Chief economist: family‑zoning rezoning yields modest housing gains; committee adopts several amendments and continues package to Nov. 17

The Land Use & Transportation Committee spent the bulk of its Nov. 3 hearing on a broad package of zoning and General Plan changes commonly called the Family Zoning Plan (items 6–11). The committee heard a statistical economic impact report from the city economist, lengthy questions from supervisors, and more than three hours of public comment for and against the map and text changes. The committee adopted a set of sponsor amendments and then voted to continue the package to Nov. 17 for further work.

City economist Ted Egan summarized an Office of Economic Analysis forecast that used a parcel‑level model to estimate housing production under the proposed rezoning. He said the model projects roughly 10,000 to 18,000 housing units could be produced on rezoned parcels over a 20‑year period and that the net effect (rezoning minus baseline) is about 8,500 units under a low‑growth scenario and about 14,650 under a high‑growth scenario. Egan cautioned about the model’s limits: it does not distinguish market vs. deeply affordable units, it is calibrated on data through 2024, and it does not include some recent state laws or site‑specific feasibility constraints.

Egan’s office estimated that the rezoning could reduce housing prices in the long run by roughly 2.5%–4.2% and produce positive GDP impacts ($560M–$940M) and 3,000–5,000 jobs under two scenarios. He also estimated commercial relocation and disruption costs (annualized roughly $16M–$28M) and that 6%–8% of housing gains could be offset by demolition of existing units.

Supervisors extensively questioned the methodology, assumptions about SB 79 and the state density bonus, the treatment of historic resources and rent‑controlled units, and whether incentives in the local program would lead owners to use the state density bonus instead. Planning staff and the mayor’s office fielded many of those questions and outlined lists of "low‑income" and "reused" sites that inform state compliance.

Public comment was sharply divided. Supporters — labor unions, housing advocates and many YIMBY groups — urged the board to move forward, citing job gains, long‑term price relief and the package as a start that can be strengthened. Opponents — neighborhood groups, historic‑preservation advocates and many West Side and northern waterfront residents — warned of demolition, displacement (including loss of rent‑controlled units), infrastructure shortfalls (the Auxiliary Water Supply System was discussed repeatedly) and the loss of neighborhood character.

During the supervisors’ amendment period, the committee accepted a series of amendments (many described as neutral or limited in capacity impact by planning staff) including Vice Chair Chen’s unit‑mix adjustment to require family‑sized targets for buildings of 4–9 units, a right‑of‑first‑refusal provision for non‑profits on some SFMTA parcels, and a limited feasibility‑study change tied to 100% affordable SFMTA projects. The committee then voted to continue items 6–11 to the Land Use & Transportation Committee meeting on Nov. 17, 2025 so sponsors and departments could work on outstanding language and capacity questions. The continuance passed 3–0.

What happens next: Sponsors, planning staff and the mayor’s office will negotiate outstanding amendments and provide additional capacity and parcel‑specific analysis in advance of the Nov. 17 continued hearing. The economist’s report and the public comment record will be included in the committee and board packets.