San Francisco voters will consider ten local measures on November 3, 2026. Four of them — Propositions A, D, E, and F — would amend the City Charter in ways that affect land use entitlement and development. These proposals, largely developed out of SPUR’s 2025 Charter for Change report, would not amend the Planning Code or change the substantive standards for development approvals, but would reallocate authority over the City bodies that process, condition, and enforce those approvals and certain real property transactions.
This post addresses these measures in four general categories:
- How future land use policy reaches the ballot
- Appointing and removing department heads and commissioners who oversee entitlements
- City requirements that can be amended by ordinance rather than Charter amendments
- How the City approves contracts and certain real property transactions
Future Land Use Policy at the Ballot
Proposition D: Changes to Ballot Measure Process
Proposition D would raise the signature threshold for citizen initiative ordinances from 2 to 8 percent of registered voters (from roughly 10,600 to 42,500 signatures). The threshold to qualify for a special election would rise from 10 percent of votes cast for Mayor to 10 percent of registered voters (from roughly 39,000 to 53,100 signatures). It would also require a majority of the Board of Supervisors — six members rather than four — to place an ordinance or declaration of policy on the ballot, eliminate the Mayor’s unilateral authority to do so, and allow proponents to withdraw a qualified initiative up to 102 days before the election.
Why it matters. San Francisco land use policy has frequently been set by initiative ordinances qualified at the 2 percent threshold. Unlike the legislative process, which allows for consensus-building, adjustment prior to adoption, and later amendment, an ordinance approved by voter-qualified measure can generally be changed only by another vote. Proposition A separately authorizes the Board to amend a short list of specified initiative ordinances, but voter-adopted land use ordinances would remain amendable only by the voters unless those ordinances provide otherwise. The net effect is a higher barrier to legislating land use at the ballot, without loosening existing voter-adopted controls.
Mayoral Authority Over Planning, Building Inspection, and Public Works
Proposition F: Changes to Executive Branch Management
Under the current Charter, a commission generally nominates at least three candidates for a department head position, the Mayor appoints from that list, and the commission holds removal authority. Critics say this split blurs accountability: the Mayor appoints the Planning Director, for example, but removal authority rests with the Planning Commission.
Proposition F would convert six departments to full mayoral appointment, including Planning, the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), and Public Works. It would also amend the Charter to authorize the Mayor to “appoint and remove” department heads and delete the provision that makes removal the commission’s duty. The Budget and Legislative Analyst calculates that the Mayor’s sole appointment authority would increase from five to eleven department heads, and removal authority would increase from five to twenty-seven.
Proposition F would also change commissioner tenure. Today, most board and commission members may be removed only for official misconduct. Under the measure, most would serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority — either the Mayor or Board of Supervisors.
Finally, the Mayor could transfer duties between executive branch departments or merge departments, effective 30 days after notice unless disapproved by the Board of Supervisors. Charter-assigned duties may be transferred but not eliminated. The measure excludes the transfer of duties of certain officers and entities, including the City Administrator, Controller, Board of Appeals, Port, and Airport.
Why it matters. In January 2026, the Mayor announced a plan to combine Planning, DBI, and the Permit Center into a single organization. Because DBI and the Building Inspection Commission (BIC) are established in the Charter, DBI’s administrative and information technology functions can move into Planning this fiscal year, but its Charter-mandated core services and BIC oversight must remain intact.
If Proposition F passes, the Mayor could move DBI’s core services into a fully integrated permitting department and oversight now performed by the BIC could be transferred to the Planning Commission. Review that now runs separately through Planning and DBI, each with its own process and timeline, could then be coordinated within one organization rather than managed by applicants across departments.
Moving City Requirements From the Charter to the Administrative Code
Proposition A: Charter Changes Affecting Various City Departments and Commissions
Proposition A is the Board of Supervisors’ cleanup measure, sponsored by Supervisor Mandelman. The measure, which would change more than 130 Charter provisions, is largely housekeeping intended to simplify and modernize the Charter.
Among other things, it would move multiple Charter sections into the Administrative Code, where the Board could amend, consolidate, or eliminate them by ordinance without returning to the voters.
Consistent with the Commission Streamlining Task Force’s work, Proposition A would also eliminate the Sanitation and Streets Commission and the Public Works Commission, leaving the Department of Public Works without a separate oversight commission. It also removes the requirement that the Planning Department consult the City Administrator in preparing area and neighborhood plans that implement the General Plan, to help streamline the process.
Why it matters. San Francisco’s Charter covers a great deal of operational detail — commission composition, hearing procedures, reporting obligations — that most jurisdictions place in the municipal code, so even a minor procedural fix requires a citywide ballot measure. Proposition A’s transfers are modest and mostly outside the land use bodies, but they establish a template: moving provisions to the Administrative Code allows the Board to make changes through the legislative process, where a proposal can be noticed, heard, amended, and revisited if it does not work as intended.
Contracts and City Real Property
Proposition E: City Administrator’s Authority and Changes to City Contracting
Proposition E would extend the City Administrator’s term from five years to ten and centralize procurement authority in that office. The City Administrator would have exclusive authority to introduce most procurement-related ordinances, along with authority over procurement rules and regulations and direction of citywide information technology. Notably, “procurement” excludes development agreements and agreements for the acquisition, disposition, or lease of real property, and the City Administrator’s exclusive introduction power does not extend to ordinances on contractor wage and benefit standards, local business utilization, or project labor agreements.
The measure would also raise the dollar thresholds that determine which contracts, leases, and contract amendments must come to the Board of Supervisors for approval — for example, from $10 million to $25 million in anticipated City expenditures, and from $1 million to $4.5 million in anticipated revenue to the City — and would adjust those thresholds for inflation every five years beginning in 2032. Amendments would require Board approval only if they increase the amount by 50 percent or more. Transactions below the thresholds would be handled and approved administratively. However, leases with a term of ten years or more and any sale or other transfer of City-owned real property would still require Board approval regardless of dollar amount.
Proposition A also includes a provision, effective only if Proposition E passes, authorizing the City Administrator to conduct long-term real estate strategic planning and to negotiate and manage acquisitions, leases, and conveyances of real property owned, controlled, or used by the City. That authority would remain subject to Board approval requirements and would not apply to the Airport, Port, Public Utilities Commission, or Municipal Transportation Agency.
Why it matters. Higher thresholds mean fewer City contracts and smaller leases reach the Board of Supervisors, which shortens approval timelines for parties contracting with the City and removes a public hearing step.
If approved, these measures would leave the land use entitlement process itself intact while changing who within City government decides, and how quickly those decisions can be made or revisited.
The Coblentz Real Estate Team advises developers, owners, and investors on San Francisco land use approvals and City transactions. Please contact us with questions about how these measures may affect a particular project or transaction.
