Planning Commission backs supervisor’s notice-of-rezoning ordinance with staff modifications, 5–2

The San Francisco Planning Commission on March 20 recommended approval, by a 5–2 vote, of legislation introduced by Supervisor Connie Chan that would require mailed notice and a dedicated web page to inform property owners, lessees and occupants about proposed housing‑element rezoning. The commission’s recommendation included staff modifications intended to narrow recipients and clarify content and renderings.

Why it matters: City staff said state law requires the city to adopt a compliant rezoning plan by January 2026. Supervisor Chan’s substitute ordinance would require mailed notice 30 days before final adoption to owners, residents and commercial lessees within affected parcels and nearby (the ordinance proposes a 300‑foot radius), plus a department web page with maps, renderings and an interactive comparison of existing and proposed zoning.

Staff concerns and recommended modifications: Planning staff supported the ordinance’s goals but warned that the proposed mailing area (the draft rezoning map included more than 13,000 acres) and required minimum font size, hard‑coded mailer language and renderings could be impractical and expensive. Staff proposed clarifications to limit mailings to parcels that would actually receive potential height or density increases (and to include adjacent properties within a 300‑foot radius), remove overly prescriptive typographic requirements, and narrow the rendering obligation to existing illustrative views rather than a requirement to produce new renderings for every corridor.

What commissioners heard: Supporters from neighborhood groups and housing advocates urged broad notice and before‑and‑after renderings, calling the outreach a “right to know” for hundreds of thousands of residents. Several architects and AIA San Francisco representatives urged care about renderings (they cautioned about misleading images) and offered low‑cost visualization options. Planning staff repeated that the department lacks current budgeted funding for large‑scale mailing and renderings and offered an estimate (quoting a ReproMail cost) that mailing the high‑opportunity area recipients could run into tens of thousands of dollars, with broader scenarios possibly adding more.

Vote and outcome: The commission approved a recommendation of approval with staff modifications, 5–2 (Commissioners Campbell and McGarry opposed). Vice President Moore made the motion to adopt with staff modifications; the commission asked staff and the supervisor’s office to continue refining language (including a clarified recipient list that retains a 300‑foot adjacency radius for affected parcels) before the item goes to the Board of Supervisors.

Next steps: The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded as a committee report to the Board of Supervisors; staff and the sponsor agreed to continue working together to refine language on mailer recipients, text and renderings and to identify potential funding sources for an expanded outreach program.