Concerning San Francisco Board of Supervisors (re: file #260132)
April 10, 2026
We oppose section 3 of ordinance file #260132 which would exclude several parcels from the zoning standards allowable under SB 79
We write to oppose Section 3 of board file #260132, which would permanently exclude several transit-rich parts of San Francisco from SB 79.
SB 79 recognizes that San Francisco is in dire need of new housing, especially near public transit. It thus allows dense mixed-income housing near rail stations and rapid bus lines citywide. With rents skyrocketing and our public transit systems in peril, it is critical to embrace state laws like SB 79 that allow more housing near transit in San Francisco.
We know that you agree: in July 2025, a supermajority of the Board voted against efforts to oppose SB 79, and many Board members have affirmatively endorsed it.
The Planning Department’s proposal seeks to accomplish two distinct objectives. The first is to temporarily exclude parts of the city from SB 79 — largely on the North and West side — where the city does or will allow sufficient density, thanks in part to the Family Zoning Plan. We recognize that the city crafted the Family Zoning Plan in part to provide a local alternative to SB 79 in these areas. We are not writing to oppose this first objective.
However, Section 3 of the proposed ordinance pursues a second, entirely distinct objective. This section permanently exempts several transit-rich areas of the city from SB 79 (visualized in Figure 6 in The Planning Commission's staff report), meaning mixed-income housing will be illegal to build there. We strongly oppose this effort to permanently exclude transit-rich areas of the city from mixed-income housing, and recommend that the Board remove this section from the proposed ordinance. We also encourage the Board to adopt findings affirming that the parts of these areas where SB 79 applies are suitable for mixed-income housing.
When a supermajority of the Board blocked efforts to oppose SB 79 last July, SB 79’s provision allowing for these permanent exclusions was not present. We encourage the Board to allow the version of SB 79 that they reviewed in July 2025 to come into effect, and thus to oppose this ordinance unless it is amended.
Kenneth Russell
Volunteer Lead, SF YIMBY
Sachin Agarwal
GrowSF
