We Demand Real Solutions to Affordable Housing

On Thursday, Sept. 11, the Planning Commission takes up Mayor Daniel Lurie’s “Family Zoning” plan, a sweeping upzoning that will later go to the Board of Supervisors for approval before submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development in January to certify our Housing Element.

Let’s do better than treating this upzoning as an exercise in submitting an HCD-compliant map and viewing the RHNA goal of 20,300 low-income units as a zoning-capacity puzzle.

Instead let’s treat it as an affordable housing vision to strive for—and write the policies that give us a real shot at achieving it.

Right now, we’re not. It’s just a map. And without substantive changes, there is no realistic pathway to hit the target of 20,300 low-income homes. Inclusionary set-asides and in-lieu fees from market-rate projects can’t deliver that scale on their own. They were never designed to.

Upzoning isn’t a value; it’s a tool. And tools do what you calibrate them to do.

The core miss

The package hands out valuable concessions—height, density, faster approvals—but in many cases asks as little as 10% affordable units. If we’re creating new value for private projects, we should capture commensurate value for the public. That isn’t anti-housing; it’s how good housing policy works.

There’s a straightforward fix: tie the affordable requirement to the size of the bonus. Extra floors and big density bumps should come with higher set-asides—and deeper affordability. A sensible curve tops out around 25% when projects take the largest bonuses, with a real share reserved for very-low and extremely-low-income households. Start strong, measure outcomes, recalibrate if we overshoot. Don’t aim low and hope. And even then, be honest: stronger inclusionary policy is necessary, but not sufficient to reach 20,300. We will need a public-land pipeline and real public financing.

There’s also a technical choice with big real-world effects: the plan’s new local bonus is set up as an alternative to the state density bonus. Treating it as either/or limits what projects can build and often reduces on-site affordability compared with using state tools. The fix is simple and non-ideological: let state and local incentives stack so we get more total homes and more affordable homes inside them.

Affordability also needs to last. A 55-year affordability term looks long on paper and short in reality. If the goal is a city livable for generations, affordability should run for the life of the building (or 99 years at minimum), with the restriction resetting at sale or refinance. We already demand permanence from 100% affordable projects; we should demand it when we’re conferring major value through upzoning, too.

And if this is “Family Zoning,” then zone for families. Requiring only a quarter of units to be two-bedrooms or larger—especially if affordable units can skew smaller—won’t deliver the homes families need. Set clear expectations for two- and three-bedroom homes across both market-rate and affordable components.

Finally, on-site affordable housing should be the default. Fees have a role—they help fund nonprofit projects—but if every project in high-opportunity neighborhoods buys out, we will have legalized economic segregation. When an off-site or fee path is used, structure it to produce equal or greater affordable outcomes in comparable neighborhoods, not simply where land is cheaper.

Public land + clear rules = educator housing that actually moves

This summer, San Francisco broke ground on its second educator-housing development at 750 Golden Gate Avenue: 75 apartments prioritized for SFUSD and City College staff. Meanwhile, Shirley Chisholm Village—135 educator homes in the Outer Sunset—is now open and housing teachers. These projects work because public land changes the math: when land costs drop (or the city uses long-term ground leases), feasible depths of affordability rise without torturing the pro forma.

And we should scale this logic. Rather than auctioning off SFMTA sites like the 2.6-acre Kirkland Yard near Fisherman’s Wharf, keep them public and transform them into hundreds of permanently affordable homes. That’s the vision we deserve—retain public assets to deliver public good, not sell off irreplaceable land.

The lesson: Public land isn’t a press release; it’s an input. The rezoning should embed a Public Land First pipeline: inventory suitable sites, reserve them for 100% affordable or limited-equity projects, fast-track approvals, and pair them with financing. That’s how you guarantee mixed-income neighborhoods on the west side—not just hope for them.

Big public money, disciplined execution, measurable results

In 2016, Santa Clara County voters approved Measure A, a $950 million affordable-housing bond with a clear production goal. By 2025, the county had helped fund more than 5,000 homes across dozens of developments and was on track to exceed its 4,800-unit target by roughly 1,000 units. Was it perfect? No. Was it scale? Yes—and measurable.

Meanwhile, here in San Francisco, thousands of already-entitled affordable homes are stalled for one reason: money. Interest rates spiked, construction costs rose, and the financing stack that made sense two years ago no longer pencils today. If we want a future San Francisco, we have to unlock the present—move the pipeline we’ve already approved while planning the next wave.

The lesson: Zoning changes without financing mostly build what the market already supplies. Our challenge isn’t just to map future capacity; it’s to create sustainable funding that gets shovel-ready projects out of limbo and into construction. That means a 2026 ballot measure big enough to (1) clear today’s backlog with fast-moving gap financing, (2) capitalize a revolving fund for acquisition/pre-development on public land, (3) deepen affordability in private projects that take bonuses, and (4) preserve rent-controlled buildings when that’s the fastest, cheapest way to keep people housed. There is no future San Francisco without unlocking the present.

(And yes, the city’s older Affordable Housing Leadership Council recommendations helped start this conversation, but many are now out of date for today’s costs and interest rates. We need an updated, realistic financing plan.)

The better calibration

Let bonuses stack. Don’t force projects to choose between local and state tools. Use both when projects meet higher on-site affordability so we get more total homes and more affordable homes.
Scale the give-get. Tie bigger height/density to higher set-asides, with a meaningful share at very-low and extremely-low incomes. Start with strong targets, then adjust based on outcomes.
Make affordability permanent. Treat 55 years as the floor, not the ceiling.
Zone for families. Set a clear two- and three-bedroom standard across market-rate and affordable units.
Default to on-site inclusion. Only allow fees/off-site where they produce equal or greater affordable outcomes in similar neighborhoods.
Center public land—and fund it. Build the Public Land First pipeline and back it with dedicated dollars sized to the 20,300-unit obligation to our low-income residents.

This is where the conversation usually stalls: “If you ask for too much, nothing pencils.”

That risk is real. But there’s an equal risk we rarely name: ask for too little and you lock in a decade of building that doesn’t solve the problem you set out to solve. The way through is calibration: align private gain with public good; use public land to reach incomes the market won’t; pair rezoning with funding sized to the need; and set up regular reviews so we adjust based on outcomes, not vibes.

Call to action

If you want a Family Zoning plan that actually delivers for San Francisco:

Planning Commission (Sept. 11): Recommend the following changes: Allow stacking of state and local bonuses; extend affordability to the life of the building; scale set-asides with the size of the upzoning; require family-sized homes; and center a Public Land First pipeline.
Board of Supervisors: Strengthen the ordinance along these lines and pair it with a 2026 affordable housing funding measure big enough to matter.
Mayor: Lead on the public-land pipeline and the public financing to build truly affordable housing.

Upzoning isn’t the goal; it’s leverage. Use it to lock in mixed-income neighborhoods citywide, affordability that lasts, and affordable homes for the people who make this city work.

The examples exist. Let’s learn from them—and do it here.

Read more articles like this one on our Substack.