San Francisco voters could have a chance to decide the city’s development future this November in an election that could include ballot measures on subjects ranging from a moratorium on luxury housing construction in the Mission to plans for condos, apartments, stores and restaurants on the parking lot of the Giants’ stadium.

While it’s unclear how many development measures will be on the fall ballot, after a passionate 10-hour Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, the potential number is growing.

After the supervisors rejected the plan to temporarily block construction of high-priced apartments and condominiums in the Mission District, disappointed residents vowed to collect the 9,711 signatures necessary to take the proposed moratorium to the voters.

Voters already are being asked to approve — or reject — an over-the-limit building height increase for the Giants’ proposed 28-acre mixed-use development south of AT&T Park. The development, backed by Mayor Ed Lee, calls for 1,500 units of housing, including three roughly 22-story buildings.

But Supervisor Jane Kim has talked about putting a competing measure on the ballot to slash the height of the buildings and require the Giants to up the amount of affordable housing the project provides from 33 percent to 50 percent.

Then there’s the mayor’s proposed $250 million housing bond, which Supervisor John Avalos says is only half of the $500 million needed. The two could go toe-to-toe on the ballot unless the mayor agrees to a compromise.

Add to that a possible challenge to vacation rentals in San Francisco, as a group called Share Better SF is seeking a ballot measure that would drastically curb the controversial practice of turning homes into impromptu hotels. The group argues that short-term rentals make it harder to find permanent affordable housing in the city.

Arena opponents’ plan

If all those ballot measures weren’t enough, opponents of the proposed Warriors arena in Mission Bay have said they will tie up the development by taking it to court or challenging it via a ballot measure.

All of this represents a boiling political stew underscoring the city’s dire housing needs and differing visions for how best to solve the city’s development woes.

“The reason there are so many measures is because we are in crisis,” said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of SPUR, an urban planning think tank. “Everyone agrees that we should build more affordable housing, but there is a fundamental divide about what strategies are going to work.”

The city has a long history of trying to resolve development fights at the ballot box. In 1986, for example, voters approved a law capping the amount of new office space allowed at 875,000 square feet per year. But the measure couldn’t stem the development tide brought by the dot-com boom, when Internet firms circumvented the cap by converting warehouses and industrial sites into so-called “business services” facilities.

Top issue is housing

In 2000, progressives pushed Proposition L, a ballot measure to ban office construction in the South of Market, Mission and Potrero Hill areas, and halt it in Bayview-Hunters Point until a community planning process was completed. Voters narrowly rejected the measure.

Now the most significant issue facing the city is housing. If past elections are an indication, it’s impossible to say where voters will come down.

In 2014, they overwhelmingly passed Proposition K, an advisory measure that makes it city policy that at least one-third of new housing units should be affordable to low- and moderate-income households, and half within reach of middle-class San Franciscans. They also approved a measure requiring voter approval of any development on port property that exceeds existing height limits. But they rejected an antispeculation measure.

‘Pick my view’

“I think you are going to see a lot more of these dueling ballot measures because, with credibility, you can point to all sides in these fights and say, ‘I can take it to voters and they will pick my view,’” said Corey Cook, a politics professor at the University of San Francisco.

On one end of the spectrum was Supervisor David Campos’ measure to temporarily halt construction of market-rate residential buildings in the Mission. On Tuesday, the board voted 7-4 in favor, but the measure still fell short of the nine votes it needed to pass as an “interim emergency ordinance.”

Political consultant Eric Jaye said voters would easily reject the proposal if it goes on the November ballot.

“Voters really don’t understand their dogma about building less housing to address the housing challenge,” he said. “The city needs more housing of all types. Because one neighborhood says we are not going to accept more housing, it wouldn’t be fair to say to other neighborhoods they have to accept more.”

But Jim Stearns, a longtime political consultant who has advised many of the city’s progressive candidates and causes, said he believed the measure could have a fighting chance at winning — depending on how the issue is framed.

‘It has a chance’

“I think it has a chance if the advocates can make their case to the public it’s about preserving land, as opposed to stopping building,” Stearns said. “If the measure’s known as the ‘Mission District Land Preservation for Affordable Housing’ it would pass overwhelmingly. It it’s known as ‘the Mission Moratorium,’ I think they have a real fight on their hands.”

The fight over short-term rentals will also test the scope of voters’ vision of what San Francisco’s future will look like.

The ballot measure proposed by Share Better SF would cap all vacation rentals at 75 nights a year and impose steep fines on companies like Airbnb or HomeAway for listing rentals that don’t comply with city law.

But many San Franciscans say they rely on short-term rentals to pay their rent and subsidize their livelihood in an increasingly expensive city.

“There is no easy answer, unfortunately,” Metcalf said.

Emily Green is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: egreen@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @emilytgreen

Ballot battles

The November ballot could be a free-for-all to decide the direction of development in the city. While it will be months before the lineup is set, here are some possibilities:

Housing bonds: Mayor Ed Lee wants a $250 million housing bond on the ballot, but Supervisor John Avalos says $500 million is needed.

Giants development: The Giants will ask voters to OK expanded height limits for their proposed 28-acre development south of AT&T Park, but Supervisor Jane Kim has a competing plan to halve the height of the buildings and boost the amount of affordable housing.

Short-term rentals: Share Better SF wants a ballot measure to drastically curb the short-term rental of existing homes and apartments.

Building moratorium: A group called Our Mission, No Eviction says it will push a ballot measure to temporarily block construction of high-priced apartments and condominiums in the Mission.

Warriors arena: Opponents of the proposed Warriors arena in Mission Bay have threatened to challenge it with a ballot measure.