Mayor Lurie’s “family zoning” plan could be his signature accomplishment and add 36,000 housing units citywide. Or it could get people pissed enough to recall him. We’ll start learning which this week when it heads to the Planning Commission.

We are one week away from the Recall Joel Engardio election, which is motivated mostly by animus over the Great Highway closure, but also to some degree over the fact that Engardio supports upzoning the west side so that it can be more than just mostly single-family homes in the future. Yet despite that headwind, SF Mayor Daniel Lurie remains determined to upzone the west side so it’s more than just mostly single-family homes.

In late June, Lurie introduced a housing proposal called the “family zoning” plan, an attempt to help meet that state-mandated housing element requirement that the city permit 82,000 new housing units by the year 2031. And while we are nowhere near that goal, the Chronicle reports that half of that amount of housing is already approved on paper.

So Lurie’s “family zoning” plan intends to cover most of the other half (about 36,000 units), but the Chronicle reports that Lurie’s plan is already getting plenty of opposition, from both the NIMBY and YIMBY ends of the housing discourse spectrum.

His proposal has its first hearing before the SF Planning Commission on Thursday.  

The above “Here’s what it does” Twitter-thread from the SF Planning Department does not, in fact, tell you much about what it does. Neither does Lurie’s official press release, which is merely a collection of optimistic platitudes and glowing quotes.

But the details are that it would change the zoning along certain corridors of the city’s north side and west side so that buildings can be as tall as six to eight stories. Some streets in low-height neighborhoods could see buildings as tall as 14 stories on certain high-traffic commercial corners. It is difficult to see where the “family” part comes into this upzoning, though I suppose maybe Lurie and company think developers would be inclined to build family-size apartments in these new high-rises.

West side residents are making their completely expected arguments against upzoning their neighborhoods. “Instead of creating family housing, the plan sets the stage for the demolition of modest single-family and duplex homes in favor of high-end market-rate apartments that few working families can afford,” three west side residents wrote in a late August Examiner op-ed. “This isn’t about building new homes for cops, teachers, nurses, or city workers. It’s about opening up real estate in west-side neighborhoods, many of them built by and for middle-class San Franciscans, to speculative redevelopment.”

Joining that chorus is a litany of small business owners who are exceedingly worried that they would be displaced by landlords eager to tear their buildings down and build something much taller. You may see these “Protect SF Businesses from Extreme Upzoning” signs in many an SF small business window.

“The proposed upzoning, which allows 6-14+ story projects to replace century-old, three-story buildings, would overwhelm narrow streets, strain emergency services, and force closures of businesses that have served San Francisco for generations,” a coalition called Alliance for Affordable Neighborhoods says in an open letter to Lurie.

And some YIMBYs are even against this measure too! The Chronicle ran an op-ed last month from the executive director of the California Housing Defense Fund, a YIMBY-affiliated group that specializes in those “builder’s remedy” lawsuits when they think cities are out of compliance with state housing laws.

“Buried in the proposed ordinance is a poison pill. To take advantage of the relaxed rules, developers are prohibited from seeking any ‘density or development bonuses’ they would otherwise be entitled to under state law,” California Housing Defense Fund executive director Dylan Casey wrote in the Chron. “Far from the bold steps forward that Mayor Lurie promises to take, family zoning is at best a timid step forward and at worst a decisive step backward. And its poison pill opt-out sets a dangerous precedent for other cities around the state.”

The Chronicle also adds that District 7 supervisor Myrna Melgar has “legislation she’s crafting to offset some potential negative impacts from the plan.” Melgar and Lurie went back-and-forth about her legislative add-ons just a couple hours ago at Tuesday’s SF Board of Supervisors meeting, and it sounds like both sides are very amenable to each other, at this point, at least.

“Supervisors and San Franciscans are right to ask tough questions,” Lurie said at the meeting. “We will not leave small businesses, renters, or affordable housing behind.”

“We know from experience that most new housing is built on vacant lots or sites like gas stations or shuttered commercial spaces,” he added. “Still, small businesses know construction can be disruptive, and they are the lifeblood of our neighborhoods.”

And then Lurie delivered the kicker: “That’s why I’m proud to support your legislation, Supervisor Melgar.”

As it stands, Melgar’s legislation is called the Small Business Rezoning Construction Relief Program, and apparently it provides grants for small businesses who get booted over upzoning-related demolition and construction.      

So it’s likely that Lurie will grab Melgar’s proposal as a band-aid to create the illusion of consensus. It’s unclear if Melgar will pursue additional tenant protections, and how Lurie would feel about that.

And it’s also unclear if grants for small businesses would quell the furor over potential 14-story buildings in a Sunset District that seems keen to toss out their current elected official(s).

Related: Much of Bay Area Lagging Far Behind Even SF on State-Mandated Housing Goals [SFist]

Image: Joe Kukura, SFist