San Francisco’s housing status quo was dealt a blow on Tuesday as the Board of Supervisors debated whether to approve Mayor Daniel Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan. It passed in a 7 to 4 vote along the board’s traditional factional lines. The contentious debate marked the first full board meeting for newly appointed Supervisor Alan Wong in District 4, who voiced his support for the plan.
A last-minute motion from District 2 Supervisor Connie Chan to add a further amendment exempting all rent-controlled properties from upzoning was overruled by the majority of supervisors, who cited the urgent need to meet state deadlines.
Newly sworn-in Supervisor Wong said he supported the plan, explaining that homes in the Sunset now cost $2 million and the city needs “more options for in-laws.”
Meant to alleviate San Francisco’s housing shortage and meet a state mandate to add at least 82,000 new housing units by 2031, the Family Zoning Plan would permit significantly taller buildings to be constructed throughout the city near major thoroughfares. Neighborhoods most at risk of change are the north and west sides, such as the Marina and Sunset. The board was charged with approving the plan by January 2026 to meet state requirements or risk losing control over local development and potentially $110 million annually in state funding for affordable housing and transit.
Supervisor Myrna Melgar of District 7 acknowledged the plan was “not perfect” and wouldn’t solve the housing crisis alone, but called it “absolutely necessary” to meet state requirements. She also noted that it would undo what she characterized as past policy mistakes by the city.
“In 1978, we downzoned the West Side and some of the north side of San Francisco, and concentrated all development to the East Side neighborhoods … [it] led to a more segregated city,” She told colleagues. “Every social determinant of health, infant mortality, school test scores, all these things are better on the West Side and the north side of our city than in the east side of town. Some colleagues have talked about this rezoning, pitting the west side against the east side of San Francisco. I would say we did that in 1978. In this rezoning, we are building a more equitable and accessible tomorrow.”
District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey said San Francisco “needs to survive into the 21st century,” arguing the plan would protect rent control while encouraging housing near transit.
District 3 Supervisor Danny Sauter defended the proposal after what he described as a years-long process with significant amendments, saying “a vote against the Family Zoning Plan is a vote for the status quo.” He argued it would make San Francisco more affordable and noted, “to love S.F. is to want to share it.… My own apartment in North Beach would be illegal to build today because it is ‘too dense.’”
Also in support was Supervisor Stephen Sherrill of District 2. He noted that San Francisco has the lowest number of children and the fastest aging population. “We need a future, a plan,” he said, expressing support for making the city more accessible to families.
But opposition emerged from several supervisors representing districts with significant numbers of rent-controlled units. District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan expressed concerns about protecting approximately 20,000 rent-controlled units in the Richmond District, proposing amendments and saying she couldn’t support the plan without modifications. “If we don’t … how will we determine our fate?” she asked.
Supervisor Shamann Walton of District 10 argued the plan wouldn’t adequately protect rent-controlled housing from demolition, saying “losing just one unit is arbitrary, but 20,000 is a crisis.” He said there were “still too many issues to support in good conscience” without actual locations, financing packages, and guarantees that would not displace families and businesses.
District 11 Supervisor Chyanne Chen emphasized the need for “the right kind of housing” with protections for small businesses. “Let’s not harm existing San Franciscans,” she said, opposing the plan in its current form while standing “with families, seniors, tenants.”
District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder questioned why wealthy areas like Sea Cliff and “billionaires’ row” weren’t included in the rezoning. She withheld full backing without addressing what she called unintended consequences for “working-class, students, artists, low-income” residents.
Supervisor Bilal Mahmood of District 5 defended the plan against what he termed “fear mongering,” arguing it would make it easier to add housing and improve affordability with “little to no development on the west side.”
Newly sworn-in Supervisor Wong said he supported the plan, explaining that homes in the Sunset now cost $2 million and the city needs “more options for in-laws.” He committed to listening to community feedback but was adamant that no state deadlines be broken.
Board President Rafael Mandelman, who represents District 8, voted in favor but continued to voice concerns about protecting historic sites from upzoning.
“Density can make our planning of [our] transportation systems better. Density, of course, can help address our housing crisis. But I worry in a densely built-out historic city that we could lose some of the historic resources that are really important to our neighborhoods to the character of our city, and I don’t think we want to do that,” he said. “Given the current state of our laws, we need to get ahead of this sooner rather than later.”
Immediately after the majority vote to advance his Family Zoning Plan, Mayor Lurie issued a statement:
“Across our city, families are struggling to pay rent or hoping for an opportunity to buy a home where they can raise their kids. As elected leaders, we must do everything we can to help them, and the Board of Supervisors has taken an important step to do that today. Our Family Zoning Plan will allow us to build more homes so that kids growing up here can one day raise their own families in San Francisco.
“This city’s affordability crisis has left too many young people, workers, and seniors unsure if they’ll be able to stay in the place they love. With this plan, we will add affordable housing, support small businesses, and protect the character of the neighborhoods that make San Francisco so special.
“San Franciscans should decide what gets built in San Francisco — I don’t want to hand control to Sacramento, and the supervisors made it clear today that they agree. With today’s vote to advance the Family Zoning plan, we’re keeping control of what gets built in our city.”
Will the Family Zoning Plan face community opposition and legal battles, though? Most certainly.
On Monday, during the last committee meeting on the Family Zoning Plan and at the end of public comment, Bridget Maley, a leader at Neighborhoods United S.F., a citywide group organized to oppose the plan, testified that their lawyers had sent a letter to board members “with detailed exhibits” asking the body to defer any decision on rezoning “until the city Planning Department prepares a supplemental environmental impact report,” thus telegraphing intentions to meet the city’s decision with a lawsuit.
“A rezoning of this magnitude requires thorough environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, so that the city’s residents and decision makers can be aware of impacts … before making irreversible changes to the city’s urban and historic landscape,” Maley told the Land Use Committee. “The (environmental) review conducted to date is highly inadequate.”
In the meantime, Mayor Lurie and the city’s YIMBY activists can claim victory — for now.
Mike Ege contributed to this report.