Family Zoning Plan Advances With Amendments

The Facts

During its first formal consideration of Mayor Lurie's Family Zoning Plan, the Board's Land Use Committee heard a slate of amendments that would significantly alter the proposal. The most substantial change came from Supervisor Myrna Melgar, whose rent-control exemption amendment would exempt buildings with three or more rent-controlled units from upzoning—cordoning off roughly 84,000 units in 11,700 buildings from potential redevelopment.

Supervisors Stephen Sherrill and Danny Sauter proposed incentives for two- and three-bedroom units, while Board President Rafael Mandelman sought stronger protections for historic buildings, according to Gabe Greschler at the SF Standard. Progressive Supervisors Chyanne Chen and Connie Chan introduced amendments to exempt some low-income areas and add anti-demolition rules.

The Context

The plan, which would create capacity for roughly 36,000 new homes, is San Francisco's strategy to meet a state-mandated housing goal. The city faces a January 2026 deadline to pass a compliant rezoning plan or risk a state takeover of local housing approvals and the loss of significant state funding.

The GrowSF Take

The Supervisors are playing with fire. The amendments could severely undermine the plan's effectiveness: by exempting a large portion of existing housing stock, the city risks falling short of its housing goals and facing state intervention.

The state will not care why San Francisco fails to meet its legal obligations, even if the reasons are well-intentioned. All that matters is whether San Francisco builds, and these additional hurdles will only slow down development and raise the risk of a state takeover.

Some pro-housing advocates invite the meddling, however. If the local plan fails due to NIMBY opposition, a state takeover will allow developers to build whatever they want, wherever they want it, without the constraints of local politics. The opponents to the family zoning plan don't seem to understand the only two options on the table: either they accept more housing with local oversight, or they risk losing all local control.