Planning department previews large-scale housing rezoning; supervisors, public press for tenant protections, historic preservation and small-business support

San Francisco planning staff on June 16 presented a sweeping family zoning proposal to the Land Use and Transportation Committee that would rezone broad areas of the city to create capacity for the housing the state requires in the 2025 housing element.

In a presentation to the committee, Rachel Tanner, director of the Planning Department’s citywide division, said the city must identify sufficient sites and zoning capacity to accommodate an additional roughly 36,200 housing units on land the state considers suitable and available for the RHNA period through 2031, and that Planning has added a 15% buffer to its calculations. The department showed a map concentrating mid‑rise and taller housing along major transit and commercial corridors (van Ness, Market, Geary and other arterials) and described a new local program that would offer developers a San Francisco‑specific alternative to the state density bonus.

Tanner and Lisa Chen, the department’s principal planner and project manager for the rezoning, said the package is intended to expand housing and “create stronger, more inclusive, and more resilient neighborhoods.” Chen described a set of base zoning changes, a menu of local waivers modeled on waivers used under state density bonus projects, and additional citywide policies: minimum density standards near frequent transit set to align with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit‑Oriented Communities rules, dwelling‑unit mix rules to preserve family‑sized units, maximum new‑construction unit sizes, a new residential transit‑oriented commercial (RTOC) zoning district, and reduced parking maximums.

Key points from staff and committee discussion - Capacity numbers and timing: Planning said the rezoning aims to demonstrate realistic capacity to meet the state shortfall (36,200 units), noting roughly 58,100 units are already in the pipeline; the department is working toward code adoption at the Planning Commission in September and final approvals, signature and state review by January 2026. - Local program vs. state density bonus: The draft allows properties to use a local San Francisco program with a menu of waivers and programmatic choices (including more flexible inclusionary housing options) or to pursue the state density bonus; in many neighborhoods a “density control” approach would cap heights unless the project opts into the local program. Chen said the local program would retain a 25% requirement for two‑bedroom (and larger) units in its unit‑mix standard for family‑sized housing. - Tenant protections and demolition rules: Committee members and many public speakers pressed staff to strengthen protection for existing rent‑controlled units and to define demolition triggers that require Planning Commission authorization. Planning staff said the department is working with supervisors’ offices and the City Attorney to craft tenant protection legislation intended to implement state SB 330 compliance and to seek mechanisms for right‑of‑return for displaced low‑income tenants where state law permits; staff said state law (and the Ellis Act and Costa‑Hawkins limitations) constrain what the city can require. - Historic preservation: Supervisors and numerous speakers urged a clear, resourced plan to identify and protect historic resources before upzoning encourages demolition. Planning staff said they plan to triage vulnerable buildings for survey and landmarking and noted the department’s intent to coordinate a larger preservation strategy. - Small business displacement and mitigation: Business groups and merchant associations asked for proactive outreach, language access, funding for relocation/leasing support and construction‑period mitigation; staff said they are coordinating with the mayor’s office, Office of Small Business and supervisors’ offices on targeted assistance and a commercial corridor support fund.

Public comment was extensive and sharply divided. Vice Chair Cheyenne Chen tallied the speakers during the hearing and reported a rough summary to the committee: 39 speakers opposed the plan as proposed, 17 sought amendments for equity or stronger protections, and 19 supported the proposal. Opponents raised risks of displacement, loss of rent‑controlled units, threats to historic buildings and small businesses, and questioned the state RHNA figures; supporters said the city needs more housing to keep workers, families and young people, emphasized benefits to small‑business revenues and transit ridership, and urged the board to proceed while strengthening protections.

Committee action and next steps: After the informational presentation and public comment, the committee voted to file the hearing record (Vice Chair Chen — aye; Member Mahmood — aye; Chair Melgar — aye). Planning said it will hold an informational hearing at the Planning Commission on June 26 and further public meetings through the summer; staff expects commission adoption in September and subsequent Board of Supervisors consideration and transmittal to the mayor and the state HCD for final review by January 2026. The Planning Department committed to continue stakeholder outreach on tenant protections, historic preservation strategies and small‑business supports.

Why this matters: The rezoning would rewrite large portions of San Francisco’s zoning map and alter what can be built in many neighborhoods. Supporters say it’s necessary to meet state RHNA obligations and to increase housing supply to lower rents and support transit corridors; opponents warn it risks demolition of existing affordable and rent‑controlled housing, harm to small businesses and loss of historic neighborhood character without firm, funded protections.

Votes at a glance (committee): - Motion: File public hearing for informational item on 2025 housing element rezoning and related policies. Maker: Chair Mirna Melgar. Vote: Cheyenne Chen — aye; Bilal Mahmood — aye; Mirna Melgar — aye. Outcome: Filed (3‑0).

Evidence in the record includes the Planning Department presentation, map handouts and a multi‑hour public comment record that planning staff said will inform the legislative package to follow.