coastal areas, and historic districts from upzoning, and lowered heights on commercial corridors within her district, among other things.
But those amendments were tabled by the Land Use and Transportation Committee, and are no longer a part of the plan.
Chan was not at the town hall, but her aide was, alongside former District 1 Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer. Fewer is now the vice president of Richmond District Democratic Club, which organized the event and served as its moderator.
Lurie reminded the audience, four times, that the upzoning mostly applies to commercial streets and transit and pedestrian corridors — for 77 percent of the upzoning map, “you can’t go higher than it’s currently zoned.”
That, he said, was the result of compromise in the face of community feedback.
The upzoning, in fact, may have a much more limited effect than anticipated. Even in the best-case scenario, the mayor’s upzoning plan would lead to only about 14,600 additional units over the next 20 years, according to an October report from the city controller’s office.
The state mandate requires the city to create capacity for 36,000 additional housing units by 2031.
The hour-long town hall at the Internet Archive on Thursday evening ended with a passionate debate between Lurie and Fewer.
Fewer began to press Lurie on the question of alternatives. Seventy-two thousand units of housing had already been approved by the city’s planning commission. Wasn’t there a way to incentivize or mandate developers to build that housing, instead of relying on zoning changes to meet the state housing goals?
“Can we submit an alternate plan?” Fewer asked.
“The plan is being altered,” Lurie responded, referring to the amendments, passed by the Land Use and Transportation Commission on Monday.
“I meant an alternate plan that includes a plan to either incentivize or mandate the 72,000 units that could break ground tomorrow,” Fewer said. “How can we allow them to hold our city — which is only 49 square miles — hostage until they are ready to make their adequate profit?”
The city should “put our foot down,” Fewer added, to mandate developers to build those approved housing units, and stop granting extensions to stall development. Sure, interest rates are high and so are construction costs, but if they need financing to start development, the city could help with that. “If they refuse, why are we not invoking eminent domain?” Fewer said, as the crowd began to cheer, loudly.
“Who’s gonna pay them?” Lurie said quietly. “We have the money?”
The mayor’s upzoning plan has already taken the units in the city’s housing pipeline into consideration, added Tanner, the planning director.
“The city is currently incentivizing developers by expediting permitting,” Tanner added. “But it’s difficult to compel someone to do something, particularly if it requires them to spend money.”
At the end of the town hall, Lurie seemed to have heard enough. “To say we have not worked hand in hand with supervisors and community members, that we haven’t made adjustments, is just not true,” he said.
“The underlying question here is,” Fewer pressed again. “Can we have an alternate plan instead of … ” At this, Lurie interrupted her.
“Actually what’s gonna happen is … there’s gonna be a vote at the Board of Supervisors. We are gonna see. And the plan is going to be submitted. It’s gone through the whole democratic process,” Lurie said.
“And I just want to remind everybody, there are people that are really excited about this plan.” That does not, he added, have to include the people present tonight. “But there are a lot of people.”
Thank you for the article about a very important topic!
I wish some of these west side folks would spend a day or two in Portland. It’s a quick trip. Along commercial corridors, like Alberta, Burnside, and Hawthorne streets, there are many flourishing small, local businesses (without the high percentage of vacancies we have), and occasional new apartment buildings. IMO, it works great. It allows a people to live near the stuff they like, and gives the businesses a nearby customer base. It’s not a wall of apartment buildings, they’re just here and there, as it would be here.
Not everyone has the money to take a quick trip to Portland, which is the point. A lot of Lurie’s support seems to be coming from people who can afford to ride out any type of decision he makes. The owner of The Booksmith in The Haight has said that 90% of small businesses on these corridors lease their units, which means that they cannot afford to to be displaced and come back with no guarantees. The 10% who do support Lurie own their units, so they can afford to support him.
Just take a trip to Fourth and King to see how many ground-floor retail units are empty, and have been for years. At least one of them was a restaurant that closed several years before the pandemic, and has been empty ever since. Meanwhile, the “YIMBY” group is literally a corporate lobbying group with divisions in San Francisco and New York. Public relations campaigns really are a thing.
SF is not Portland and it’s not close. Why is this useful? Paris, Shanghai, Dubai…
No thank you sir. Whatever process they select will have nothing to do with your misplaced idealistic view of what they’re actually trying to do. You will see.
You’ve never been, obviously. The Clement Street to, say, Alberta Street comparison is a pretty easy one.
But yeah Pete, it’s gonna be Salesforce Tower on Stern Grove. I’m sorry for the terrible nightmare you’re going to have to endure. *eyes roll to back of head*
Can you people take a breath? Or is clutching your real estate pearls really so invigorating? I guess it’s nice to feel something, huh?
I can’t imagine any residents of the Parkside/Sunset neighborhood who would be excited about high rise apartment buildings to satisfy this mayor. He has made some major mistakes in a very short time. It is time to step back and listen to the people of the area instead of state politicians who have only their own agendas and their pocket books to consider.
Who is excited about this plan the developer? Nobody who lives in the area of the LaPlaya Safeway is excited. Lurie went to town with the cow and came back with beans.
Lurie is either stupid or deliberately opaque. Without a doubt, he believes all the rest of us are stupid. Yes, the time for public comment is over, but many of us have been submitting questions and comment for years since the inception of this effort and never heard back from Planning.
He doesn’t fully understand anything about he plan except he’s been told that if the city doesn’t adopt it, things will be way worse, so he’s in favor of it.
It isn’t all that different from his method of choosing the D4 supervisor. He didn’t know much about her but he hired people to make the decision for him and supported her until it was obvious there were problems. Once the damage was done he mea culpa’d and said he’d do better.
Is that what he’s going to say when there’s an empty 300 foot tower at the corner of Van Ness and Lombard, while our public safety personnel, teachers, nurses, doctors and service workers are commuting from an hour away or more?
Oh he’ll be long gone by then.
This has been going on for years, why hasn’t Sandra Fewer submitted an alternative plan? She has had enough time. Complain complain complain but don’t offer alternative solutions. Progressive left in a nutshell.
Your commentary in a shot glass… anyhow.
Fewer and Chan aren’t interested in solutions — they can even fathom the nature of the problem. They’re useless.
Chan did a ton of work with both the Richmond and the Sunset to come up with her amendment plan, which Lurie and the Planning Commission have now killed. Fewer likely worked with Chan as well as moderated this discussion, and from what I heard from attendees — and according to this Mission Local reporter herself — was extremely clear, articulate, and well-spoken in her discussion with Lurie.
Meanwhile, both Chan and Fewer are Chinese American female politicians — in a city that only 60 years ago did not allow Chinese people to own homes outside of Chinatown — who have put more work into Sand Francisco and its politics within a minute than most people will in a lifetime. So no, they’re not useless at all.
Quite nice to have finally have a mayor that doesnt immediately cave to the ultra whiner factions of this city who have no practical solutions and just complaints. San Francisco needs a mayor that stands on business and is willing to do what’s necessary to advance progress in this city even if it means ruffling the feathers of a few vocal groups.
Lol. 200 hours into his pick for D4 before he even realized he failed, and here comes the congratulations wagon to thank him for the “excellent vetting”
“San Francisco needs a mayor that stands on business”
On the contrary. SF needs a mayor who quits bending over for business.
It is quite clear that the Get Off My Lawn crowd, aka NIMBYs, aka fake progressives, are as educated on real estate as they are on D9 NGOs who push harm reduction.
SF, like any city anywhere, is not expensive because of some nefarious real estate lobby hiding in the wings. It’s expensive because we have a world-class economy that for too long has been hamstrung by Marin-minded, process-worshipping, anti-growth Boomers who want to lock in their property values at the expense of everyone else.
Joel whines the talking points like a real Engardio. Oh yes, blame Boomers.
Six Seven kids.
When a wealthy individual buys himself an election, democracy is nowhere to be found, and the office holder feels totally comfortable ignoring the will of the people.
You’ve got to love the irony: the same people living off taxpayer-funded subsidies are the ones blocking new housing that young people desperately need. Who exactly do they think will keep paying into the system to fund your benefits?
Maybe it’s time for a harsh “FAFO” lesson. Let the city run a massive budget deficit and watch how fast those subsidies and rent-controlled apartments disappear when there’s no businesses left. When the “rich” are gone, who’s going to pay for all of you?
If you mean the capitalist investors who decide whether something makes them enough money to get built are some of the country’s biggest tax break recipients then you couldn’t be more correct.
72 year old not living off any taxpayer subsidies. 50 year resident. Not blocking anything just trying to protect the long term middle class residents of SF. The group that gave the heart to SF. TomC is what wrong with this city and the nation as a whole. Heartless!
SF has more money than God why can’t anybody figure this out. MONEY,MONEY ,MONEY.
Move to Dubai!
Am I the only one who secretly wishes builders remedy would get enacted just to see how the city could actually flourish without the restrictive local laws
Yes. You are the only one.
The question that should’ve been asked but wasn’t is why they’re sacrificing 2-unit rent controlled buildings while freezing heights at 40′ for more than 51K single family parcels. District 1 has nearly 6K in buildings getting their effective heights doubled & >7850 SF lots capped at 40′
“On average, only seven units of multifamily housing were demolished every year”
Easy to say when you’re not the one living in one of them. Am curious how this all worked out for the residents in those seven units. Did they get adequate assistance to move into comparable housing in SF, did they have to move out of the city, out of the Bay Area, did they end up in a camper van?
Daniel’s reasoning is exactly why we need to get rid of regressives. If one person suffers, we cannot do something that will benefit millions. Daniel is obviously rich without children as he doesn’t know what it means to make difficult choices.
Btw, Daniel doesn’t know what happened to the 7 families either. It’s possible they all got a million dollar buy out or all got kicked the curb with nothing. Either way, it was only 7.
Do you not comprehend that Governor Newsom and the State of California are now mandating dense housing approvals, or the Builder’s Remedy will automatically kick in and override local zoning entirely? This is no longer optional—it is state law.
Where exactly do you expect young working families to live? In their cars? With three roommates into their forties?
Congratulations: the rent-control crowd locked in their sweetheart deals decades ago, pulled up the ladder, and now an entire generation is condemned to pay double or triple the inflation-adjusted rent you ever did—or leave the state completely.
That’s the reality. The free ride is over.
“it is state law”
Yeah sure, that doesn’t make it not rubbish. Said law brings zero funding to to the table to actually build anything, and ultimately will mostly if not exclusively enable ultra-luxury prestige projects.
“Scott Wiener implemented a plan for builder’s remedy to kick in and everybody should just accept that’s the way it has to be, democratic ideals be damned and all other considerations moot!”
Oh pfft.
Elected officials are elected to make the laws. Wiener is one of the few that actually does this and he keeps winning elections. If the people did not like what he was doing, he’d have lost a long time ago. Blame the voters if you don’t like him.
Can’t wrap my head around that number probably made up.
How about we enable redevelopment of expensive single family homes into apartment buildings rather than turning somewhat affordable apartments into expensive homes
We’ve been fighting to expand rent control for decades but ppl like yourself block it at the ballot box
I think it’s clear that the westside wants the mayor to fight for his city. San Francisco is arguably the most beautiful city in the world. In no way should it be forced to compromise its planning authority under mandates and threats coming from Sacramento. This is a pivotal moment for Mayor Lurie.
Totally agree. Let’s see what he does to save SF.
Fight Sacramento but that will never happen YIMBY’s have the same real estate donors. SF was bought and sold by wealthy SV donors for years, than real estate donors added to the mix.
I’m liking Mayor Lurie more and more.
NIMBYs reactionaries like Fewer and Chan, on the other hand, can pound sand.
“The plan is being altered,” Lurie responded, “Pray I don’t alter it any further.”
This deal is getting worse all the time.
Lurie just found d out how unreasonable the .majority of Westside dwellers are about ANY change. He and many are tired of hearing comments about there being no community input.
Not the case, see 2255 Taraval, which was recently opened without much fuzz.
Kim Northrop knows how unreasonable the entire West Side is.
Sure she does, just ask her – or don’t. She’ll still tell you.
No matter what is reality, she’ll tell you that much.
She truly knows everyone here.
So, like, where was Connie Chan if not at this?
Also, at the risk of stereotyping: the people in the photo don’t really look like small business operators of Geary or Clement to me… rent controlled tenants? Quite possible.
Connie Chan has been fighting this from day one.
Good job, Lurie for standing his ground!
Standing his ground against his constituents? I thought he served us, not vice versa.