Sponsored link
Wednesday, December 31, 2025

Sponsored link

News + PoliticsDevelopmentSupes approve public notice for neighborhood zoning changes

Supes approve public notice for neighborhood zoning changes

Dorsey, Melgar, say the city should not 'alarm' people by telling them what's about to happen to their communities.

-

The Board of Supes approved by a veto-proof majority today a bill that would require the Planning Department to notify tenants, businesses and property owners about the massive new zoning changes proposed for the West Side of town.

The 8-3 vote came after two supes, Matt Dorsey and Myrna Melgar, warned that notification would cause under alarm in the impacted neighborhoods.

Dorsey said the notices would be “incredibly alarming.” Melgar said the city would be “needlessly alarming” people.

Sup. Connie Chan won a victory for neighborhood information

Melgar said the city didn’t send those notification in past major zoning changes—but as Sup. Connie Chan, who sponosored the bill, noted, taht was not necessarily a good thing.

Chan noted that the proposed increases in height and density would impact 13,000 acres, about half of the land in the city excluding parks. When it comes to public notice, she said, “the solution should always be to do more, not less.”

The opposition—from SF Yimby, among others—is based on the idea that residents, property owners, and small businesses who are directly informed that their neighborhoods are about to face dramatic change may organize against it.

That, it seems to me, is not “alarm.” That’s basic democracy: Not everyone these days reads the Chronicle or the SF Standard or 48hills, which have all reported on this. Not everyone on the West Side is fluent in English. A lot of the maybe 300,000 people and small businesses that will face potentially serious impacts (including displacement) are fully informed on what’s happening.

If bulldozers start demolishing existing buildings (the city planners say there will be no demolition of buildings with residential tenants, but there are a lot of other buildings that could be torn down for bigger ones), there’s going to be a whole lot of anger in the neighborhoods. And it will be a lot worse if it comes as a surprise.

Melgar, Dorsey, and Sup. Bilal Mahmood voted no.

48 Hills welcomes comments in the form of letters to the editor, which you can submit here. We also invite you to join the conversation on our FacebookTwitter, and Instagram

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.
Sponsored link
Sponsored link

Featured

In 2026, let’s not follow failed housing policies in progressive San Francisco

Housing First works. So why is SF siding with Trump to try do undo it?

Good Taste: 8 delicious reasons to welcome 2026

Ferry Building additions, Presidio newcomers, and a “no holds barred” supper club: next year is looking tasty already.

Year in Music 2025: The Bay made magical noise

SPELLLING's R&B wild-out, Orcutt Shelley Miller's moonlit jams, Spiritual Cramp's guerrilla punk... a watershed year for local ears

More by this author

For more than half a century, the progressives in SF have been right—and the developers wrong

We have murals and books and movies celebrating the opponents of demolitions like the I-Hotel and redevelopment. What will we look back on 20 years from now?

PG&E offers more excuses, and will seek to delay and obfuscate over public power

Public power is cheaper, more reliable, and would make money for the city. Just look at the numbers

SF could move to take over PG&E’s system right now, if city officials had the political will

We don't need a new state bill or more hearings. The city could start the public power process immediately—and send a powerful message to the state
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED