by Nick Ferris
THERE’S NOTHING “FAMILY” ABOUT IT: THE TRUTH BEHIND THE SO-CALLED “FAMILY ZONING” PLAN
Hello, THD:
Our neighborhood is facing two major pieces of legislation that could fundamentally reshape the fabric of our community. The first is Mayor Daniel Lurie’s San Francisco Family Zoning Plan, a sweeping proposal that would upzone large portions of San Francisco under the banner of helping families. The second is Supervisor Danny Sauter’s “District 3 Thrives” legislation, focused on revitalizing our small-business corridors. In this issue, I’ve chosen to focus on Mayor Lurie’s plan because it is, quite simply, one of the most significant and potentially consequential pieces of land-use legislation I have seen in years. In an upcoming column, I will share my perspective on the “District 3 Thrives” legislation. I only mention it to make you aware because most residents and small businesses have never heard of it.
The Mayor’s recently announced “Family Zoning” proposal arrives with a warm and welcoming name. Who could oppose something designed to help families stay in San Francisco? Yet behind the branding, the proposal has little to do with families and everything to do with upzoning large portions of The City. It represents a far-reaching change in how our neighborhoods are planned and protected, dressed up in the language of affordability and inclusion. Having grown up in San Francisco and seen many friends and families pushed out due to affordability, I find it very easy to see through this plan.
San Franciscans deserve an honest conversation about what this proposal really is. “Family Zoning” may sound benign, even wholesome, but, in reality, it is a massive deregulation of neighborhood zoning controls that would allow larger, taller, and denser buildings in many parts of the city, without any requirement that they serve families at all. This “family zoning” does not ensure affordability and certainly does not protect families.
The Proposal
Let’s start with what the proposal actually does. The mayor’s plan removes long-standing local limits on height, bulk, and unit density. It replaces neighborhood-based zoning rules with a new “form-based” code. It’s an approach that determines how tall and wide a building can be, rather than how many homes it might contain. On paper, this might sound technical and quite reasonable, but the result is simple: Developers could build far more units and taller buildings on the same lot than ever before, so long as they fit within a prescribed outer “shell.”
That shell, however, is incredibly elastic. What do I mean? These proposals, when combined with state density bonuses and The City’s own local incentives, “form-based” zoning effectively opens the door to tower-scale development on parcels previously limited to mid-rise buildings.
This is real. Look no further than the recent proposal at 955 Sansome Street. Do you think that’s a one-off? How about the one at 1088 Sansome? Do you think it stops there? There are parcels in North Beach and all along the waterfront where this is possible. And this is where constituents voice concerns about becoming Miami Beach and opening the door to skyscrapers. Sadly, this is not hyperbole.
Why the “Family” Branding Is Misleading
Words matter in public policy, and “Family Zoning” is a masterstroke of political marketing. Yet the name obscures what the legislation actually does. There is nothing family-specific about it: no mandate for two- or three-bedroom homes, no provisions for outdoor play areas, no targeted affordability tiers for working parents.
Instead, the measure would allow market-rate developers to build smaller, higher-yield apartments wherever they can assemble lots, precisely the opposite of what families typically need. The language of “family” simply makes a citywide upzoning sound more compassionate, when its real beneficiaries are the developers and investors positioned to capitalize on relaxed rules.
San Francisco has seen this previously. Prior initiatives branded as “Opportunity Housing” or “Housing for All” promised inclusion and affordability but ultimately produced expensive, one-bedroom units. “Family Zoning” risks repeating the same pattern, a policy that sounds people-centered but is driven by production metrics rather than livability. There is a better way forward and I’ll get to this in a moment.
How It Impacts District 3
For District 3, which includes North Beach, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Telegraph Hill, Jackson Square, and Chinatown, the implications are profound. These are neighborhoods defined by historic, human-scale character, narrow streets, and vibrant small-business corridors. They are also already among the densest residential areas in the entire city.
Under previous upzoning maps advanced by the prior administration, District 3 was excluded. City planners recognized that our existing form and infrastructure could not support further height or bulk without significant consequences.
Under the new proposal, that protection has disappeared. This is a factual difference, not a personal accusation. The change reflects a shift in political priorities since the election of a new mayoral administration and District 3 supervisor. What was once recognized as a neighborhood worth preserving has suddenly been reclassified as an “opportunity area.” The community was not consulted before this reversal appeared on The City’s zoning maps.
When Density Stacks upon Density
To understand the magnitude of the change, consider how three separate density mechanisms now interact:
• Local density decontrol: removing the cap on how many units can be built on a parcel,
• State density bonuses: allowing developers to add height and bulk (often 50% or more),
• Form-based zoning: setting loose outer shells rather than precise height and unit limits.
Individually, each of these changes increases allowable size. Together, they compound and produce results far larger than most residents or even some policymakers realize.
The 955 Sansome Street proposal illustrates this effect. Under stacked incentives, a parcel once envisioned for modest infill could host a massive tower that overwhelms surrounding blocks and becomes taller than Telegraph Hill itself. The same dynamic could soon repeat across District 3 if the “Family Zoning” plan is adopted as written.
A Better Path Forward
We often hear from the Mayor and other elected officials that there are real consequences if San Francisco does not meet the state’s housing mandate and, specifically, that The City risks losing control entirely. It’s true that under state law, failing to meet housing targets could trigger what’s known as the Builder’s Remedy, allowing developers to bypass local height and density limits. But it’s also important to remember who created this framework and what choices remain.
The current mandate stems from legislation written by our very own State Senator Scott Wiener, which dramatically expanded the state’s role in local zoning. These laws require cities to plan for a certain number of homes under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation system. San Francisco’s target, more than 82,000 new homes by 2031, is one of the most ambitious in the country.
If a city’s zoning is not deemed compliant with its state-approved Housing Element, the Builder’s Remedy can indeed take effect. That provision allows developers to propose projects of any height or density in any district, provided they include a minimum percentage of affordable units. In theory, it could strip The City of meaningful ability to shape new projects or protect historic districts.
But that outcome is not inevitable. There are other, better options than a citywide upzoning disguised as “Family Zoning.” San Francisco can meet its state mandate while preserving the scale and livability of its neighborhoods through a balanced and good-faith approach.
• Targeted, Context-Sensitive Upzoning: Concentrate new housing along major transit corridors and underutilized commercial areas where infrastructure already supports greater density rather than imposing blanket upzoning on already dense historic neighborhoods like North Beach or Chinatown.
• Adaptive Reuse and Conversion Credits: Count the conversion of downtown offices, hotels, and public buildings into housing toward our state targets. With millions of square feet of underused commercial space, San Francisco has enormous untapped capacity without touching our most fragile residential districts.
• Phased Compliance: Adopt zoning changes in measured phases, demonstrating steady progress rather than rushing through a single, sweeping ordinance. The state’s housing department allowed other cities to maintain compliance through incremental, good-faith action.
• Partnership and Negotiation: Work directly with state officials to secure flexibility or extensions, as other California cities have done. Compliance is not a one-size-fits-all mandate; it’s a dialogue that rewards planning and transparency.
• Legislative Reform: Engage our regional legislators, including Senator Wiener himself, to refine the Builder’s Remedy law and Housing Element process. If San Francisco demonstrates constructive alternatives that still meet state goals, it can help lead a more sensible, statewide reform effort.
In short: The Builder’s Remedy is a risk but not an inevitable outcome. The City still has the tools and leverage to comply with state law while protecting the integrity of its neighborhoods. What we need is thoughtful, transparent planning, not a rushed, citywide upzoning marketed as “family housing.”
Conclusion: “Family” Should Mean Belonging
Words like ‘family’ should mean more than marketing. They should reflect policies that make it possible for working parents, seniors, and children to thrive together in the neighborhoods they love.
Regrettably, Mayor Lurie’s “Family Zoning” plan does not do that. It replaces community planning with density decontrol and calls it compassion. San Franciscans deserve better, an honest plan that strengthens families without sacrificing the character, scale, and history that make our neighborhoods feel like home. One proposal is above.
Let’s build for families, not just for figures on a zoning spreadsheet.