San Francisco Family Zoning Plan

Ask a question to begin.

Two suits over the citywide rezoning approved in December 2025: a CEQA challenge from Neighborhoods United SF and others seeking to undo it, and a suit from YIMBY Law and the California Housing Defense Fund arguing it falls short of the housing element and limits state density bonus tools. First merits hearing in the second case is Nov 18.

The package, a Planning Code ordinance and a Zoning Map ordinance, carries out the rezoning program in the 2023-2031 housing element.

HCD preliminarily finds the draft package consistent with the housing element's rezoning commitments and reminds the city of the Jan. 31, 2026 deadline.

The Board of Supervisors' Land Use and Transportation Committee then amends the ordinances at hearings from Oct. 20 to Dec. 1.

Amendments adopted along the way exempt rent-controlled buildings with more than two units and historic buildings and lower heights in some places while raising them in others.

The vote comes without discussion. Supervisor Alan Wong, who voted yes a week earlier, is absent.

The ordinances are set to take effect Jan. 12, 2026, ahead of the state's Jan. 31 deadline.

Neighborhoods United SF, Small Business Forward, Romalyn Schmaltz and Paul Erickson file Case No. CPF26519501, asking the court to rescind the plan until the city prepares a supplemental EIR.

As of Jan. 15 the petitioners had not moved for a stay, which they would need to suspend the plan during the case.

YIMBY Law, the California Housing Defense Fund and Californians for Homeownership argue the plan does not deliver the capacity the housing element promised and unlawfully limits use of the State Density Bonus Law.

"The Family Zoning Plan is the product of years of study, outreach and hearings." Also: "We are comforted that the California Department of Housing and Community Development reviewed the Family Zoning Plan and felt it complied with state law" (Jan. 9, 2026).

Staff attorney Nick Eckenwiler: "When the time came to fulfill the promises that San Francisco made in its housing element, the city came up short." Executive director Dylan Casey, on the day of the final vote, on the local bonus program: "This, in our view, sets a very bad precedent for other cities around California, and is frankly illegal."

"The status quo is unacceptable." Also: "Zoning is only the first step." (Dec. 9, 2025)

"The Family Zoning Plan is inadequate; it's not a real upzoning." (Feb. 12, 2026)

On signing: "we are creating a generational roadmap for how our city builds housing" (Dec. 12, 2025). After the pro-housing suit, his spokesperson Charles Lutvak: "As the cost of housing continues to rise, the Family Zoning Plan is going to help ensure that the next generation of San Franciscans can afford to raise their kids here."

"HCD is pleased to preliminarily find that the Package is consistent with statutory requirements and meets the objectives and commitments of Programs 7.1.1 and 8.4.4." In February 2026 HCD's David Zisser said the lawsuits do not invalidate the housing element.

Argues the plan falls short of the housing element's rezoning commitment and seeks to strike provisions of Housing Choice San Francisco that bar projects from using the State Density Bonus Law, SB 9 and AB 2011.

Supervising counsel Matt Gelfand: "Housing Element law requires cities to show they have local zoning in place to meet their regional housing needs, and that cannot be done through a local bonus program."

Sued Jan. 9, 2026 with Small Business Forward and residents Romalyn Schmaltz and Paul Erickson, arguing the city should have prepared a supplemental EIR instead of relying on the 2022 Housing Element EIR, and asking the court to rescind the plan until it does.

"It was the ultimate game of goalpost moving." Also: "The Family Zoning plan was inappropriately planned and was rushed through without sufficient input and was understudied." (February 2026)

Christin Evans, owner of The Booksmith: "The mayor's plan left in thousands of rent-controlled housing units. A lot of our small business employees live in these."

"Our city does have the ability to meet the goal while maintaining local control and developing housing that people can afford without displacing residents and small businesses." Also: "But the plan that's before us does not achieve that."

"You cannot claim to support families and affordability while advancing a rezoning that encourages displacement, strains infrastructure, and offers no clear path to housing people can afford" (statement, Jan. 9, 2026). Also: "We are not filing this to prevent the plan from going forward."

Initial approval 7-4 on Dec. 2, 2025: Rafael Mandelman, Danny Sauter, Bilal Mahmood, Matt Dorsey, Stephen Sherrill, Myrna Melgar and Alan Wong voted yes; Connie Chan, Shamann Walton, Chyanne Chen and Jackie Fielder voted no. The final vote on Dec. 9 was 6-4, with Wong absent.

No ruling as of October 2026. The CEQA case had a case management meeting set for the end of September 2026; the first merits hearing in the pro-housing suit is scheduled for Nov. 18, 2026.

The petition says the city should have prepared a supplemental EIR instead of relying on an addendum to the 2022 Housing Element EIR, and asks the court to rescind the plan. The plan has stayed in effect while the case is pending.

The pro-housing suit says the adopted zoning falls short of the roughly 36,000 homes the housing element promised, adds limits on unit size, parking and curb cuts, and bars projects that use the local bonus program from the State Density Bonus Law, SB 9 and AB 2011. Before adoption the board exempted rent-controlled buildings with more than two units and historic buildings and lowered heights in some places. The first merits hearing is set for Nov. 18, 2026.