Two district City Councilors were the only elected officials to speak in favor of a controversial plan to rezone Downtown.

The Planning Department Board passed PLAN: Downtown, a zoning amendment intended to bring more high-rises to Downtown, at its September meeting this past month. Community opposition to this amendment has been vocal. The Board passed it 4-1.

Most of the elected officials who spoke at that meeting strongly opposed the amendment. The two that supported it were Sharon Durkan, who represents multiple neighborhoods but not Downtown, and Gabriela Coletta Zapata, who covers the traditional “Financial District.”

Durkan, who said she is the only councilor who lives in a Downtown neighborhood, supported the plan because she believed it set clear expectations for housing and would help drive tourism and foot traffic, which would in turn increase safety, a major concern for Downtown this past year. She also said the new plan would support new jobs in construction. Some of the most fervent supporters of the plan have been labor unions.

“I know that housing affordability and availability is one of the top issues I hear from my constituents,” Durkan said who lives on Beacon Hill. “While some have expressed frustration at the process, and they didn’t feel heard, I see clear evidence that resident input has shaped the draft before us today. This plan strikes a balance between much needed housing and investment while preserving the scale of our historic districts and integrity of our parks.”

Durkan’s constituents live in the Back Bay, the Fenway and Beacon Hill. She could not be reached for comment.

Coletta Zapata said that she supported the proposal “solely within the confines of District 1,” in the Financial District where residents have expressed no opposition to height.The now approved amendment comes after eight months of tenuous back-and-forth between the Planning Department and a variety of community stakeholders. The Department’s stated goal was to make development in Downtown easier, in theory to help with the housing crisis. But residents were concerned about the impact on massive high-rises on historic structures and parks, as well as the fact that most housing developments under the plan would likely not be affordable.

City Councilor Ed Flynn, who represents Downtown, and City Councilor At-Large Erin Murphy both strongly opposed the plan at the Board meeting.

“The plan still lacks enforceable commitments to onsite affordable housing, workforce housing or middle-income housing,” Murphy said. “Boston faces a worsening housing crisis and new development must contribute meaningfully to housing affordability rather than primarily benefiting developers.”

City Councilor At-Large Julia Mejia did not take a formal position but said that residents had told her they were not happy, and that she thought there was an opportunity for the Board to pause and reconsider.

The two other at-large councilors, Ruthzee Louijeune and Henry Santana, did not attend the meeting and do not appear to have taken positions on the amendment. They did not respond to requests for comment.

A number of state level officials also oppose the amendment, including State Representative Jay Livingstone, who does not directly represent Downtown but is heavily involved with greenspace groups like the Friends of the Public Garden, State Representative Aaron Michlewitz, and State Senator Nick Collins. A staffer for State Senator Lydia Edwards, who represents parts of Suffolk County including Downtown at the state level, said that after careful consideration, she had decided not to take a position on the amendment.

“Each approval going forward is going to be a political process,” Livingstone said in a phone call after the meeting. “Make sure that your elected officials know that the goal is to protect these essential green spaces and ask them to weigh in and make sure that future development doesn’t infringe on these spaces, so the future generations can enjoy them as well as we do today.”