Taller Buildings, Bigger Questions
San Francisco’s Family Zoning Plan is about to be the City’s next big fight
This is the first article in a three-part series exploring San Francisco’s Family Zoning Plan, which the City claims will expand housing affordability and availability by allowing for increased density along transit and commercial corridors. Through November, we’ll be exploring the potential upsides and downsides of the plan.
PROPOSED BUILDINGS of 85 feet (far left) and 140 feet (center) appear along Geary Boulevard at Third Avenue in a rendering from the SF Planning Department’s website.
San Francisco is in desperate need of more affordable housing — a reality anyone following housing costs and supply over the past decades already knows. But it’s not just obvious to residents, activists, and elected leaders. It’s a mandate.
California requires the City to build roughly 82,000 new housing units by 2031 or face steep penalties. To meet the deadline, the SF Board of Supervisors must adopt a compliant zoning plan by January 31, 2026.
This summer, Mayor Daniel Lurie and the SF Planning Department unveiled the Family Zoning Plan, a blueprint to expand housing — and affordability—through taller structures and higher-density zoning. Much of the plan’s impact will fall on neighborhoods on the west and north sides of town.
So, what exactly is the Family Zoning Plan, why is it controversial, and what does it mean for the building trades and labor at large?
Housing, but at What Cost?
At its core, the plan raises building height limits in certain westside neighborhoods from 30 to 40 feet to as much as 65 feet, allowing for higher density and more housing. Beyond the new construction opportunities for the building trades, the plan could also create additional infrastructure work to support and maintain the increased density.
Concerns, however, run twofold. Many areas with rent-controlled apartments would be upzoned, potentially incentivizing landlords to replace them with taller, denser buildings featuring smaller units that aren’t rent-controlled. Meanwhile, some single-family neighborhoods will see no height increases, limiting opportunities for denser housing in those areas.
“I think we have to make room for more people to live in San Francisco, but we have to make sure at the same time that we’re not doing it in a way that harms existing San Franciscans,” said Rudy Gonzalez, secretary–treasurer of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. “My initial impression of the Family Zoning Plan as it’s been proposed is that it’s the starting point for some really intense policy and political negotiations to take place.”
As the head of the SF Building Trades Council, one of Gonzalez’s primary goals is to ensure high-road work for his members. As he explained, there have been several successful legislative efforts in recent years to steer developers to adopt pro-worker policies such as skilled-and-trained labor or prevailing wage.
In its current form, the Family Zoning Plan offers no worker protections, but Gonzalez hopes to see these incorporated as the legislation is refined. The SF Building Trades Council has tentatively endorsed the plan, provided it is amended.
On Second Thought…
The San Francisco Labor Council (SFLC), on the other hand, opposes the Family Zoning Plan unless it’s amended to protect existing rent-controlled units.
“My personal belief is that it’s really not about families, and it’s really not about affordability,” said SFLC President Kim Tavaglione, citing the thousands of rent-controlled units at risk.
The SFLC plans to reconsider the plan once it’s been amended. Key changes that are desired include removing all rent-controlled apartments from upzoning, adding more two- and three-bedroom units, and ensuring that labor standards apply to the construction of new buildings.
Tavaglione expressed disappointment that Lurie’s plan mirrors one previously proposed by former mayor London Breed, lacking the amendments needed to benefit working people.
“It has to be much more thoughtful, with far more community input,” Tavaglione said. “They never reached out to us for our opinion, and then they’re surprised when we can’t support it because it harms workers.”
Good Elements, but not a Good Plan — Yet
Alex Lantsberg, research and advocacy director of the San Francisco Electrical Construction Industry and an urban planner by trade, sees potential in the plan — but also major gaps.
“As I’ve been telling other people, it’s a plan with good elements that needs changes to become a good plan,” Lantsberg said.
He emphasized the tremendous potential upsides for labor, not just in terms of jobs but also in allowing workers to live in San Francisco. Lantsberg believes the plan should be treated with the same importance as the City’s most significant labor contracts.
“I think it’s important to underscore that our fate is tied to the health of working people in San Francisco,” he said.
Gonzalez agrees, calling the plan’s impact “generational.”
“It represents a massive shift in how and where the City will develop,” he said, likening it to the growth of Mission Bay. “This is going to be like a 30-year exercise, but the policy decisions on the front-end need to be made so that we have some vision and values associated with that 30-year runway.
“This has the potential to be a really good thing if elected officials make the right policy decisions — and that’s a big if.”