They could certainly make arguments about "urban beautification", "community involvement", and other "progressive" causes. Unless of course those arent true progressives.
I don't think that either of these are examples of progressive politics in San Francisco. The city is not being beautified, it is being kept the same and not allowed to be beautified. All comparisons with the rest of the US would place San Francisco as more conservative on beautification than progressive.
Similarly, it's not the community that's involved in these decisions, it's a veto system where only those with abundant time and resources can be heard and have influence in the system, further cementing economic privilege rather than making it more equitable or democratic. For recent academic investigations of this, check out the book Neighborhood Defenders by Katherine Einstein et al:
I don't understand what definition of "progressive" you're using here, if you think that putting pretty names on oppressive policies constitutes "progressivism".
