Lawsuits Could Trigger Blunter Upzoning in San Francisco

The both-sides litigation situation throwing San Francisco’s recent citywide upzoning into limbo is soaked in irony.

On one side, plaintiffs Neighborhoods United SF and Small Business Forward contend the city did not thoroughly investigate the environmental impacts of the so-called Family Zoning Plan, which allows increased height and density on lots across the city. The lawsuit fits into a familiar genre in the state, using the requirements of the controversial California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, in its effort to slow the possibilities of new development.

Yet, the Family Zoning Plan has also drawn the ire of Neighborhoods United SF’s foil: the pro-growth nonprofit YIMBY Law. The legal arm of the Yes in My Backyard movement, with two other pro-housing organizations, filed a separate lawsuit last month arguing the plan falls short of the city’s state-mandated housing requirements. The groups point to an analysis by the San Francisco Controller’s Office that projected the Family Zoning Plan would only generate up to 14,600 homes over the next 20 years, well short of claims by local lawmakers that the plan would facilitate 36,000 new units by 2031.

As those nascent lawsuits proceed, local leaders have warned that should the Family Zoning Plan get held up in court, the city would be subject to builder’s remedy law. Under state rules, builder’s remedy is triggered when cities and counties loaf on fulfilling their mandated housing goals, and gives developers a pass to fast-track housing projects that exceed local height and density rules.

Still, another reality looms. During an infosession held by the city’s planning department earlier this week, public planners said if the court tosses the Family Zoning Plan, San Francisco could suddenly be subject to another, newer state law: SB 79.

Championed last year by San Francisco’s own state Sen. Scott Wiener, SB 79 is effectively a state-mandated upzoning. It allows for increased height and density on lots within a half-mile of major transit stops, and is focused on California’s larger cities. The changes supersede any local land-use restrictions, and go into effect on July 1 later this year. However, cities are allowed to draft and implement alternative plans as long as they produce similar density and housing numbers.

The Family Zoning Plan is San Francisco’s attempt at such an alternative. According to the city, SB 79 would allow for building heights between 55 and 95 feet, while the Family Zoning Plan aims to maintain 40-foot height caps in its more residential, transit-adjacent, neighborhoods such as the Richmond and Sunset districts and Pacific Heights. To city lawmakers, where the Family Zoning Plan is a surgical attempt to achieve the state-mandated housing numbers while maintaining neighborhood character, the SB 79 works more as an undiscerning blanket. According to a report from the city’s planning department, SB 79 would mean fewer units than the Family Zoning plan, but allow taller development on 57,000 lots across San Francisco.

“If a court were to invalidate the [Family Zoning Plan], it is possible that SB 79 would at least partially come into effect,” city spokesperson Dan Sider told The Real Deal in an email. However, he added that the city could invoke “some off-ramps” that would allow for some individual properties to be exempted from SB 79’s blanket upzoning, or give local lawmakers extra time to adjust its alternative plan.

“These would provide mechanisms to lessen the impact of this hypothetical situation,” Sider said. “Regardless, the city obviously disagrees with the litigants and will vigorously defend the Family Zoning Plan.”