On a crisp October evening, residents of District 2 filled the pews of Calvary Presbyterian.
The church was tense before the meeting began. The town hall with District 2 Supervisor Stephen Sherrill and Director of the Citywide Planning Division, Rachael Tanner, was convened to discuss Mayor Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan and its implications for District 2’s residents, landmarks, and character.
Many attendees submitted written questions for Supervisor Sherrill, eager to press him on San Francisco’s proposed Family Zoning Plan.
“How is he going to keep the charm in San Francisco neighborhoods while supporting 20-story buildings nestled with the Victorians?” one resident, who asked to remain anonymous said before the meeting.
The plan is part of the city’s effort to bring families and essential workers — teachers, police officers, firefighters — back to San Francisco through new housing production. But with only 10 to 15 percent of units designated as affordable, residents questioned how it would achieve that goal while preserving the historic character of their neighborhoods.
For longtime resident Fran Lucco, the stakes felt personal. “I want housing for my grandchildren. I want housing for my sister. I want housing for everyone,” she said. “I’m from the ’60s — I don’t want to discriminate between the rich and the poor. I want us to come together like the Beatles.” Her comments drew cheers and briefly lightened the room’s tension.
Supervisor Sherrill opened with a personal anecdote about his young family, setting a family-focused tone and framing the proposal as “the most San Francisco-centric plan possible.” He said it aims to expand housing options for families while keeping local control over development, outlining four priorities: affordable housing, childcare access, small-business protection, and “keeping that San Francisco magic.”
The Family Zoning Plan is part of San Francisco’s required compliance with California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) mandate, which requires the city to plan for about 82,000 new homes by 2031. Planning Department representative Rachael Tanner noted the city built about 24,000 units in the previous eight-year cycle — short of its 29,000-unit goal. The new plan would create zoning capacity for approximately 36,000 additional homes, mainly in the city’s northern and western neighborhoods, with District 2 among the most affected.
“You can’t please everyone. If 75 percent like the plan and 25 percent don’t, it’s about synthesizing the two.”
— Supervisor Stephen Sherrill
Tanner warned that missing those targets could trigger the state’s “builder’s remedy,” which allows developers to bypass local controls. “We feel like we don’t have control over our future,” she said. “It’s really important that we keep control of our future.”
Still, residents questioned whether the plan’s name matched its promise. “When we talk about increasing affordable housing, does that mean for families, police, firefighters, or teachers? Who fits into that category?” one District 2 resident asked.
Sherrill acknowledged the limits of zoning alone. “Depending on the size of the building, 10 to 15 percent [will be affordable], but we need more funding to make it happen,” he said. “We can’t say this zoning plan will lead to affordability on its own — it creates opportunity.”
When asked how success would be measured, Sherrill said it should not be judged by zoning alone but by whether it jump-starts the city’s stalled housing pipeline. “We haven’t done enough to get that moving,” he said.
While some attendees supported higher density to address the housing shortage, others voiced concern about livability in long-established neighborhoods. Residents asked how new development would affect parking, tree coverage, and views. “Views should be preserved for everyone’s enjoyment, not just current homeowners,” one attendee said. Sherrill replied that the plan would likely have “limited impact to views, if any.”
The plan’s defenders say it balances preservation with the city’s legal housing obligations. Most areas would retain a 40-foot height limit, with moderate increases along major corridors. The city refers to this approach as “form-based zoning,” which regulates design standards rather than specific building types.
When asked whether he risked losing support from constituents opposed to the plan, Sherrill said compromise was unavoidable. “You can’t please everyone,” he said. “If 75 percent like the plan and 25 percent don’t, it’s about synthesizing the two.”
The Family Zoning Plan remains in draft form. City officials said public hearings and revisions will continue through early 2026 before any final adoption. Sherrill closed by reaffirming that zoning alone will not solve San Francisco’s affordability crisis but is a necessary first step. “The process doesn’t end with zoning,” he said. “It’s one step toward affordability — and toward giving families a chance to stay.”
Susannah Stark is a student at the Graduate School of Journalism at U.C. Berkeley.