Planning Commission transmits staff resolution after lengthy debate over proposed citywide sit‑lie ordinance

The San Francisco Planning Commission on April 6 heard more than three hours of testimony on a proposed city ordinance that would make it unlawful to sit or lie on public sidewalks during specified hours and then voted 6–1 to transmit a staff resolution that flags planning, civil‑rights and operational concerns to the Board of Supervisors.

Nicholas King, the mayor’s public‑safety adviser, told the commission the proposal is designed to give police a narrowly tailored tool to address obstructive or intimidating sidewalk behavior that currently falls outside easily enforceable statutes. “Between the hours of 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. it would be unlawful to sit or lie on a public sidewalk,” King said, adding the draft includes “reasonable exceptions” for medical emergencies, wheelchairs and permitted activities such as protest lines or ticketing lines.

Assistant Chief Kevin Cashman of the San Francisco Police Department said enforcement would begin with warnings and be used primarily as engagement rather than as a first‑resort punitive measure. “Essentially, they have to stand, they don't even have to move,” Cashman said, describing how officers would give subjects a chance to comply.

Supporters of the ordinance, including neighborhood merchants and the Haight Ashbury Improvement Association, said the measure would give officers the authority to respond to concentrated problem locations and improve safety for residents and employees. “This would give them the tool to be able to instruct someone that they cannot stay where they are,” said Ted Lowenburg, president of the Haight Ashbury Improvement Association.

Opponents included civil‑rights and homelessness advocates who warned the law is too broad and risks selective enforcement. Bob Offor Westort of the Coalition on Homelessness said the ordinance could sweep in chess players, children or day‑laborers who need to sit while waiting for work. Lara Hurtado of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights pointed to differences between the mayor’s draft and laws in other cities, and she argued the San Francisco version would be “more expansive” and vulnerable to First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges.

Lawyers for both sides debated whether existing city laws (obstruction, aggressive panhandling and similar provisions) are sufficient and enforceable. City staff acknowledged gaps and cited prosecutorial and evidentiary hurdles with existing obstruction statutes; proponents argued that a behavior‑based rule would remove that evidentiary burden.

Planning staff had recommended the commission not take a position on the ordinance because the item sits primarily in the police‑code/legal realm rather than the department’s physical‑realm purview. Commissioners nonetheless amended and approved a motion to forward a resolution that (1) asks the Board of Supervisors to consider protections for SRO tenants, day laborers and other populations with limited private open space, (2) highlights the General Plan’s open‑space and housing policies and (3) requests clearer definitions and enforcement protocols to limit discriminatory application. The motion passed 6–1, with Commissioner Antonini voting no.

The commission did not adopt or reject the ordinance itself; the action was a transmission of the staff resolution and the commission’s concerns. The Board of Supervisors will consider the draft ordinance and the range of concerns surfaced at the Planning Commission hearing.