San Francisco Supervisors Pass Rezoning Plan, Making Way for Taller, Denser Housing

San Francisco will allow taller and more dense buildings in some residential and commercial corridors after the Board of Supervisors approved the mayor’s Family Zoning Plan on Tuesday.

The controversial plan aims to create capacity for 36,000 new units, particularly in the quiet and residential neighborhoods on the west and north sides of the city, which have resisted major housing changes for decades. It comes as the state is mandating that the city make way for new homes to keep up with population changes and affordability challenges.

“Too many families and young people are wondering if they’ll be able to stay in the city they call home,” Mayor Daniel Lurie said in a statement. “Our Family Zoning plan will help us add housing, protect small businesses, and maintain the character of the neighborhoods that make San Francisco so special.”

The Family Zoning Plan passed 7–4, with supervisors Rafael Mandelman, Bilal Mahmood, Myrna Melgar, Danny Sauter, Matt Dorsey, Stephen Sherrill and Alan Wong voting yes; Supervisors Jackie Fielder, Chyanne Chen, Connie Chan and Shamann Walton voted no.

The rezoning initiative is one of the first-term mayor’s key legislative tests as a political newcomer. It had widespread support from Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) advocates, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Apartment Association, the urban policy nonprofit SPUR and the Bay Area Council, who stress the need for more housing to boost affordability for future generations.

A one-bedroom in the city now rents for more than $3,200 a month, according to Zillow, more than twice the national average.

“The Family Zoning Plan reflects a city that welcomes families, builds for the future, and supports neighborhoods where everyone can afford to stay and put down roots,” said Graeme Joeck, director of advocacy for Abundant San Francisco, in a statement. The pro-housing group has been cultivating support for the plan for months, including at house parties, picnics and flyering on sidewalks.

But critics of the plan, including neighborhood groups and tenants’ rights activists, point out that it does little to actually produce affordable housing, and contend it invites real estate speculation that risks pushing out low-income families and small businesses while disrupting neighborhood charm.

“This does not solve the affordability crisis that we have in San Francisco,” said Chen, who represents the Excelsior neighborhood. “We shouldn’t have to be reminded of the harm that redevelopment did to communities in the past.”

Richard Toshiyuki Drury, an environmental attorney, submitted a letter to the Board on behalf of the local group Neighborhoods United ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

“The rezone opens up thousands of rent-controlled units for high-density, market-rate development, virtually ensuring that thousands of low-income residents will be displaced to make way for luxury housing,” it read.

Other groups said the city isn’t offering enough resources for businesses that could be forced to relocate or close because of new development.

“If a small business were to call the Office of Small Business today with a request for assistance from a non-renewal of their lease, there are no immediate grants or loans available through the envisioned construction mitigation fund,” said Nick Parker, owner of Mercury Cafe and a board member of the progressive business coalition Small Business Forward, in a statement.

Analyses of the plan suggest mixed results for the actual amount of housing the plan might lead to, due to economic constraints and costs. Supervisors at Tuesday’s meeting acknowledged that rezoning alone won’t fix the city’s housing problems and said that funding and enhanced financing mechanisms are equally essential to opening new units.

Over the last few months, supervisors have put forward amendments to the plan in an effort to limit displacement, protect small businesses and local landmarks, and alleviate other concerns residents have raised in community forums.

“For months, my team and I have worked with the supervisors and communities across the city to make sure this plan meets our state obligations in a way that works for our neighborhoods,” Lurie said. “I am grateful to all the residents and leaders who came to those events, shared their feedback, and helped us strengthen this plan.”

Supervisor Melgar’s proposal to exempt buildings with three or more rent-controlled units from demolition was included in the plan passed on Tuesday. The exemption will shield about 80,000 rent control units from demolition. Some rent-controlled units could still potentially be bulldozed to make way for denser development, but that would first require approval from the Planning Commission.

“The southeast side of the city, including the Mission District, has seen vastly more market-rate development than well-resourced parts of San Francisco,” said Fielder, whose district includes the Mission. “In the Mission District, this has meant the displacement of around 12,000 Latinos.”

Chan, who represents the Richmond District, made a last-minute push on Tuesday for an amendment to protect all rent-controlled units from demolition, but it failed to pass by a 7–4 margin. Supervisors opposing the change said it risked putting the plan out of compliance with the state by removing units from the plan.

“I’m disappointed where we are at,” Chan said at Tuesday’s meeting. “I’m disappointed that we are not choosing the path to negotiate or frankly even fight some of these [state] mandates.”

In 1978, San Francisco downzoned swaths of the city to limit housing construction on the west side while concentrating most new development to east-side neighborhoods like South of Market and the Mission.

The new plan changes zoning rules for about 96,000 parcels, but does not upzone universally across the city. It enables moderate height increases of two to four additional stories, primarily near transit lines or other commercial corridors on the west side. It also allows for high rises between 12 and 65 stories on select major thoroughfares, such as Van Ness Avenue, Market Street and Geary Boulevard.

“I have always been supportive of bringing more housing options to my district,” Melgar said. “The west and north side of the city built very little housing … In this rezoning, we are building a more equitable and accessible tomorrow.”

City officials were facing a state mandate to pass the rezoning plan by Jan. 31, 2026. Overall, the city must add 82,062 additional housing units for different income levels by 2031. That total can include the roughly 43,000 units that are approved and at various stages of development.

State law also requires at least 15% of new homes to be affordable, which is a family of four earning less than $156,650 in San Francisco, according to income limits set by the state.

But if the city fails to pass a rezoning plan, the state could withhold funding for housing and other public services, and could also remove local decision-making around development projects.

Throughout the meeting, supervisors across the political spectrum acknowledged the importance of remaining in compliance with the state and supported incentivizing housing development that keeps families in the city and makes room for more.

“Do we choose to pull up the ladder behind us because we already have our slice of San Francisco?” said Sauter, who represents North Beach.

Wong, the 38-year-old Sunset District resident who was appointed by Lurie as the District 4 representative to the Board of Supervisors on Monday following the ousting of former Supervisor Joel Engardio, said he will consider introducing legislation that could address some residents’ concerns, but that he supports the plan because it allows the city to maintain local control over the housing-production process.

“If we don’t offer our own solution, Sacramento will dictate zoning for us, and we will lose local control, which is unacceptable,” Wong said. “At the same time, it is my commitment to follow through with trailing legislation and potential amendments as I gather feedback as I begin my term as supervisor for this district.”