NUSF Mayoral Voter Guide
The NUSF voter guide compares the mayoral candidates’ positions on key issues related to the Planning Department's proposed blanket upzoning. These include state overreach, removal of neighbor notification, renter and small business protections, and the preservation of our coastal, historical, and cultural resources—crucial matters that impact all San Francisco residents and small businesses.
NUSF has been actively educating and engaging the public on the City's proposed upzoning plans through newsletters, town halls and comments at public hearings. The leading candidate's Yes/No answers are based on their responses to our survey, comments at debates, and publicly available information.
Mayoral Candidates' Positions
on Upzoning
Breed
Farrell
Lurie
Peskin
Opposes Unchecked Upzoning
Opposes the City’s current blanket upzoning plans, which fail to deliver adequate affordable housing.
NO
YES
YES
YES
Discourages Out-of-Scale Development
Prevents unpredictable, out-of-scale development that fuels speculative projects, drives excessive rent hikes, and displaces renters & small businesses.
NO
NO
NO
YES
Defends Established Neighborhoods
Champions Neighborhood Voices
Prioritizes Preservation Over Demolition
Challenges State Housing Mandate
Supports Legal Action Against State Overreach
Embraces False YIMBY Narrative
NO
NO
NO
YES
Advocates for neighborhood notification and residents's right to have a voice in the growth and scale of development in their communities.
Prioritizes and preserves locally recognized historical and cultural resources over demolition for new housing projects.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
Believes the state's mandate for SF to build 82,000 new units, including 46,000 of affordable, by 2031 is unachievable and counterproductive.
Urges the city attorney to pursue legal action challenging the unrealistic and punitive state mandate to build 82,000 units by 2031.
NO
NO
Repeats the misleading talking points of YIMBY lobbyists and their allies, which result in the erosion of local zoning control and environmental protections.
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
Protects historic, iconic and established residential and commercial neighborhoods -- typically 1-4 stories tall -- from being overshadowed by 6- to 8-story buildings or taller.
UPZONING
The Mayor and Planning Department's upzoning map significantly increases building height allowances in response to the State’s mandate of 82,000 housing units by 2031. However, this unfunded, unattainable and punitive mandate raises valid concerns as it does not align with current economic conditions or the city’s declining population statistics. It also fails to adequately consider the recent upzoning for 4- and 6-plexes, ADUs, and State Density Bonuses. The proposed upzoning will lead to the demolition or extensive remodeling of existing affordable housing, threatening to displace San Francisco's small, family-owned, and legacy businesses and residential rental units.
DENSITY BONUS AND DECONTROL
State and city legislators have passed multiple density decontrol laws to allow developers to build higher and denser housing projects that can result in doubling or tripling the current zoned heights. For example, at 955 Sansome Street, the existing zoning is 84’ (8-stories) and when the project sponsor applied multiple density decontrol laws, the project is now 286’ (24-stories) with primarily luxury condos. In addition, requirements for developer contribution to finance infrastructure that serves the new projects have been cut or in some cases eliminated.
LOSS OF IMPORTANT HISTORIC BUILDINGS
San Francisco is an international destination largely attributed to its historic architecture and waterfront, drawing both residents and tourists. However, recent state-mandated housing production laws fail to adequately protect our historic and cultural resources, leaving them at risk of demolition. Additionally, these laws will lead to the construction of oversized high-rises that exploit the city and undermine the very qualities that make San Francisco so beloved.
NO on PROP K
Proposition K is a real estate developer's dream disguised as a park. While this misleading proposal claims to create park space, it would actually close the Great Highway to private cars. The real issue at stake is that Prop K is entirely funded by YIMBY (pro-developer) interests. These groups know that closing the road, eliminating private car traffic, and creating oceanfront real estate would fuel gentrification.
At its core, Prop K is backed by powerful figures like Scott Wiener, one of the most developer-aligned politicians in California, Mayor London Breed, a dedicated YIMBY supporter, and Jeremy Stoppelman, co-founder of Yelp, who is an outspoken YIMBY advocate and significant donor.
Despite the clear concerns over traffic and environmental impacts that Prop K advocates dismiss, this proposal is not about recreation, biking, or walking. It’s about how developers can profit from coastal real estate.
California spent decades fighting to establish the California Coastal Commission in 1972, with the goal of protecting the shoreline and regulating development. Senator Wiener’s recent SB 951 tried to remove San Francisco from the Commission's jurisdiction, opening the door to more coastal development. While this legislation has been blocked for now, the push continues. Proposition K, on the November ballot, is part of that effort. By closing the Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Blvd, the measure makes coastal development more feasible and attractive.
Neighborhoods United SF urges you to vote NO on Prop K to protect our cherished coastline from upzoning and this developer-driven land grab.