Bay Area Recall Votes Over Housing Could Chill Zoning Reform

Local politicians in Northern California who support greater density or rezoning efforts aimed at adding new housing to neighborhoods are increasingly targeted for recall. 

The recalls threaten to hamper attempts to pave the way for new affordable housing to shelter growing populations and keep cities in compliance with state law. The votes are adding a fresh layer of uncertainty for developers seeking to build under new or proposed rules.

“If local voters can shift the rules out from underneath developers that are trying to invest, through these recalls or ballot measures, that can make housing development very challenging,” said Dylan Casey, executive director at the California Housing Defense Fund.

Frustrated constituents across the Bay Area have mounted recall campaigns against supervisors, council members and mayors over their dissatisfaction with housing and land use policies. 

The outcomes vary: San Francisco Supervisor Joel Engardio was ousted. Two officials in Fairfax survived, while the city of Millbrae removed two council members. The entire council of Suisun City now faces a citywide recall push.

In Fairfax, constituents have been gridlocked over a 243-unit apartment building slated for the site of an empty shopping center. In September, the California Department of Housing and Community Development compelled the city of Fairfax to approve the project. 

Residents directed a recall campaign at Mayor Lisel Blash and Deputy Mayor Stephanie Hellman for failing to do enough to block the project from moving forward. They survived the recall, with 55% voting against their removal. 

“The city identified the site in the housing element for exactly this type of housing. Not only that, it was identified in the previous housing element as well as a site for more housing,” Casey said.

Ten years ago, voters blocked a proposed 40-unit project on the same site. Florida-based developer Mill Creek Residential has since taken advantage of a state density bonus that overrides local height restrictions for projects that include affordable housing. 

Fairfax is required to plan for 490 new housing units by 2031 under the state’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation process, which requires all local governments to adequately plan to meet housing needs. Failure to comply triggers builder’s remedy, which removes local control of zoning codes, a consequence that serves as motivation for cities. 

Builder’s remedy is effectively a rubber stamp for developers during the time that a city is out of compliance with state regulations, creating an opportunity for builders to submit projects that aren’t subject to height or density regulations. 

“I think it would be accurate to say that the result in Fairfax is at least partially the result of the builder’s regime looming over,” Casey said. 

Other California cities have dealt with the effects of builder’s remedy in the last few years.

Santa Monica ultimately came to an agreement with a developer that proposed more than a dozen projects totaling 4,000 units while the city was out of compliance. The deal reduces the size of the projects, bringing them more in line with what residents say they want.

In Beverly Hills, 13 projects ranging from eight to 20 stories were proposed while the city was out of compliance. The projects would add about 1,300 new multifamily units, roughly 10% of the city’s existing stock. In some cases, projects of 20 stories were proposed where four stories would normally be the height limit.

The city of Beverly Hills tried many avenues to push back on the projects but had approved five of them as of late October.

Still, voters are seeking to oust those who they feel are approaching these goals in the wrong ways.

In San Francisco, Engardio represented District 4, a neighborhood of primarily single-family homes, which would be impacted by Mayor Daniel Lurie’s upzoning plan, which Engardio supported. 

Just as the San Francisco Planning Commission voted to approve Lurie’s initiative, Engardio was kicked out. 

Lurie’s program aims to increase housing density to meet the state-mandated housing target of building 82,000 units by 2031. Lurie’s rezoning plan would add capacity for roughly 36,000 units.

“One way to look at what's happening in San Francisco with the family zoning plan is that it's this unfair burden that targets the west and north sides of San Francisco,” said Jane Natoli, YIMBY Action San Francisco organizing director. “Another side of that same point is that this is merely restoring the possibilities that used to be there 50-plus years ago.” 

District 4 includes some neighborhoods that haven't seen zoning changes since the mid-20th century and have added very little housing since then. Those areas represent more than 50% of the city’s land but only 10% of new housing built in the last 15 years. 

San Francisco has struggled to bring new inventory online in the last two years, building only 2,066 new units in 2023 and 1,453 units in 2024 for a total of 3,519, or about 4% of the target. Nearly 7,300 units had been authorized by the city at the end of 2024. 

Much of the mayor’s plan calls for “gentle density,” allowing four-story structures in residential neighborhoods and five-story ones in some neighborhood shopping districts. But Engardio’s constituents, largely older Asian American homeowners, worried about high-density apartment buildings changing the character of the neighborhood and pricing out longtime residents. 

“Housing is a pretty big example of an area where there's a motivated minority of folks who don't like it,” Natoli said. “If they can get to a special election that not a lot of people participate in, then it can favor them in a recall. People threaten them all the time, and it could have a chilling effect.”

In District 7, activists plan to target Supervisor Myrna Melgar for a recall should she vote in favor of the mayor’s zoning initiative on Jan. 31. Although a core group of five organizers, emboldened by the success of the Engardio campaign, announced their intention to explore the recall option, no petition has been filed. 

In Suisun City in June, the council voted to explore annexing up to 22,000 acres owned by California Forever, the billionaire-backed group that spent $1B to acquire 68,000 acres of mostly grassland. 

Opponents of the plan say the deal sidesteps voter approval and revives a project Solano County voters already rejected. In July, California Forever announced the first phase of the Suisun City project, a manufacturing park that would include homes for up to 400,000 people. In August, all five Suisun City Council members were served with notices of intent to recall.

James Berg, who is spearheading the recall effort, told the Daily Republic that the city had “seemingly succumbed to Sacramento’s housing agenda” to close the city’s projected $1M budget deficit. 

“The state now puts the local elected officials in a situation where they're going to be making controversial decisions, and sometimes voters are going to respond by using the recall process,” said Mark Baldassare, public policy chair at the Public Policy Institute of California. 

The result could be a chilling effect, both on housing development and those considering running for office. Fairfax’s Blash and Hellman said they won’t run for reelection. 

“In order for housing development to work, you need some level of predictability with where you're allowed to develop housing,” Casey said. “I think in a lot of these places, they would very much rather exercise some local control over where the housing goes.”