City attorneys warned commissioner about potential ethics breach. She ignored them

A San Francisco planning commissioner was warned more than a decade ago that she risked a conflict of interest&nbsp;if she continued to vote on projects involving her former employer, a document obtained by The Standard shows.&nbsp;



In spite of that warning, commissioner Kathrin Moore voted to approve multiple projects linked to <a href="https://www.som.com/">Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill</a>, the internationally renowned architecture firm, from which she retired as an associate partner in 1999. All the while, Moore continued to receive annual $15,000 retirement payments from the firm, known as SOM.



In response to an investigation into her conduct by The Standard, Moore said in a statement Monday that she would no longer vote on projects involving SOM.



“To remove even the appearance of any impropriety regarding my actions going forward, I will recuse myself from participating in any decisions relating to any project in which SOM is involved,” she wrote.



Moore, who was first appointed to the Planning Commission in 2006 and now serves as its vice president, approved the SOM projects even after being told in 2012 by the city attorney’s office that her votes could breach city and state ethics rules because of her financial interest in the company. In a four-page memo from April of that year, Andrew Shen, a deputy city attorney at the time, said he was writing to “confirm our prior advice” about potential conflicts of interest related to decisions Moore made regarding SOM in her capacity as a city official.&nbsp;



Shen’s memo outlined examples under which Moore&#8217;s decisions involving SOM could qualify as conflicts of interest. Those situations included voting on projects that would have “material financial effect” on the firm or involved individuals with whom Moore might have a &#8220;personal, business or professional relationship.&#8221;&nbsp;



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-documentcloud-document" data-document-id="418859"></div>



The city attorney’s office also noted that Moore’s fixed retirement payments from SOM qualified as a financial interest under a state ethics law’s definition of income.



The seven-member planning commission, one of the city&#8217;s most powerful boards, votes on development projects and advises the mayor and Board of Supervisors on land use and transportation matters.&nbsp;



City officials, including planning commissioners, <a href="https://sfethics.org/laws/conflict-of-interest/conflict-of-interest-other-prohibited-activities-regulations-san-francisco-campaign-and-governmental-conduct-code-section-3-200-et-seq#:~:text=of%20general%20application.-,Regulation%203.214%2D4.%20Disclosure%20of%20Personal%2C%20Professional%20%26%20Business%20Relationships%20%E2%80%93%20Determining%20Whether%20an%20Individual%20has%20an%20Ownership%20or%20Financial%20Interest%20in%20the%20Subject%20of%20a%20Governmental%20Decision,-An%20individual%20has">are prohibited</a> from making government decisions involving an entity from which they have received $500 or more in income over the previous year. Commissioners <a href="https://sfethics.org/disclosures/city-officer-disclosure/notification-of-recusal">regularly recuse themselves</a> from votes, even if there is merely the appearance of a conflict.&nbsp;



The Standard previously reported that <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/07/03/san-francisco-planning-commission-kathrin-moore-architecture/">Moore&nbsp;voted to advance two SOM projects</a> in San Francisco, a Buddhist temple on <a href="https://sfyimby.com/2022/02/som-designed-san-bao-temple-redesigned-and-approved-for-1750-van-ness-avenue-nob-hill-san-francisco.html">1750 Van Ness Ave</a>, approved in 2021, and a building at <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/06/25/related-california-office-development-jackson-square/">520 Sansome St./447 Battery</a>, which is still pending before the commission. In response to The Standard’s reporting, the Planning Commission’s president, Lydia So, called for an investigation into Moore’s votes.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1667" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?w=2500" alt="A person in a hat speaks at a podium in a wood-paneled room, addressing seated officials at a long desk. Laptops and flags add to the formal setting." class="wp-image-387286" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg 8059w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">The Planning Commission, whose members vote on development projects, is one of the city&#8217;s most powerful boards.</figcaption></figure>



Since then, The Standard has discovered at least three more SOM projects that Moore voted to approve: <a href="https://www.som.com/projects/350-mission-street/">350 Mission</a> in 2011; <a href="https://www.som.com/projects/india-basin/">India Basin</a> in 2018; and <a href="https://sfyimby.com/2022/12/som-updates-design-for-98-franklin-street-san-francisco.html">98 Franklin</a> in 2023.&nbsp;



In at least two instances, Moore recused herself from projects involving SOM: the <a href="https://www.som.com/projects/moscone-center-expansion/">Moscone Center expansion</a> in 2014 and <a href="https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/approval-of-high-rise-at-75-howard-st-continues-sf-skyline-transformation/article_7b898157-9a8b-50e8-ae07-0cff7e75bc40.html">One Steuart Lane</a> in 2015.&nbsp;



“I worked for SOM for a long period of time, almost three decades, and have an ongoing relationship with the firm,” Moore said during a vote for One Steuart Lane.



It’s unclear why Moore recused herself on certain projects but not others. Moore&nbsp;said in her statement that she believed she could vote on matters related to the architecture firm as long as she disclosed her relationship with the company.



“I have tried to consistently make that disclosure but it appears sometimes I neglected to do so,” she wrote. &#8220;Since I have been on the Planning Commission I have voted for and voted against projects in which SOM has been involved. I have sometimes praised and sometimes criticized projects in which SOM has been involved. I have never been influenced by anything other than the merits of each project, and I certainly have never been influenced by the fixed retirement payments I receive — payments which would never go up or down based on how I voted on a project.&#8221;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1397" height="931" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/9547109895_kathrin-moore-01_fe40dd.jpg?w=1397" alt="A person in white pants and a black jacket walks down a corridor, while another figure is silhouetted in the foreground. A third person stands to the side." class="wp-image-418802" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/9547109895_kathrin-moore-01_fe40dd.jpg 1397w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/9547109895_kathrin-moore-01_fe40dd.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/9547109895_kathrin-moore-01_fe40dd.jpg?resize=768,512 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1397px) 100vw, 1397px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Commissioner Moore worked at architecture firm Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill until 1999.</figcaption></figure>



In a statement, Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill spokesperson Ana Cuadra said Moore&#8217;s retirement payments are not connected to her activities at the planning commission.



&#8220;As a private-sector firm, it was our expectation that required disclosures, recusals, or potential conflicts of interest by the Commissioner were appropriately resolved with the City,&#8221; Cuadra wrote.



The 2012 memo didn’t explain what legal advice had previously been given to Moore. Jen Kwart, spokesperson for the city attorney’s office, said the office does not disclose privileged conversations, which are often provided to clients verbally. Kwart said it is up to officials to ask for an analysis by the city attorney or the SF Ethics Commission regarding decisions that may pose a conflict of interest.&nbsp;



The memo referenced a claim by Moore that she had previously been advised by&nbsp;the city attorney’s office that she was not required to report the SOM retirement payments on her annual disclosure forms.&nbsp;



“This office does not have any record of that advice,” Shen wrote. Moore began reporting her retirement payments on annual disclosure forms in 2012.



Sean McMorris, an ethics expert at the nonprofit California Common Cause, said rules prohibiting conflicts of interest exist “to prevent decisions based on real or perceived self-interest over the people&#8217;s interest.”



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



“When in doubt, a public official should seek advice from counsel, which it appears the commissioner did at some point, but perhaps did not heed entirely,” McMorris said. “On matters of conflict of interest, it is best to operate out of an abundance of caution than engage in action that could diminish the public&#8217;s trust.”&nbsp;



Moore was first appointed to the Planning Commission by former Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin and was most recently reappointed by Supervisor Shamann Walton. Her term ends in July 2026. 



Walton’s office did not respond to a request for comment.



Three of the planning commissioners are appointed by the board president, a role currently held by Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, while the mayor chooses the remaining four.

City official got paid by architecture firm while approving its projects

A longtime San Francisco planning commissioner supported the development of at least two projects in the city by a well-known architecture firm from which she also receives income, according to city disclosure forms, an arrangement that appears to breach the city’s conflict of interest rules.



Kathrin Moore, who was appointed to the planning commission in 2006 and currently serves as the body’s vice president, has reported earning between $10,000 and $100,000 each year since 2012 from the global firm Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill, also known by the acronym SOM.



In a 2012 financial disclosure, Moore reported that she retired from the company in 1999 and described the income as a “retirement payment.” Since then, she has listed herself on the forms as a retired associate partner.



Meanwhile, Moore voted in September 2021 to approve the firm’s <a href="https://sfyimby.com/2022/02/som-designed-san-bao-temple-redesigned-and-approved-for-1750-van-ness-avenue-nob-hill-san-francisco.html">San Bao Temple</a> at 1750 Van Ness Ave. This May, she cast a vote supporting the company’s initial plans for a <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/06/25/related-california-office-development-jackson-square/">building</a> at 520 Sansome St./447 Battery St., a project still making its way through the commission.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1667" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?w=2500" alt="A person in a hat speaks at a podium in a wood-paneled room, addressing seated officials at a long desk. Laptops and flags add to the formal setting." class="wp-image-387286" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg 8059w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">The city&#8217;s seven-member planning commission has significant sway over the look and feel of the city&#8217;s development plans.</figcaption></figure>



The city’s conflict of interest rules <a href="https://sfethics.org/laws/conflict-of-interest/conflict-of-interest-other-prohibited-activities-regulations-san-francisco-campaign-and-governmental-conduct-code-section-3-200-et-seq#:~:text=of%20general%20application.-,Regulation%203.214%2D4.%20Disclosure%20of%20Personal%2C%20Professional%20%26%20Business%20Relationships%20%E2%80%93%20Determining%20Whether%20an%20Individual%20has%20an%20Ownership%20or%20Financial%20Interest%20in%20the%20Subject%20of%20a%20Governmental%20Decision,-An%20individual%20has">prohibit</a> city officials, including planning commissioners, from making decisions that involve entities from which an individual has received more than $500 in the past year. The <a href="https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/conflicts-of-interest-rules.html">state</a> has similar regulations.



The seven-member commission advises the mayor and board of supervisors on land use, transportation, and development in the city and votes to approve project permits.&nbsp;



Sean McMorris, an ethics expert from the good governance nonprofit Common Cause, said Moore’s votes appear to be a conflict of interest because she was paid by the firm.&nbsp;



“If there is anything that you could presumably be involved in that even gives the appearance of enriching yourself, then you need to recuse yourself,” McMorris said. “That’s why we have conflict-of-interest laws. Our representatives work for us, not for themselves. The public trust is diminished when things like this happen.”



In an emailed statement received after this story&#8217;s publication, Moore defended her votes on Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill projects.



&#8220;Having retired as an Associate Partner of SOM in 1999, I receive a pension from SOM which I report on my annual public financial disclosure,&#8221; she wrote. &#8220;In accordance with legal advice from the Office of the City Attorney given to me many years ago, because my pension is unconditional, I have been&nbsp;assured&nbsp;that there is no conflict of interest and do not need to recuse myself from voting on matters involving SOM. My fixed pension does not influence nor is&nbsp;it&nbsp;effected by how I render my decisions. I will continue to hold myself to the highest legal and ethical standards as I have since I first was appointed to the Planning Commission in 2006.&#8221;



An inquiry to Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill went unanswered. 



During a May 15 hearing on the 520 Sansome St./447 Battery St. project, Moore thanked a Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill representative after his presentation and lauded the plans, saying they would positively impact the city’s beleaguered downtown.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



“This project addresses all the critical points, including the major investment of the <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/06/transamerica-pyramid-renovation-beacon/">refurbishing</a> of the Transamerica Pyramid,” she said. “I think you’re doing that very skillfully.”



During a September 2021 hearing to approve the Buddhist temple at 1750 Van Ness Ave., Moore similarly advocated for the Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill design.



“I am in full support of the project, and I consider the project thoughtful, and as one of the [public] speakers just said, inspirational,” Moore said. “I think it will be a wonderful addition.”



Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill is an internationally renowned firm behind <a href="https://www.som.com/">iconic buildings</a> such as 7 World Trade Center in New York, the Sears Tower in Chicago, and the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the world’s tallest building. Its San Francisco designs include One Maritime Plaza and the San Francisco International Airport trusses.



Lydia So, the planning commission’s president, said she was “shocked” to learn of Moore’s connection to the architecture firm and called for an investigation.&nbsp;



“We need to restore public trust in our government,” she said.



The Ethics Commission, which enforces the city’s conflict of interest rules, declined to comment.



“All complaints and enforcement matters are handled confidentially as required by the City Charter,” Michael Canning, the Ethics Commission’s policy and legislative affairs manager, said in a statement. “This requires that we do not disclose any information about any enforcement matters we may be handling, including if we have received a complaint or are carrying out an investigation.”



City officials <a href="https://sfethics.org/disclosures/city-officer-disclosure/notification-of-recusal">regularly</a> recuse themselves from votes due to conflicts of interest, actual or perceived. More than 20 city officials have withdrawn from government decisions this year, including a San Francisco Retirement Healthcare Trust Fund member who in June recused himself from a vote to invest in a company because he had worked there over a decade ago.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="2500" width="2186" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg?w=2186" alt="The image shows a dense cityscape with tall skyscrapers, including a shiny, cylindrical tower. Streets and lower buildings are visible in the foreground." class="wp-image-349056" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg 4191w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg?resize=262,300 262w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg?resize=768,878 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg?resize=2186,2500 2186w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg?resize=1343,1536 1343w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg?resize=1791,2048 1791w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2186px) 100vw, 2186px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">The architecture firm Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill is behind multiple San Francisco projects, including One Maritime Plaza. </figcaption></figure>



In 2023, Moore recused herself from approving a project on Taylor Street because she resides within 500 feet of the property.



Moore’s links to the architecture firm come to light amid recent turmoil that has shaken the planning commission.



Mission Local reported last month that three commissioners, including Moore, <a href="https://missionlocal.org/2025/06/walkout-planning-commission-san-francisco-lurie/">walked out of a closed-door meeting</a> to appoint a new planning director. The members said they left the meeting in protest over frustrations with Mayor Daniel Lurie’s process of choosing Sarah Dennis Phillips to lead the commission as director. Phillips was later <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/planning-director-sarah-dennis-phillips-20384050.php">confirmed</a>.&nbsp;



Moore then <a href="https://missionlocal.org/2025/06/sf-planning-director-process-illegal-commission/">accused</a> So of violating a state law that requires local agencies to hold open meetings for public access.



Update: This story was updated with a response from Kathrin Moore.

The latest strategy by SF neighborhoods to avoid development? Be ‘historic’

When Donna Howe meets new friends in her cozy Ingleside Terraces neighborhood, she often quizzes them on the age of local Craftsman and revival-style homes.



Howe’s family has lived in the southwestern San Francisco neighborhood — known for its distinctive architecture and single-family homes — for five generations, since the 1940s.



But as the city faces a dire housing shortage and increasing pressure from state officials to build residential units, many locals are increasingly concerned that Ingleside Terraces could be targeted for rampant development.



“I have deep roots and deep love for this neighborhood,” Howe, 72, told The Standard. “I don’t want to see it go.”



<figure class="wp-block-image alignwide size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1667" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_012.jpg?w=2500" alt="The image shows a hilly neighborhood with colorful houses and lush greenery. Cars line the street, and a foggy sky hovers above the distant hills." class="wp-image-413908" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_012.jpg 7632w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_012.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_012.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_012.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_012.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_012.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Ingleside Terraces homeowners are seeking historic status for their neighborhood.</figcaption></figure>



San Francisco faces a state mandate to add tens of thousands of residential units over the next six years. To address that goal, Mayor Daniel Lurie last week released a zoning plan that would add more than 36,000 units in west-side neighborhoods, including Ingleside Terraces, where opposition to development has historically been strong.



To avoid that, the Ingleside Terraces Homes Association is pushing to designate the neighborhood as a “historic district,” a state-recognized status that critics see as a tool to stall development. The association hired an architectural consulting firm and three months ago submitted an application to the California Office of Historic Preservation.&nbsp;



The pursuit of a “historic” designation is an increasingly popular tactic in San Francisco and other California cities. Residents of St. Francis Wood successfully <a href="https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/housing/st-francis-wood-earns-historic-designation-sparks-backlash/article_bff67cf0-02e0-11ed-87c7-e3d2da717575.html">petitioned the state for historic status</a> in 2022, while a proposal submitted in 2024 by a coalition of North Beach residents is in the final stage of review at the State Historical Resources Commission.&nbsp;



Wealthy neighborhoods in <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/housing-nimby-historic-baywood-18450990.php">San Mateo</a>,<a href="https://padailypost.com/2022/03/21/city-takes-an-historic-approach-to-dealing-with-new-housing-law/"> Palo Alto</a>, and <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-puts-city-pasadena-notice-violating-state-housing-laws">Pasadena</a> have taken similar steps in recent years in attempts at avoiding new development.



The trend has generated criticism from groups that want California cities to build more housing. The North Beach proposal in particular has <a href="https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2024/03/29/a-modest-proposal-its-time-for-north-beach-to-secede-from-the-city/">sparked intense debate.</a>



Ryan Patterson, an attorney for the pro-housing groups YIMBY Law and YIMBY Action, called the movement “a last-ditch, desperate effort” to block development.



“The anti-growth NIMBYs are trying to create new historic districts just to avoid state housing laws,” Patterson said. “It&#8217;s very unfortunate that they&#8217;ve taken this approach, and I hope people recognize what they&#8217;re actually doing and say no to it.”



<div class="wp-block-group alignwide"><div class="wp-block-group__inner-container is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained">
<div class="wp-block-columns is-layout-flex wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-1 wp-block-columns-is-layout-flex">
<div class="wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow">
<figure class="wp-block-video no-credit"><video autoplay loop muted preload="none" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sequence-01.mp4" playsinline></video></figure>
</div>



<div class="wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow">
<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1408" height="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_009_a45bfb.jpg?w=1408" alt="A beige stucco house with a tower-like structure and red tiled roof is partially visible, surrounded by lush greenery and tall plants." class="wp-image-413919" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_009_a45bfb.jpg 1408w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_009_a45bfb.jpg?resize=169,300 169w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_009_a45bfb.jpg?resize=768,1364 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_009_a45bfb.jpg?resize=865,1536 865w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_009_a45bfb.jpg?resize=1153,2048 1153w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1408px) 100vw, 1408px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">A Mediterranean Revival-style home in Ingleside Terraces.</figcaption></figure>
</div>
</div>
</div></div>



Ingleside Terraces was built in the wake of the 1906 earthquake on the site of a former racetrack. The neighborhood of around 750 single-family homes is known for its architectural diversity and central 28-foot concrete sundial.



Homeowners have for decades contemplated petitioning for historic status, but their efforts recently gained momentum. And they’re not the only ones.



Woody LaBounty, president of the preservation group San Francisco Heritage, said more neighborhoods are exploring the historic designation route as the state intensifies pressure on cities to increase their housing supplies.



LaBounty said that until recently, historic status was largely a symbolic, apolitical achievement. But with a barrage of new state laws that aim to expedite housing production in areas previously immune to more construction, many locals became worried that “the whole decision will be taken out of my hands,” LaBounty said.&nbsp;



“You could see some big changes with unintended consequences that won’t add tons of housing,” LaBounty said. “But they may mess up the way a neighborhood looks and feels.”



<figure class="wp-block-video alignwide no-credit"><video autoplay loop muted src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/untitled_109cfc.mp4" playsinline></video></figure>



<div class="wp-block-group alignfull"><div class="wp-block-group__inner-container is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained">
<div class="wp-block-columns is-layout-flex wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-2 wp-block-columns-is-layout-flex">
<div class="wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow">
<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1667" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_004.jpg?w=2500" alt="A charming gray house with a sloped roof is surrounded by lush green bushes, colorful flowers, and a well-maintained garden path leading to the entrance." class="wp-image-413922" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_004.jpg 8002w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_004.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_004.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_004.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_004.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_004.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">A craftsman-style home.</figcaption></figure>
</div>



<div class="wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow">
<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1667" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_006.jpg?w=2500" alt="A yellow, two-story house with blue window frames and a red-tiled roof is surrounded by lush greenery and desert plants, with tiled steps leading up to it." class="wp-image-413923" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_006.jpg 7732w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_006.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_006.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_006.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_006.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_006.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">A Spanish Revival-style home.</figcaption></figure>
</div>
</div>
</div></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-can-neighborhoods-be-both-pro-housing-and-historic">Can neighborhoods be both pro-housing and historic?</h2>



Individual properties and neighborhoods can achieve historic status across three levels: local, state, and federal. Local historic status in San Francisco offers protections against development because the designation requires that major remodels or construction be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission and the San Francisco Planning Department.



For example, the Jackson Square Historic District <a href="https://sfplanninggis.org/pim/map/">is under historic protection</a>, and City Hall and Fairmont Hotel are designated local landmarks.



St. Francis Wood Historic District is not recognized on the city level but is listed as historic on state and national lists. State and federal designation come with benefits such as tax credits for property restoration projects and, crucially, potential exemptions from certain state housing laws.



California lawmakers have over the last decade approved a slew of laws to streamline housing production and limit local authority to reject certain projects. Those include Senate Bill 423, which <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-07-04/california-affordable-housing-red-tape-san-francisco">cut the approval time for housing projects</a>, and Senate Bill 9, which allows homeowners to build up to <a href="https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2021-12-02/facing-housing-crisis-l-a-voters-back-duplexes-in-single-family-neighborhoods">four units on single-family lots</a>.



Both laws provide limited protections for historical buildings and neighborhoods that exempt them from more construction. The state’s density bonus law, which allows developers to build more units in a project as long as they set aside a percentage for low-income residents, similarly carves out some exceptions for historic areas.&nbsp;



Historic status doesn’t necessarily stop housing but often makes it more difficult to construct homes or demolish an old house to replace it with a multi-family building.&nbsp;



Still, neighborhood preservation and new development can both be achieved, said Rachael Tanner, San Francisco’s director of citywide planning.&nbsp;



“Preserving our city’s historic resources doesn’t need to be the enemy of building new homes,” Tanner said. “Development and historic preservation can coexist in harmony.”



San Francisco Planning Commission President Lydia So said it’s possible to achieve a more tailored approach to preservation, such as designating individual buildings, rather than entire neighborhoods, as historic.



“People sometimes misunderstand ‘historic preservation.’ They think it means freezing things in time,” she said.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image alignwide size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1406" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_020.jpg?w=2500" alt="Aerial view of a residential neighborhood featuring houses with varied architecture, lush trees, and parked cars lining the curved streets." class="wp-image-413935" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_020.jpg 3959w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_020.jpg?resize=300,169 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_020.jpg?resize=768,432 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_020.jpg?resize=2500,1406 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_020.jpg?resize=1536,864 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9195468954_homeownersfight_020.jpg?resize=2048,1152 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-debate-continues">The debate continues</h2>



While Ingleside Terraces is the latest San Francisco neighborhood to apply for historic status, it’s hardly the most controversial.&nbsp;



The North Beach proposal, which faces a final decision by state regulators, has generated criticism from housing advocates who say exempting an entire neighborhood from development would worsen San Francisco’s housing crunch.&nbsp;



Pro-housing activists in April <a href="https://link.sfstandard.com/view/6436ea099b26044931999510nepz7.1af/34ef191a">hosted a satirical tour</a> in North Beach to highlight how an empty parking lot and burned building site would be listed as historic under the proposal.



Aaron Peskin, a former Board of Supervisors presidents who represented North Beach and is an advocate for preserving neighborhood character over development, said there is widespread support for designating North Beach as a historic district. He cited a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/15iB44nLx_aCGWlT92n4psgLXm00YzEjw/view?usp=sharing">June poll</a> of 600 people that showed 63% of respondents supported the initiative.



“North Beach has been San Francisco’s historic living room for generations. It’s beloved and celebrated all over the city,” Peskin said.



Despite the pushback, interest in historic designation continues to grow. At a recent town hall in the Sunset, residents expressed interest in pursuing historic status as the neighborhood faces more development under Lurie’s zoning plans. A <a href="https://files.sfplanning.org/documents/preservation/sfsurvey-OuterSunsetParksideFindings-MapTable.pdf">city planning survey</a> identified a small portion of the area that could qualify as historic but determined that almost 800 properties were not qualified or ineligible.



Annie Fryman, director of special projects at the think tank SPUR, said westside neighborhoods with more single-family homes and homeowners are more ideal for denser development. 



&#8220;When these neighborhoods try to wiggle out of housing obligations by establishing historic districts,&#8221; Fryman said, &#8220;it pushes development pressure into areas where it could be more disruptive to renters and small businesses.&#8221;



LaBounty disagreed with criticism that preservation efforts are ill-intentioned, arguing that the process is “not something that can be casually abused.”&nbsp;



“People who do it are 99% trying to support and preserve special places,” the SF Heritage leader said.



He also noted that commercial corridors such as Clement Street in the Inner Richmond and Chestnut Street in the Marina, as well as Chinatown and Japantown, have historic value.



But designating large swaths of San Francisco as historic would almost certainly complicate Lurie’s goal of building tens of thousands of units across the city — a plan YIMBY groups have argued is not ambitious enough.



The movement for historic status adds another layer of complexity and sets the stage for a political battle in the months ahead.



“Everybody is in support of preserving the special places,” LaBounty said. “It&#8217;s how. And that&#8217;s where politics usually come in.”

SF Zoo to debut panda next April, dismisses tariff concerns

The escalating trade war between the U.S. and China may threaten to derail the San Francisco Zoo’s deal to import a pair of pandas, but so far it’s proceeding as planned —&nbsp;knock on bamboo.



Zoo CEO Tanya Peterson says she&#8217;s optimistic about the pandas’ arrival despite the mounting geopolitical tensions. She’s less certain whether the arrangement will be subject to tariffs but is prepared to make the case for an exemption.



“Pandas are an endangered species, so obviously, they should be exempt from tariffs,” Peterson told The Standard on Wednesday. “Who’s going to tax the cute animal?”



Peterson is expected to announce the official panda arrival timeline at Thursday’s Recreation and Park Commission meeting. She revealed that the animals will need to undergo a quarantine and acclimation period after their arrival, likely at the end of the year. If everything goes according to plan, the zoo’s panda zone will open to the public next April.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1668" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241203-pandahome_0365_40dcec.jpg?w=2500" alt="A person wearing a wide-brimmed hat and a black jacket with a zoo logo stands smiling beside a mesh enclosure and solar panel with foliage around." class="wp-image-339664" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241203-pandahome_0365_40dcec.jpg 5000w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241203-pandahome_0365_40dcec.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241203-pandahome_0365_40dcec.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241203-pandahome_0365_40dcec.jpg?resize=2500,1668 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241203-pandahome_0365_40dcec.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241203-pandahome_0365_40dcec.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Zoo CEO Tanya Peterson says she&#8217;s optimistic about the pandas’ arrival despite the mounting geopolitical tensions.</figcaption></figure>



“So far, no one has told me &#8216;no&#8217; — and in today’s political climate, that’s a very good sign,” Peterson said. “We’re feeling optimistic on all fronts.”



Technically, the pandas will be considered rentals. A <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/16/trump-china-tariff-245-percent-trade-war/83114710007/">245% tariff</a> could more than triple the $1 million annual price tag.



Darlene Chiu-Bryant, head of Global SF, an international trade advocacy group, called it a tricky and extraordinary situation.



“If you look purely at the transaction, there’s the value of the product — and typically, that would incur a tariff,” Chiu-Bryant said. “But in this case, it’s neither a lease nor a sale, but more of a cultural exchange. So how can you put a tariff on a pair of pandas?”



Peterson said she plans to travel to China this fall to meet the selected pandas. She expressed confidence in the zoo’s fundraising efforts to support the initiative but declined to share the numbers.



The panda deal was locked in last year by former Mayor London Breed during a visit to Beijing. The zoo has been designing its <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2024/12/05/panda-new-home-sf-zoo/">panda habitat</a>, which is under review by the city’s Planning Commission.



Thursday’s commission meeting will also cover operational and management issues at the zoo, which faced accusations of mismanagement last year as the panda negotiations became increasingly politicized. The zoo is <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2024/12/11/sf-zoo-audit-panda/">undergoing an audit</a> ordered by the Board of Supervisors.

‘Outrageous betrayal’: Lurie’s rezoning plan riles some west-side supporters

In the year and a half that Mayor Daniel Lurie has been in the public spotlight, his stance on housing has been a bit of a mystery. On other issues, he has been clear.&nbsp;Public safety? He wants more cops. Homelessness? More shelter. But housing development? His statements on the campaign trail were nebulous.



That changed Thursday, when San Francisco’s state-mandated rezoning plan was made public, with Lurie’s support. The plan calls for upzoning much of the city, including the west side, an area that hasn’t seen significant development for decades and holds a voter base that’s traditionally opposed to more housing.&nbsp;



Those same west-side voters in large part propelled Lurie, with his moderate messaging and tough-on-crime policies, into the mayor’s office. And some of them — <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/10/prop-k-lawsuit-great-highway-closure/">already riled by the closure of the Great Highway</a> that&#8217;s <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/22/great-highway-recall-signature-gathering-joel-engardio/">sparked a supervisorial recall</a> — feel they’ve been stabbed in the back.



“I think it is going to be perceived as an outrageous betrayal,” said Deidre Von Rock, president of the West Portal Merchants Association. “I don’t think there’s going to be a recall. But it will turn people off for another election.”



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1668" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-9.jpg?w=2500" alt="Mayor Daniel Lurie is calling the state-mandated housing proposal that upzones neighborhoods &quot;family zoning.&quot;" class="wp-image-364423" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-9.jpg 6000w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-9.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-9.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-9.jpg?resize=2500,1668 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-9.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-9.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Mayor Daniel Lurie earned much of his support during the November election from voters on the west side.</figcaption></figure>



Lurie said Thursday that the city has made it “easier to block new homes than to build them” and that the state provided “a clear mandate to build more housing, with real consequences if we don’t.” (In an apparent effort to make the plan more palatable, the mayor is avoiding the word “upzoning” and instead using “family zoning.”)&nbsp;



So, what does the <a href="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/rezoning.pdf">zoning proposal</a> entail?



The most significant change will allow more homeowners to divide their property into multiple dwellings. Previously, only property owners in certain pockets of the city could take advantage of this opportunity, but the rezoning will make it available en masse.



The other big difference will be in west-side commercial and transit streets, such as the Richmond’s California, Geary, Balboa, and Fulton corridors, where allowable building heights will be raised to six to eight stories. The same will apply to the Sunset on Lincoln, Irving, Judah, Noriega, and Taraval — heights on some corners could reach 14 stories. Other parts of the city, such as the Marina, Divisadero, Haight, Van Ness Avenue, Fisherman’s Wharf, and the southern part of Market, will also see height increases.&nbsp;



The proposal needs approval from the Planning Commission; it will then go to the Board of Supervisors and the mayor before the state gives it a final pass. Lurie’s statement Thursday alluded to “real consequences” if the city doesn’t reach a certain housing capacity, which means the potential for lawsuits or, in the worst-case scenario, the loss of local control over zoning.



The city has until January 2026 to send its blueprints to Sacramento. But little building is expected to happen immediately, considering that <a href="https://app.slack.com/client/T0296B09RBK/D06HDLEEXMJ#:~:text=were%20insanely%20bad-,https%3A//sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2025%2D04/2024_Housing%2520Inventory.pdf,-Gabe%20Greschler">construction has dramatically slowed in recent years</a> because of cloudy economic conditions and high interest rates.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1667" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/mg_6824.jpg?w=2500" alt="A woman with long hair stands near a concrete railing, overlooking a park and cityscape with a mix of buildings, including tall apartments and houses. The Golden Gate Bridge is visible in the background." class="wp-image-281878" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/mg_6824.jpg 6240w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/mg_6824.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/mg_6824.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/mg_6824.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/mg_6824.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/mg_6824.jpg?resize=2048,1365 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Lori Brooke, a founder of Neighborhoods United SF, said Lurie&#8217;s predecessor, Mayor London Breed, faced backlash from voters over support for upzoning.</figcaption></figure>



Since taking office, <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/04/san-francisco-yimby-mayor-daniel-lurie-rezoning/">Lurie has been lobbied by members of the YIMBY coalition</a>, who have cautioned him of the political liabilities that could come with a housing plan that isn’t aggressive enough. That includes scenarios where the city would have to commit to more rezoning in 2027, an inopportune time that would overlap with Lurie’s potential reelection bid.



The warnings appear to have worked. Lurie delayed the release of the housing plan until this week and got the help of the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation <a href="https://link.sfstandard.com/view/65c28f2e664d5a5d7e0849a8ncna9.13l/36cc1fbc">after YIMBYs argued that the proposal wasn’t ambitious enough</a>.&nbsp;



Lurie also met with rezoning skeptics such as Neighborhoods United SF, one of the most visible groups fighting against the plans.



Katherine Petrin, a native west-sider and historic preservationist who has been critical of the rezoning plans, said she remains in support of Lurie, but neighbors are already feeling disappointed over his stance.



“The unveiling of the upzoning plan was the moment where Lurie had to take a hard stand that reveals his true position and alignment,” said Petrin, a founding member of Neighborhoods United SF. “Throughout his campaign, he seemed to understand the issues of concern of voters on the west side, housing and zoning being the biggest. Lurie made the decision to choose YIMBY over his constituents.”



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



Lori Brooke, also a founding member of the organization, said she thinks former Mayor London Breed lost reelection partly because of her YIMBY stance. Breed introduced a map last year that is mostly the same as the one Lurie is backing.&nbsp;



“If the map was toxic to Breed, I think it could be tricky for Lurie to navigate how the perception of this map will be to his constituents,” said Brooke. “I think everyone was hoping he would push back on the state. … Lurie is caught between those two worlds: his constituents, and the state and their unrealistic demands.”



But not everyone is let down.&nbsp;



District 7 Supervisor Myrna Melgar, who supported Breed during the November election, called Lurie’s move a “courageous gamble.”



“He is going to piss off a bunch of people,” said Melgar. “And a bunch of people who supported him. So, it is courageous that he is standing up for doing what I think is right. Even though it is going to cost him.”

Why Aaron Peskin’s progressive cred may not be enough to win

Fearing tall buildings, westside homeowners look to Aaron Peskin

Within San Francisco’s relatively narrow political spectrum, Michael Nohr, a Sunset District homeowner, thinks of himself as a moderate.



He supported the recalls of former District Attorney Chesa Boudin and three progressive school board members in 2022 and prefers a more business-friendly environment. Most importantly, he wants a more cautious approach to building dense apartment buildings on the west side of the city.



In the upcoming mayoral election, Nohr is struggling over whether to vote for the most left-leaning candidate—Supervisor Aaron Peskin—because of his similar views on housing.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="5464" height="5464" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv0466-cropped.jpg?w=2500" alt="A man is standing with arms crossed, wearing a dark long-sleeve shirt. He's outside with a blue sky, houses, and greenery in the background. His expression is serious." class="wp-image-286503" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv0466-cropped.jpg 5464w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv0466-cropped.jpg?resize=150,150 150w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv0466-cropped.jpg?resize=300,300 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv0466-cropped.jpg?resize=768,768 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv0466-cropped.jpg?resize=2500,2500 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv0466-cropped.jpg?resize=1536,1536 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv0466-cropped.jpg?resize=2048,2048 2048w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv0466-cropped.jpg?resize=180,180 180w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 5464px) 100vw, 5464px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Michael Nohr, a moderate voter, says that he&#8217;s struggling with whether to vote for Aaron Peskin, a progressive candidate for mayor.</figcaption></figure>



“It is truly a conundrum,” Nohr told The Standard. “Peskin and I are not in alignment on most policies, but he is the only candidate currently making sense on the issue of housing.”



San Francisco’s west side, which generally refers to the area west of Twin Peaks, had been largely zoned for single-family homes, with multi-family buildings banned on most of the land. But as the city grapples with how to meet a state mandate to accommodate 82,000 new homes and city officials look to loosen zoning restrictions, the opposition is mounting on the west side as residents fear mega-projects that they believe would crowd streets and threaten neighborhood character.



A paradox is emerging in the mayor’s race: Peskin, who’s considered progressive on most issues, has been outspoken about prioritizing neighborhood preservation instead of building market-rate housing. That seems to be resonating with homeowners on the west side, who are typically some of the city’s most moderate-conservative voters.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-campaigning-on-the-west-side">Campaigning on the west side</h2>



In early June, Neighborhoods United SF, which is organizing against the city’s rezoning proposals, hosted <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/06/07/san-francisco-zoning-housing-element-united-neighborhoods/">a town hall meeting</a> on the west side of the city. In an area where progressive politicians typically get a cool reception, Peskin was the star of the show.



In his speech, Peskin said that San Francisco’s coastline and natural beauty are what makes it special. He won applause for his recent fight over <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/03/26/san-franciso-mayor-breed-peskin-housing-density/">building restrictions along the northern waterfront</a>.



“I need your help because it takes a lot of political courage to stand up to the well-funded organizations that are pushing this agenda,” Peskin said.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="4032" height="3024" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-hl01.jpg?w=2500" alt="A woman speaks at a podium labeled &quot;Town Hall Upzoning Impacts.&quot; Two men sit beside her, attentively listening in a room with a wooden floor and technical equipment in the background." class="wp-image-286504" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-hl01.jpg 4032w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-hl01.jpg?resize=300,225 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-hl01.jpg?resize=768,576 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-hl01.jpg?resize=2500,1875 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-hl01.jpg?resize=1536,1152 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-hl01.jpg?resize=2048,1536 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 4032px) 100vw, 4032px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Supervisors Joel Engardio and Aaron Peskin attends a town hall meeting focusing on the upzoning impacts in San Francisco as Lori Brooke speaks.</figcaption></figure>



Lori Brooke, the event organizer and an outspoken critic of rezoning, said that the housing issue has become a priority for many moderate voters. They are looking to Peskin to stand up against rezoning, she said.



“If they were potentially a more moderate voter, this issue has opened their eyes to leadership that would actually fight for the neighborhoods,” Lori told The Standard.



The process of rezoning and building new housing will take a long time. Lydia So, a planning commissioner, doesn’t expect zoning laws to change dramatically before the mayoral election. But the question remains as to whether the housing issue will override other concerns among moderate voters.



Matt Boschetto, a westside homeowner who’s running for District 7 supervisor, said that “extreme housing and planning policies” will drive many westside moderate voters to become “one-issue voters,” supporting a candidate that they agree with on housing but disagree with on almost every other topic.



“In the face of a public safety, mental illness and addiction crisis, this would be tragic for the city,” Boschetto said.



In a statement, Peskin’s campaign said it is gaining momentum on the west side of the city.



“We are finding strong support [on the westside] for Supervisor Peskin’s effective leadership and record of giving neighborhoods a voice at City Hall,” the statement said.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-nimby-or-not">NIMBY or not?</h2>



There&#8217;s a precedent for progressives and conservatives joining forces on urban development in San Francisco.



In 1986, <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Remember-Prop-M-SF-may-use-it-to-increase-12967248.php">a ballot measure to cap office building growth</a> in the city was considered one of the first battles that united the progressive anti-displacement activists and conservative homeowners, according to Jane Kim, a former city supervisor and progressive advocate.&nbsp;



“There&#8217;s a very long time history of struggle between what I would call neighborhoods and downtown,” Kim said. “It was the fight of everyday neighborhoods versus big downtown.” In 2018, Kim herself <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Kim-runs-against-Wiener-housing-bill-in-her-race-12810672.php">was part of such an alliance</a>. When she was running for mayor as the most far-left candidate, she found some common ground with westside homeowners against a pro-housing state bill.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="5464" height="5464" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv1514-cropped.jpg?w=2500" alt="A woman with gray hair in a ponytail, wearing a dark plaid blazer and a necklace, is standing indoors by a mirror with her reflection visible, surrounded by beige curtains." class="wp-image-286505" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv1514-cropped.jpg 5464w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv1514-cropped.jpg?resize=150,150 150w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv1514-cropped.jpg?resize=300,300 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv1514-cropped.jpg?resize=768,768 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv1514-cropped.jpg?resize=2500,2500 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv1514-cropped.jpg?resize=1536,1536 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv1514-cropped.jpg?resize=2048,2048 2048w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240625-westtwinpeaksmayoralrace-tv1514-cropped.jpg?resize=180,180 180w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 5464px) 100vw, 5464px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Rita O’Hara says Aaron Peskin and Mark Farrell are her top two choices for San Francisco mayor.</figcaption></figure...

San Francisco laws are a tangled mess. Talk with our AI charter bot

At a recent mayoral debate, San Francisco Mayor London Breed tossed out a joke—or was it?—that ChatGPT should rewrite the city charter.&nbsp;



The charter, the legal document laying out how San Francisco is organized and governed, consists of 18 articles, six appendices and countless chapters and sections on everything from business and health regulations to parks, planning, police, fire, tax and election codes. The charter is akin to our local constitution, and changes are <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2022/06/22/explainer-how-ballot-measures-are-made-in-san-francisco/">approved by voters</a>.&nbsp;



It’s not exactly light reading: One hard copy available <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Charter-City-County-Francisco-1965/dp/1172251835">on Amazon</a> clocks in at 604 pages and 2.3 pounds. Currently, the best way to look up a rule or regulation is to Google it. Or use the search function on <a href="https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_fire/0-0-0-48446">American Legal Publishing</a> and wade through reams of legalese until your eyes water. So we threw the charter into ChatGPT to see if the artificial intelligence tool could help answer questions about this living document.&nbsp;



As it turns out, the charter is so voluminous that even the bot refused to sift through the layers upon layers of laws that make up San Francisco’s charter.



For example, when asked how many total business taxes there are in the city, we had to badger the bot repeatedly before it provided anything close to a comprehensive list. Likewise, when we asked how many commissions there are in the city, the bot gave answers—first 56, then 58—that were far below the Civil Grand Jury&#8217;s <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/06/20/san-francisco-city-hall-commissions-grand-jury/">count of 115</a>.



Our CharterGPT comes with the same caveats <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/06/03/san-francisco-budget-2024-breakdown-cuts-chatgpt/">as the budget bot</a> we created earlier this month. The bot is often wrong and should be fact-checked. The source document covers the city’s extensive municipal codes but not budgeting or the policy choices of specific elected officials.&nbsp;



Here are some examples of questions you can ask our charter bot:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>How are ballot measures created?&nbsp;</li>



<li>Can the mayor directly hire a police chief?</li>



<li>Who appoints members of the Planning Commission?</li>



<li>What is the filing fee to open a bingo parlor?</li>



<li>Which part of the city has the tallest building height limits?&nbsp;</li>



<li>What is the penalty for drinking in public?</li>



<li>Can I fish at Lake Merced?</li>



<li>What permits do I need to open a hot dog cart?&nbsp;</li>
</ul>



In the box below, you can try asking your own questions about the charter. As always, we’re happy to hear your thoughts at feedback@sfstandard.com.



[chat-block assistant=city-charter]

Angry San Francisco homeowners plot to kill city’s rezoning plan

As the sunset cast red hues over West Portal skies, residents of San Francisco’s west side funneled into the Scottish Rite Masonic Center’s banquet hall to condemn the city’s rezoning proposal, which aims to increase height limits in residential neighborhoods across San Francisco.&nbsp;



Renderings of what looked like spaceships parked in San Francisco’s sleepy west side neighborhoods were met with gasps from dozens of attendees, most of whom said they were homeowners, at the Wednesday meeting held by Neighborhoods United San Francisco, a collection of over 50 neighborhood groups mobilizing against upzoning proposals brought forth by the Planning Department.&nbsp;



The matter of rezoning has provoked the wrath of residents across the city, notably in west side neighborhoods with a preponderance of single-family homes, but also in wealthier areas on the north side. Despite making up only 2.7% of the city’s population, for example, the Pacific Heights neighborhood made up 28% of feedback citywide on the first rezoning proposal draft—the highest rate of participation across the city’s neighborhoods.&nbsp;



Leading the meeting was Lori Brooke, an anti-development firebrand who wears many hats in San Francisco civic life. She is the co-founder of RescueSF, a group attempting to lobby for homelessness policy changes, and longtime president of the Cow Hollow Association. 



In a nearly hour-long presentation, Brooke painted the city’s rezoning plans as unnecessary, punitive and ineffective. The rezoning proposal must be approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors by January 2026 to help make way for 82,000 new housing units by 2032.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-jetpack-image-compare"><div class="juxtapose" data-mode="horizontal"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" id="281653" src="https://i2.wp.com/content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined01_20240607nimbymeet.jpg?ssl=1" alt="This image shows an aerial view of a densely packed city neighborhood with houses and buildings, trees, and a bridge in the background stretching over a body of water." width="2220" height="1234" class="image-compare__image-before"/><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" id="281654" src="https://i0.wp.com/content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined02_20240607nimbymeet.jpg?ssl=1" alt="The image shows a 3D rendering of a neighborhood with low-rise buildings in the foreground and several large, grey, rectangular structures in the background labeled with numbers. Trees are visible." width="2274" height="1244" class="image-compare__image-after"/></div><figcaption>Neighborhoods United SF created renderings that show what they fear could happen under the city&#8217;s rezoning proposal. Critics have called the renderings bogus. | Courtesy Neighborhoods United SF</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-jetpack-image-compare"><div class="juxtapose" data-mode="horizontal"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" id="281657" src="https://i2.wp.com/content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined05_20240607nimbymeet.jpg?ssl=1" alt="The image shows a cityscape with densely packed buildings climbing up a hill, topped by a tall tower. Below, more buildings are visible with a body of water in the background." width="2236" height="1304" class="image-compare__image-before"/><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" id="281658" src="https://i2.wp.com/content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined06_20240607nimbymeet.jpg?ssl=1" alt="This image shows a cityscape with three prominent, white-box shaped buildings of varying heights superimposed over an existing urban area under a clear blue sky." width="2340" height="1300" class="image-compare__image-after"/></div><figcaption>Renderings created by Neighborhoods United SF show dramatic height increases near the city&#8217;s waterfront, but critics call them misinformation. | Courtesy Neighborhoods United SF</figcaption></figure>



Hoping to rally supporters to use as a battering ram for a Thursday Planning Commission meeting on the proposal, Brooke described a harrowing future San Francisco devoid of viewscapes and affordable housing.



“Who’s going to want to live in one of these?” she asked the crowd, pointing to a rendering of an eight-story building. “It’s not just personal views, it&#8217;s public vistas, it&#8217;s the things that make San Francisco iconic and special. If you want to live in a city that has tall towers, there are plenty of places in this country to go.”



Neighborhood United’s detractors have criticized Brooke for employing scare tactics, misinformation and red herrings in her quest to block rezoning.&nbsp;



Brooke flipped from slide to slide of renderings showing what mid-rise buildings could look like in residential neighborhoods, bracketing entire neighborhoods and cutting views and hope for sunlight. Anne Yalon, a spokesperson for the Planning Department, called the renderings bogus and an attempt to steer the narrative against housing development.&nbsp;



“These crude boxes they&#8217;ve drawn on the website are completely out of scale,” Yalon said. “It&#8217;s not what an eight-story or 14-story building looks like. They&#8217;re using these fear-mongering tactics to get people on board, but if we don&#8217;t do this, we’re in big trouble,” Yalon added, referring to the city’s rezoning plan.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-jetpack-image-compare"><div class="juxtapose" data-mode="horizontal"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" id="281655" src="https://i1.wp.com/content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined03_20240607nimbymeet.jpg?ssl=1" alt="The image shows a modern, boxy white building next to a traditional white church with red roof tiles, set against trees and a clear blue sky." width="2244" height="1248" class="image-compare__image-before"/><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" id="281656" src="https://i1.wp.com/content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined04_20240607nimbymeet.jpg?ssl=1" alt="The image shows a large, featureless orange building with a vertical striped texture on one corner. Distorted objects in the foreground resemble cars and debris." width="2240" height="1240" class="image-compare__image-after"/></div><figcaption>Renderings created by an anti-development group showed a large-blocky structure at 19th and Sloat. | Courtesy Neighborhoods United SF</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="4032" height="3024" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg?w=2500" alt="A woman is presenting at a podium to a large, seated audience in a spacious, brightly lit room with ceiling chandeliers, large windows, and two projection screens." class="wp-image-281908" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg 4032w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg?resize=300,225 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg?resize=768,576 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg?resize=2500,1875 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg?resize=1536,1152 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/img_6338.jpg?resize=2048,1536 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 4032px) 100vw, 4032px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">West side residents, including many homeowners, gasped at renderings showing hypothetical large buildings along the city&#8217;s waterfront.</figcaption></figure>



Mike Antonini, a Republican who served as planning commissioner from 2002 until 2016, kicked off the meeting with warnings about waterfront towers that could be erected from the Richmond District down to Lakeshore. He foretold plummeting property values, likening the rezoning plan to Soviet tenements before quoting Ronald Reagan: “The loss of freedom is only a generation away,” he said. Two more former planning commissioners—Dennis Antenore, who served in the 1990s, and Dennis Richards, who resigned in 2020 amid a lawsuit against the Department of Building Inspection—have also thrown their support behind Brooke’s group.&nbsp;



Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who’s running for mayor, echoed fears about the ill-effects of development in San Francisco, criticizing developers eager to stake claim to properties citywide and asserting that land development has historically been under the purview of local government.&nbsp;&nbsp;



“We should not forget the dark days of San Francisco’s experience with redevelopment in the 1950s and 1960s, now widely seen as a colossal planning mistake with deep racist undertones that led to the displacement of thousands of predominantly low-income people of color in San Francisco’s Fillmore District and Japantown,” Peskin said.



If the city fails to meet its state housing mandate by 2032, it could result in a loss of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in state funds that go to transportation, parks and affordable housing and lead to <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/01/27/developers-ready-to-pounce-as-bay-area-cities-fall-behind-on-housing-deadline/">“builder’s remedy” projects</a> that bypass local zoning rules and could bring much taller projects.&nbsp;



To make it possible to accommodate those units, Mayor London Breed instructed the Planning Department to expedite a rezoning plan.



“She saw the numbers and said ‘We gotta get going,’” Yalon said. “What usually happens in two years we did in eight months through an insane amount of outreach, surveys, in-person meetings.”



The Planning Commission’s meeting on Thursday lasted hours and featured a few dozen speakers, several of whom represented neighborhood groups opposed to upzoning along with some standing in support.&nbsp;



“[The Planning Department has] not implemented the mandated increased tenant protections prior to pushing these upzonings forward,” said Jeantelle Laberinto of the R...

Breed’s compromise: Are 6-story buildings the cure for housing shortage?

As San Francisco continues to hash out its plans to accommodate tens of thousands of new housing units in the coming years, Mayor London Breed on Wednesday said smaller projects should be prioritized so the city can reach its production goal.



In a letter sent to the Planning Commission on Wednesday, Breed said mid-rise developments in the six- to eight-story range will help usher in faster compliance with the state-mandated Housing Element. 



In doing so, she cited conversations with housing planners and financiers who have conveyed difficult economic conditions that make skyscrapers challenging to pencil out. However, the mayor added that high-rise developments should still be considered on the city’s “widest and busiest” roadways.



The mayor also said the city should try to increase the density of developments near transit and commercial zones without stretching height limits—an effort that is already underway through legislation she’s working on with Supervisor Myrna Melgar that has faced some pushback from Board President Aaron Peskin. 



In <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/03/04/sick-of-his-shenanigans-housing-spat-carves-battle-lines-in-san-francisco-mayoral-race/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">March</a>, Peskin made tweaks to Breed and Melgar&#8217;s bill implementing rent control and restrictions on the use of the state&#8217;s density bonus, which could impact height. The legislation is currently making its way through City Hall.



Wednesday’s letter indicated the strategy of what is known as “density decontrol,” which seeks to increase the number of units inside a parcel, could be expanded to other parts of the city.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="6240" height="4160" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/20240403-breedplanningdept05.jpg?w=2500" alt="A woman in a red suit stands in the foreground with construction workers in high-visibility vests and a building site behind them." class="wp-image-264600" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/20240403-breedplanningdept05.jpg 6240w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/20240403-breedplanningdept05.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/20240403-breedplanningdept05.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/20240403-breedplanningdept05.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/20240403-breedplanningdept05.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/20240403-breedplanningdept05.jpg?resize=2048,1365 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 6240px) 100vw, 6240px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Mayor London Breed speaks with construction workers near the Mission Rock development in March 2022.</figcaption></figure>



The mayor additionally said San Francisco should take advantage of sites like parking lots to create affordable and mixed-income housing.



“This ambitious process is fundamentally about doing what is best for San Francisco and its residents while also addressing the reality that our City, as built today, cannot meet our current or future housing needs,” Breed’s letter reads. “And I believe we can do all of this while still protecting the uniqueness of our diverse San Francisco neighborhoods.”



Breed’s directive comes as the city tries to figure out how to implement a state-mandated housing plan that calls for San Francisco to accommodate over 80,000 new units by 2031. This year, <a href="https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6e0e399f9c82456dbda233eacebc433d/">the Planning Department put forth rezoning plans</a> that aimed to increase height limits across large swaths of the city that include the Richmond, Sunset, Castro and Nob Hill neighborhoods. The plans need to be finalized by the beginning of 2026.



The proposal has set up a tense battle between the increasingly powerful YIMBY coalition—who argue the city needs to ramp up production of housing to combat a lack of low-cost options—and their opponents, who assert that wide-scale upzoning won’t lead to affordability and could disturb the character of neighborhoods.



Housing has already become an issue in the mayor’s race, with Breed stating in her State of the City address last month that she would block any “anti-housing” legislation that passed her desk.&nbsp;



That promise came into play later in March after Breed vetoed presumptive mayoral candidate Peskin’s housing density legislation, a move that was later struck down by board members in a defeat for the sitting city leader.&nbsp;



In Wednesday’s letter, the mayor took a more conciliatory approach to the housing issue: “Some believe the current proposal [from the Planning Department] doesn’t go nearly far enough and that we need to significantly expand its scope—others are concerned about what more height and density mean for their neighborhood and for the San Francisco that they know and love.”



Jake Price, an organizer for the Housing Action Coalition in San Francisco who has advocated for the city’s upzoning, said he was supportive of the mayor’s direction despite the fact it is calling for smaller developments in certain cases.&nbsp;











Price added that the initial rezoning map is too narrowly focused along certain streets—and that housing opportunities should be spread out more. For example, he cited Geary Boulevard as a road being considered for upzoning while just a block away, Anza Street remains unchanged.&nbsp;



At odds with the Planning Department are a variety of neighborhood coalitions, who say the rezoning plans are far too expansive. 



One of those groups, Neighborhoods United SF, has sent out mailers calling the proposal “extreme and unnecessary.” 



Lori Brooke, co-founder&nbsp;of the organization, wrote in response to Breed&#8217;s letter on Wednesday, &#8220;The Mayor&#8217;s response underscores the significant public backlash against her poorly thought-out upzoning initiatives. Rather than tackling the affordable housing shortage, this proposal fosters a speculative market and risks displacing existing small businesses and renters.&#8221;



Attorney Lee Hepner, a former aide of Supervisor Peskin’s, wrote on X he was “gobsmacked” by Breed’s proposal.&nbsp;



“This is clear confirmation that Breed’s veto was a vacuous political jab not rooted in policy,” he <a href="https://x.com/LeeHepner/status/1775598106626961510?s=20">wrote</a>. “To be clear, 6-8 story buildings on transit-oriented thoroughfares is GOOD policy. But massively hypocritical and a stunning pivot from Breed’s viral condemnation of this approach just last week.”

The Planning Commission oversees San Francisco's land use and development. It approves permits, maintains the General Plan, and conducts public hearings. It advises city officials on long-term planning and delegates certain approvals to the Planning Department.

Planning Commission

Kathrin Moore

Lydia So

Derek Braun

Gilbert A Williams

Theresa Imperial

Amy Campbell

Sean McGarry

Asian Art Museum

Office of the City Administrator

Adult Probation Department

Airport

Arts Commission

Office of the Assessor-Recorder

Board of Appeals

Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

Office of the City Attorney

Department of Children, Youth and Their Families

Controller's Office

Planning Department

Civil Service Commission

District Attorney's Office

Department of Building Inspection

Department of Early Childhood

Department of Emergency Management

Department of Police Accountability

Department of Public Health

Department of Public Works

Office of Economic and Workforce Development

Environment Department

Ethics Commission

Fine Arts Museums

Fire Department

Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing

Human Rights Commission

Department of Human Resources

Human Services Agency

Health Service System

Juvenile Probation Department

Public Library

Municipal Transportation Agency

Office of the Mayor

Public Defender's Office

Police Department

Port

Public Utilities Commission

Recreation and Park Department

Department of Elections

Retirement System

Rent Board

Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General

Sheriff's Department

Department of Technology

Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector

War Memorial

Department on the Status of Women

General City Responsibilities

General Administration & Finance

Culture & Recreation

Community Health

Human Welfare & Neighborhood Development

Public Works, Transportation & Commerce

Public Protection

SF Civil Grand Jury

The Abatement Appeals Board provides a final review process for City permitting decisions. It ensures fair and efficient adjudication of permit-related disputes before an impartial panel. The board holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals concerning notices of abatement.

Abatement Appeals Board

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 1

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 2

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 3

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 4

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 5

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 6

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 7

The Access Appeals Commission provides final reviews for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient, fair, and expeditious permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The commission holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals related to City permits.

Access Appeals Commission

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 1

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 2

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 3

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 4

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 5

The Adult Day Health Care Planning Council advises on the development and improvement of adult day health care services. It provides expertise in healthcare planning, policy recommendations, and program evaluation. Key responsibilities include assessing community needs and advising on service delivery enhancements.

Adult Day Health Care Planning Council

Adult Probation Department supervises individuals on probation and facilitates their reintegration into the community. It provides reentry and rehabilitative services, including victim restitution and financial assistance for crime victims. The department values public safety, offender rehabilitation, and community partnerships.

Cristel Tullock

The Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners evaluates arts and crafts applicants and monitors program compliance. It conducts studio visits and public screenings to ensure adherence to established criteria. Members also revise program criteria and undertake additional tasks as needed.

Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners

The Advisory Council on Human Rights advises on anti-discrimination laws and racial equity initiatives. It provides expertise on reparations and public policy impacts on Black communities. It guides efforts to establish partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities in San Francisco.

Advisory Council on Human Rights

San Francisco Airport manages air traffic operations and ensures safe aircraft movement. It provides parking facilities and maintains airport infrastructure to accommodate travelers and staff. The department oversees ground transportation and coordinates with airlines for efficient passenger services.

Mike Nakornkhet

The Airport Commission oversees policy and strategic planning for San Francisco International Airport. It makes key decisions on airport development projects and financial management. It ensures compliance with regulations and collaborates on initiatives like terminal naming.

Airport Commission

Airport Commission Commissioner 1

Malcolm Yeung

Jose F. Almanza

Mark Buell

Susan Leal

Airport Director

Animal Care and Control Department manages animal sheltering, adoption, and emergency response services. It enforces animal-related laws and regulations, ensuring the humane treatment and safety of animals. The department also provides public education on responsible pet ownership and animal welfare.

Animal Care and Control Department

Virginia Donohue

Animal Care and Control Department, Director

The San Francisco Arts Commission oversees the integration of arts into city life and ensures public access to cultural experiences. It makes decisions on public art programs and allocates grants to support local artists and performances. The commission actively shapes policies affecting the arts ecosystem in San Francisco.

Arts Commission Commissioner 1

Arts Commission Commissioner 2

Arts Commission Commissioner 3

Arts Commission Commissioner 4

Debra Walker

Suzanne Ferras

Jessica Rothschild

Seth Brenzel

JD Beltran

Marcus Shelby

J Riccardo Benavides

Nabiel Musleh

Charles (Chuck) Collins

Arts Commission Commissioner 15

San Francisco Arts Commission invests in a vibrant arts community and shapes cultural policy. It enlivens the urban environment through public art programs and supports diverse artistic expressions. The commission facilitates meetings and discussions to engage the community in cultural development.

Ralph Remington

Arts Commission, Director of Cultural Affairs

The Asian Art Commission determines policy and administers the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. It oversees museum operations and collaborates with the Asian Art Museum Foundation on fundraising efforts. Commissioners ensure the museum's strategic direction and financial sustainability.

Asian Art Commission

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 1

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 2

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 3

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 4

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 5

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 6

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 7

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 8

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 9

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 10

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 11

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 12

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 13

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 14

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 15

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 16

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 17

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 18

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 19

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 20

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 21

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 22

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 23

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 24

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 25

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 26

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 27

Asian Art Museum showcases Asian art and culture through exhibitions and educational programs. It offers diverse collections and hosts special events to engage the community. The museum fosters cultural appreciation and understanding by providing access to its extensive art collections.

Dr. Soyoung Lee

Asian Art Museum, Director

The Assessment Appeals Board #1 hears property tax assessment appeals in San Francisco. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine property values. The Board has the authority to make final decisions on assessments regardless of property type or value.

Assessment Appeals Board #1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 2

Richard Lee

Stephen Wasserman

Adena Gilbert

Paul Bellar

Quirina Mitchell

Hilary Winslow

The Assessment Appeals Board #2 adjudicates property tax assessment appeals for San Francisco taxpayers. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine accurate property values. The Board exercises authority to render final decisions on residential properties and specific real estate assessments.

Assessment Appeals Board #2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 3

Claire Ervin Lee

Louisa Mendoza

Joyce Lewis

Nicholas Goldman

Michelle Domingo

The Assessment Appeals Board #3 provides a platform for San Francisco taxpayers to contest property tax assessments. It conducts hearings where evidence from both taxpayers and the Assessor is evaluated. The Board makes binding decisions on property assessments based on presented evidence.