Housing advocates have file a lawsuit to reverse construction law exemptions in San Francisco’s Bayview and other neighborhoods.
Carlos Avila Gonzalez/S.F. Chronicle
San Francisco has carved out hundreds of properties in three neighborhoods south of downtown from a landmark state housing law meant to make it easier to build housing near transit, arguing the areas are primarily industrial. California housing officials agreed.
Now, housing advocates are suing both the city and the state with claims that the move was illegal.
The fight centers on a local ordinance that permanently excludes nearly 1,900 parcels in parts of SoMa, Bayview and Bayshore from Senate Bill 79, which went into effect last month and requires cities to allow taller and denser housing around transit stops. San Francisco says its state-permitted local alternative ordinance included the zoning carve-outs to protect industrial employment hubs and low resource areas.
Article continues below this ad
In a lawsuit filed last week, YIMBY Law, the California Housing Defense Fund and Californians for Homeownership argued that San Francisco’s designation of three, roughly 250-acre, primarily industrial areas in the SoMa, Bayview and Bayshore neighborhoods should not be exempt from SB79. The groups’ complaint asks the court to invalidate the city’s alternative plan.
The lawsuit also names the California Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, as a defendant. The state housing department approved the city’s alternative plan last month.
The Chronicle reached out to HCD for comment but did not immediately hear back.
SB79 established statewide standards for the height, density and floor area of qualifying housing projects in San Francisco and other transit-rich counties. But the law gave cities some flexibility to adopt a local alternative plan that provides equivalent housing capacity, or in certain circumstances exempt areas from the state standards.
Article continues below this ad
Written by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, the bill provides what the housing groups described as “narrow” exemptions for land that is already zoned to prohibit housing, so long as the land was designated as “employment lands areas” by Jan. 1, 2025. According to the lawsuit, San Francisco has never approved such a designation anywhere in the city.
One argument for exempting parts of SoMa from SB79 is that the neighborhood has already absorbed a disproportionate share of San Francisco’s recent housing growth — the state law would concentrate even more development in the same parts of San Francisco, particularly given the Muni routes that would otherwise make them prime targets for additional housing.
The housing groups argue that is the exact reason SoMa, where much of the city’s supportive and affordable housing stock is located, shouldn’t be exempt, given that the area includes parcels where housing is permitted. They described SoMa’s designation as an employment hub as a particularly “egregious example of the city flouting state law.”
“The city funds and builds housing in SoMa, and then says it’s off limits,” said Sonja Trauss, the executive director of YIMBY Law and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “This is a naked attempt to prevent new housing from getting built in San Francisco at a time where one-bedroom apartments are renting out for $4,000.”
But the city’s alternative ordinance states that SB79 covers more than 65% of San Francisco and overlaps with the “Family Zoning” plan, which expanded its residential capacity by rezoning large swaths of the city and was adopted this year.
Article continues below this ad
The city’s planning department deferred comment on the lawsuit to the city attorney’s office, which said that it will “review the complaint and respond in court.” The Chronicle also reached out to Bayview Supervisor Shamann Walton and SoMa Supervisor Matt Dorsey for comment on the lawsuit, but did not hear back.
San Francisco’s resistance to SB79 predates the YIMBY lawsuit. Last summer, four members of the Board of Supervisors — Connie Chan, Chyanne Chen, Jackie Fielder and Walton — introduced a resolution urging the state to amend the bill to give local governments and residents more control over how new housing is planned, including over affordability requirements and protections for residential and commercial tenants. Their resolution failed when it came to the full board.
“We need to build more homes while making sure working families can afford to stay in the communities they call home — not turn our neighborhoods into profit centers for corporate real estate interests,” Chan said.
The supervisors’ concerns over the city’s housing plans put San Francisco at odds with Wiener, who has argued that California’s housing shortage requires cities to allow substantially more homes near high-quality public transit. Wiener has spent much of his career in the Legislature pushing state laws that limit cities’ discretion over housing approvals. The changes have been celebrated by San Francisco’s YIMBY movement, which argues that the city’s notoriously slow and discretionary permitting process has helped drive up housing costs and limit construction. But they have also drawn sharp criticism from some city leaders and neighborhood advocates, who say state streamlining has curtailed meaningful public participation and local control and argue that the city’s bigger obstacle is the cost of financing housing.
The housing groups suing the city have also alleged that projects submitted under the city’s alternative plan cannot use the state Density Bonus program, which allows developers to increase a project’s density in exchange for including affordable housing, among other things. They allege that the city cannot override this state bonus law.
Article continues below this ad
The issue was flagged in HCD’s approval letter last month, with the state housing department stating that compliance with SB79 was contingent on the city not enforcing that provision of the city’s local plan ordinance.
“It is crucial that no city use its compliance with one state housing law as an excuse not to comply with another one,” said Matthew Gelfand, a litigation attorney with Californians for Ownership.