by Stan Hayes and Nancy Shanahan, Committee Co-Chairs
PZ@thd.org
Charter amendments, term limits, landmarking, lawsuits, and SB 79. Yet another fully loaded agenda for our Planning & Zoning report. Pour yourself a cup of (fully) caffeinated coffee, sit down, and relax (or more likely not…) as we bring you up to speed.
Charter Amendments on November Ballot.
Streamlining Task Force Recommendations. Approved by the voters in November 2024, “Proposition E established the Commission Streamlining Task Force to make recommendations to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors about ways to modify, eliminate, or combine the City’s appointive boards and commissions.” But the task force has been accused of going beyond its mandate. Instead of just culling inactive bodies, its final report in late January recommended stripping away decision making and oversight authority, moving bodies from the Charter to the Administrative Code where they could be amended more easily by the Board of Supervisors, and merging commissions with similar mandates.
Among its recommendations, for example, are those specific to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), which by a vote of the people has “authority over the historic preservation decisions in the City.” In accordance with THD comments, the Task Force recommended keeping the HPC in the Charter, instead of eliminating it. However, like it does for a number of other commissions, the Task Force recommended “moving most of the HPC’s duties from the Charter to the Planning Code.” We oppose this. We believe that this change would weaken the HPC’s authority, making key parts of its responsibilities more vulnerable to politically motivated manipulation. The City Charter can only be changed by the voters (which will be on the November ballot), while the Planning Code can be changed by the Board of Supervisors. The Task Force also recommended changing the Charter’s existing requirement that commissioners be preservation experts to “desired,” as well as changing the Charter’s provision allowing removal only “For Cause” to removal by the Mayor “At Will.” These changes, too, would weaken the HPC.
It remains to be seen how many of the Task Force recommendations to cut or weaken the power of dozens of city commissions will end up on the November ballot. At a 2-plus hour informational hearing at the Board of Supervisors on March 17, the Board indicated it will not pursue any controversial Task Force suggestions. Instead, President Mandelman announced that he is planning to draft a Charter amendment with only select “non-controversial” recommendations from the report.
Mayor’s Proposed Charter Amendments. Completely separate from the recommendations of the Commission Streamlining Task Force and not considered by the Task Force, Mayor Lurie has proposed Charter amendments of his own claiming that San Francisco’s Charter contains rigid rules that create bureaucracy and inefficiency. While framed as “efficiency,” the practical effect is centralization of power in the mayor’s office and less public oversight. His proposed amendments would do three fundamental things:
• Reduce oversight of large city contracts: Arguing that Board approval requirements delay contracts and increase costs, the Mayor’s proposal would give his appointed City Administrator the power to change purchasing rules automatically unless the Board or Mayor rejects them. Key Issue: Board oversight exists precisely because city contracting has historically been a corruption risk. Increasing the contract threshold would mean fewer contracts require Board review and large contracts could proceed without public hearing or debate.
• Make citizen initiatives harder: Claiming that the City’s initiative system is broken and that too many ballot measures confuse voters and limit government discretion, the Mayor’s proposal would raise the number of supervisors needed to place a measure from 4 to a minimum of 6, remove the mayor’s ability to place measures on the ballot, and significantly increase the number of signatures required to place an initiative on the ballot from 2% (10,582 valid signatures as of March 2025) to 8% (42,328) of all registered San Francisco voters. Key Issues: While removing unilateral mayor authority sounds good, the other changes raise barriers to citizen initiatives. San Francisco voters pass or reject measures with clear margins reflecting civic engagement, direct democracy, and voter control over policy. Ballot measures are often the only way voters override City Hall. Examples have historically included: ethics reforms, rent protections, and open government rules.
• Expand mayoral power over government agencies: Claiming that the mayor needs power to hire and fire department heads and reorganize government in the name of accountability, this proposal would give the mayor the ability to vastly reshape city government by reorganizing or even consolidating 24 city departments, including the big ones such as police, fire, public works, public health, planning, building inspection, environment, ethics, libraries, recreation and parks. Key Issues: Under existing law, any reorganization or consolidation would require a vote of the people. This proposal would allow easier removal of commissioners and greater mayoral control over departments. Independent commissions – think police oversite, planning approvals, and ethics enforcement — exist to prevent political interference. Reducing their independence would make these and other bodies much more political.
Charter Amendment on June ballot – Term Limits for Board of Supervisors.
The Board of Supervisors voted 7-4 to place on the June ballot a proposed Charter amendment that would restrict the Mayor and members of the Board of Supervisors to serving two terms for life. Sponsors of the amendment were Supervisors Mahmood, Melgar, Sherrill, Dorsey, Sauter, and Wong, with Supervisor Fielder joining in support of the measure. Opposing the amendment were Supervisors Chan, Chen, Mandelman, and Walton. Former San Francisco mayors Willie Brown and Art Agnos, and former two-time governor and Oakland mayor Jerry Brown have expressed their strong opposition to the amendment. We note that, as reported elsewhere, “only one leader [former District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin] has ever returned to office again after serving two terms.” The proposed amendment’s lifetime ban has been described as “extreme and undemocratic,” “it blocks voter choice,” it’s a “solution looking for a problem,” and politicians are “trying to re-write our City Charter for petty politics.”
Landmarking Just a Few of District 3 Historic Properties.
The Planning Department has established a so-called “Family Zoning Landmark Designation Program,” stated to preserve “San Francisco’s architectural, cultural, and historical resources within the Family Zoning Plan.” In what was the second of a series of supervisorial district-specific meetings, the Planning Department held an overflow community forum about potential individual landmark designations in District 3. Of the many hundreds of Category A historic properties in District 3 and in spite of the fully documented North Beach National Register Historic District, just 19 properties, only seven of which are in North Beach, were identified by Planning and District 3 Supervisor Sauter. Of those proposed, Saints Peter and Paul Church and the Bimbo’s Building, as well as several located in Chinatown, have been deleted due to owners’ objections. It appears that property owners were not contacted prior to inclusion of their properties on the list of proposed landmarks. As of this writing, Supervisor Sauter introduced legislation to initiate designation of 15 of the proposed District 3 landmarks, including the following six buildings within the proposed North Beach National Register Historic District: Finocchio’s, Fugazi Building, Italian Athletic Club, Maybeck Building, Mona’s Candle Light, and Vesuvio Cafe Building.
Pending Lawsuits.
Two Lawsuits Challenging the Mayor’s Family Zoning Plan from Opposite Sides. In mid-December, the Mayor signed the Family Zoning Plan. This plan represents the most significant rezoning of San Francisco in more than fifty years, allowing a major upsizing of buildings throughout much of the City. Two lawsuits have now been filed challenging the Plan. From those opposing the Plan’s upzoning, a lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the CEQA environmental review of the Mayor’s Plan has been filed by Neighborhoods United SF, Small Business Forward, THD member Romalyn Schmaltz, and individual Paul Erikson. From those who believe that the Plan’s upzoning does not go far enough, a separate lawsuit challenging the plan’s ability to provide sufficient housing to meet state mandates was filed by YIMBY Law..
Lawsuit Challenging Supervisor Sauter’s North Beach Commercial District Rezoning. Sponsored by District 3 Supervisor Danny Sauter, a major loosening of planning controls in North Beach, Polk Street, Pacific Avenue, Nob Hill, and Jackson Square has rolled back long-standing neighborhood protections. In response, a lawsuit challenging the elimination of the North Beach and Jackson Square Special Use Districts has been filed by the North Beach Business Association, THD, Small Business Forward, Jackson Square Historic District Association, and individual Thaddeus Carhart.
Senate Bill 79 implementation in San Francisco.
Sponsored by State Senator Scott Wiener, California Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, was passed by the state legislature in 2025 and takes effect on July 1, 2026. SB 79 requires that local governments permit residential development on sites within one-half mile of defined transit-oriented development stops, up to specified density limits, floor area ratios, and height limits. To implement the legislation in San Francisco, the Mayor introduced an “Alternative Plan” that satisfies the transit-oriented development requirements of SB 79. The proposed Alternative Plan will increase the density allowed on certain parcels, including several in North Beach, including several on Telegraph Hill and the Waterfront. The Planning Commission considered and recommended adoption of the Alternative Plan at its meeting on March 19 and the Board of Supervisors will consider its adoption within 30 days..
- * *
To join, or to get information from, the THD Planning & Zoning Committee, just send an email to PZ@thd.org. We look forward to hearing from you.
