San Francisco is experiencing a significant upheaval in its housing landscape, akin to the changes witnessed over the past 50 years.
This fall brings a series of hearings and votes focused on increasing building heights and density in various neighborhoods, including the Sunset, Haight, Glen Park, and Cow Hollow, areas often resistant to development.
In conjunction with this, the city is working to simplify and, in some instances, eliminate years of complex design standards.
Mayor Daniel Lurie and lawmakers are committed to addressing the sluggish permitting process that has plagued the city’s housing development efforts.
With fewer than 200 employees, the Planning Department is at the center of this transformation, navigating an overwhelmingly intricate set of laws.
The new director, Sarah Dennis Phillips, recently nominated by Lurie in a controversial move, steps into this challenging role with a wealth of experience.
Previously leading the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Dennis Phillips has a background in city planning, having first entered the field in 2005.
She briefly worked with Tishman-Speyer, the firm behind the iconic Mira building, before returning to city planning.
Her primary objective is to facilitate the construction of approximately 82,000 new homes in San Francisco in the coming years.
Dennis Phillips has cultivated connections with local pro-density groups and organizations like the urban think tank SPUR and the Housing Action Coalition.
She expresses her enthusiasm for the YIMBY movement, which combines social and political aspects to elevate housing issues in discussions across local, state, and national levels.
Reflecting on her earlier role in planning over a decade ago when there was no YIMBY movement, she highlights the significant shift in political dynamics around housing.
In a conversation with The Frisc, Dennis Phillips addressed the gap between San Francisco’s housing goals and challenges posed by economic realities, limited space, and public opinion.
The Frisc: Given the city’s objective of creating capacity for 82,000 new homes, how can San Francisco effectively accomplish this?
SDP: Our approach involves proactively advancing projects rather than merely regulating them.
I am thrilled to witness a substantial shift in the service mindset among planners since my departure in 2013.
We recognize the obstacles embedded in our codes and are actively seeking to identify and remove impediments to development.
For instance, we recently signed a piece of legislation aimed at reducing fees in the Market-Octavia district, where development, like elsewhere, has slowed.
Additionally, we must explore ways to support innovative types of development as our rezoning map currently permits only small-scale projects in well-resourced neighborhoods, such as four-story, six-story, under-20-unit constructions.
Attracting more developers who specialize in this scale of housing will be an essential step forward.
What tools should San Francisco consider that are not currently being utilized?
We often hear from stakeholders in the development community that high transfer taxes—more than double those of neighboring Bay Area cities—pose a significant burden.
Furthermore, we can consider allowing single stairs in smaller buildings to streamline the design process.
Our rezoning efforts are not aimed at generating an immediate construction boom but rather at creating long-term capacity for the market to respond as needed.
Historically, San Francisco has tightly regulated construction, loosening regulations only in specific areas or for fixed periods with reduced inclusionary rates.
Our vision is to foster a consistent and moderated pace of development rather than experiencing cyclical construction booms.
In terms of inclusionary rates, which dictate the number of affordable units required in market-rate developments, reaching the target of 57 percent for the upcoming housing wave seems daunting.
Yet, it’s worth noting that in the last two years, we’ve completed over 30 percent affordable housing units relative to market rates.
In 2023, we completed 1,450 affordable units out of 4,800 total units citywide, and in 2024, we delivered 1,600 affordable units out of 5,300 total.
These are encouraging figures even with inclusionary housing rates not yet established.
However, achieving 57 percent remains a substantial challenge as constructing that level of affordable, deed-restricted housing will be difficult.
This rezoning effort aims to increase the number of naturally affordable units in smaller, well-resourced neighborhoods.
Discussions are ongoing regarding additional tools beyond inclusionary housing that we can introduce, including the use of bonds and exploring tax increment financing, which Supervisor Melgar has proposed.
In 2022, the Planning Department estimated that it would require $2 billion annually to fund the affordable housing needed during the current building cycle.
The elevated affordability goals stem from decades of under-building, and we must consider the long game when it comes to housing solutions.
Our hope is that by creating new capacity and establishing a more consistent pace of construction, we can mitigate the stark inequality in housing prices over time.
Another critical aspect of the Housing Element is the built-in ‘circuit breaker,’ which could compel a more rapid development pace if San Francisco fails to issue enough building permits by 2027.
Looking at current projections, the likelihood of triggering this breaker seems plausible.
If that occurs, what changes can we expect—will it involve the same streamlining and rezoning efforts we’re currently pursuing, or will it require a different approach?
We don’t have a definitive answer right now.
It’s evident that the outlook is challenging.
Our response would likely involve additional rezoning beyond areas we intend to protect against displacement and aiding communities at risk.
We will continuously work on removing constraints leading up to the potential implementation of the circuit breaker.
My hope is that the development community will collaborate with us to create the positive changes necessary at this crucial moment.
It’s worth noting there were significant negative aspects to the recent federal “big beautiful” bill, but one positive outcome was the substantial increase in tax credit allocations.
We plan to leverage this opportunity to strengthen our initiatives as we face the circuit breaker deadline.
Engaging the public in planning matters presents challenges.
How can we foster a broader dialog beyond responses triggered by specific development projects?
This remains a constant consideration for us.
One method we’re exploring is moving beyond outreach through neighborhood groups, focusing on involving major companies, small businesses, and employees.
This outreach strategy would encourage individuals to consider their housing options and roles as residents in San Francisco, even if they aren’t currently living here.
A vital aspect of this conversation centers around fostering small businesses; increasing residential housing will encourage greater foot traffic and customer stability, which businesses greatly desire.
Reflecting on my earlier departure from Planning, I noticed the absence of the YIMBY movement at that time, with discussions largely dominated by neighborhood groups.
Today, we have forums that welcome individuals who embrace a broader perspective on housing issues beyond their immediate neighborhoods.
While YIMBYs assert development has been stifled for five decades, density skeptics argue the city has relinquished too much control to developers during the same span.
How does the Planning Department bridge this communication gap?
It is certainly our responsibility to foster a dialogue between these two perspectives.
Much of our public education takes place through single-channel forums, and we aspire to create more inclusive discussions that bring together diverse voices.
This division mirrors the historical context of urban renewal, and overcoming this entrenched mindset is crucial.
Our Housing Element intends to navigate these concerns by deliberately avoiding key equity areas and historical mistakes in previous development efforts.
Yet, public reaction to the proposed circuit breaker has raised eyebrows, with some labeling it a ‘dirty bomb’ placed without due transparency.
Such sentiments reflect deep-seated distrust ingrained by past experiences of displacement and loss of cultural heritage.
San Francisco undoubtedly leads the way in implementing tenant protections and we are committed to continuing to strengthen these measures.
Two days ago, we convened the Community Equity Council to discuss these critical issues.
We recognize the importance of demonstrating that we will not repeat the mistakes of the past, proving our commitment to responsible development.
Concerning the family zoning program, new tenant protections and small business protections are forthcoming, but more details have yet to be shared.
On tenant protections, we have seen that demolitions have accounted for less than 4 percent of no-fault evictions overall.
We believe we can improve upon this through forthcoming tenant protection initiatives in collaboration with Supervisor Chan.
The timeline for these initiatives is not under our complete control, but the importance of collaboration remains paramount.
On the small business front, the newly introduced Small Business Fund by Supervisor Melgar aims to assist small businesses in transitioning into vacant storefronts.
We are fortunate to have multiple locations available for businesses looking to relocate, coupled with fee waivers on permits for the first year.
Additionally, our approach includes providing relocation assistance and exploring options to streamline the permitting process even further.
As we look to the future of development in San Francisco, we envision a balanced approach.
The goal is to see growth across the city, with large-scale projects developed downtown and along the waterfront complemented by smaller-scale developments in well-resourced neighborhoods.
In this ideal scenario, as new neighborhoods emerge—such as Mission Rock with its 2,000-unit developments—the addition of small infill projects will seamlessly integrate into the fabric of the community, fostering a sense of continuity rather than disruption.
image source from：thefrisc
