Mayor Daniel Lurie is not on the ballot in San Francisco this year, but the future of his housing plan is.
The first test is June 2, with two special supervisor elections that hinge to a large extent on attitudes toward the prospect of taller, denser neighborhoods.
Then in the fall, with more supervisor races on tap, voters will decide if Lurie keeps a solid slate of allies on the board, or faces stronger opposition to the Family Zoning Plan and other attempts to loosen rules for residential construction.
“Progessives think they can win on what they’ve started calling the ‘Rich Family Zoning Plan,’” says SF political consultant Jim Ross.
What’s especially rich is District 2, one of the two contested supervisor seats in the June election. (Voting starts in early May.) The district is San Francisco’s wealthiest, based on U.S. Census data, and has some of its highest rents and home values. It includes the Marina, Cow Hollow, Presidio Heights, and Pacific Heights and its “billionaire’s row.”
It’s where development often means a remodel or expansion of an already breathtaking property.
In D2, housing is the issue. Lori Brooke, the challenger to incumbent Stephen Sherrill, may represent progressive hopes of seizing this seat, but she won’t necessarily align with the city’s progressive orthodoxy.
Sherrill is running for his seat for the first time. Appointed by London Breed in December 2024, he’s a staunch supporter of the Family Zoning Plan. Brooke, whose group Neighborhoods United SF rallied opposition to the plan, is one of its fiercest critics.
The plan aims to spur new housing in districts like D2 that have built few new homes for decades, while neighborhoods like the Mission, Bayview, and South of Market have added tens of thousands.
There hasn’t been a 100-percent affordable project in D2 for more than a decade. (Two are currently under construction, but they’re on the edge of the Western Addition, many blocks from the district’s tonier enclaves.)
Tthe district’s neighborhoods are some of the most resistant to new development in the city. In 2025, the Marina added just three new homes from new construction, and Pac Heights and Presidio Heights added zero. (A few homes came to life via add-ons to existing buildings.)
That’s how some D2 residents like it. “The whole housing-uber-alles attitude in SF kind of galls me,” says Robert Bardell, a Brooke supporter and former president of the Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association. “This is an expensive place to live, and we can’t house the whole world here. Lori has been supportive of the small, jewelbox-style San Francisco, and that’s what I support. It’s why I moved from Oakland.”
Sherrill say his support for the housing plan hinges on two beliefs: “San Francisco needs more housing, and local government should set clear rules” for development, a reference to the barriers, caveats, and reviews that local and state officials only recently have begun to disentangle.
There’s been no independent polling about the race, or about the Family Zoning Plan citywide. How arguments like Sherrill’s resonate in D2 — or in District 4, where Lurie ally Sup. Alan Wong is facing a fierce challenge — could help determine whether the fight for a taller, denser city has already peaked.
“This race is a real signal of whether Lurie can manage the NIMBY backlash to upzoning policies or whether he might be swamped by it,” says San Francisco State University political scientist Jason McDaniel.
Danger: Safeway
Daniel Lurie inherited the Family Zoning Plan from the Breed administration. Under his watch, city planners made notable adjustments, and Lurie made its passage a top priority in his first year.
He had two levers to pull: a board in favor of new development, and the threat of state penalties if the plan failed. The board approved it 7 to 4 last December.
Brooke lost that battle but says she’ll win the next one. “My opponent’s vote on the Family Zoning Plan will have consequences, but he will not be around long enough to address them,” Brooke tells The Frisc.
A Brooke victory and a Wong loss in District 4 will, at least until November, give opponents of the plan a 6-5 board majority.
“We need more housing, especially affordable housing, but we also need to respect neighborhoods,” Brooke says, warning that upzoning will spoil their scale.
Instead, Brooke wants the city to buy and renovate “tens of thousands of vacant and underutilized units” with minimal change to their surroundings.
If voters are satisfied with the way things are going, they’ll be more likely to vote for Sherrill. Brooke can be successful if voters see Family Zoning as an existential threat to the community’s identity.
San francisco state university political scientist jason mcdaniel
There are dilapidated or underdeveloped sites the city could use, but not likely enough to stall the rise in home prices and rents or bring them down. As The Frisc has reported, the idea of tens of thousands of empty homes available for purchase is a myth, caused by a misreading of census data and perpetuated by backers of a 2022 ballot measure.
Other than housing, Brooke and Sherrill’s platforms are often similar: Both emphasize clean streets, safe neighborhoods, and support for local businesses.
“That means a visible police presence in our commercial corridors, supported by members of the ambassador program,” says Brooke, as well as “consistent enforcement around theft and repeat offenders, and addressing encampments quickly and humanely.”
Sherrill has supported Lurie’s “fentanyl emergency” plan, more police on streets, and faster police response times.
A moderate/progressive litmus test this June is Prop. D, a boost to the city’s CEO tax. Sherrill is against it, saying it would hinder downtown recovery. In March, Brooke told Mission Local that “we need to be careful not to discourage investment or job growth,” but she did not directly oppose Prop. D. The Frisc has asked Brooke for comment and will update this story if necessary.
The rivals do agree on one housing thing: The Marina Safeway project is beyond the pale. A developer is using state law to propose a 25-story apartment tower at the famed Safeway site.
When news of it broke last December, Sherrill called it “cartoonish” and said it wouldn’t be allowed under the Family Zoning Plan. But it’s unclear if anyone can stop it; the developers got it through just before the plan took effect.
Brooke is trusting the optics work in her favor. “The Safeway site is a very big issue here,” says Brooke supporter and Marina resident Alan Silverman. “There is a lot of angst about it.”
Donors and backers
Brooke is positioning herself as the scrappy outsider, while Sherrill has big-name support. Brooke’s endorsements come from the presidents of the Laurel Heights Improvement Association and the Cow Hollow Association, of which Brooke was once president. The associations are nonprofits and don’t issue endorsements.
She also has a nod from former supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier and Quentin Kopp and the League of Pissed Off Voters.
Sherrill, who registered as a Democrat three years ago, has a wide range of endorsements from Lurie and other elected officials, several unions, and Democratic groups.
He’s also lapping Brooke in funding. Sherrill has raised $246,000 in individual contributions; Brooke is at $160,000. The gap grows wider with outside committees. Sherrill has the backing of GrowSF, a moderate group that backs YIMBY-favored candidates like Wiener and state attorney general Rob Bonta. GrowSF has donated and spent $267,000 on Sherrill’s campaign so far. Brooke has no committee support at all.
Including his war chest for the November election, in which the June winner will have to run to keep the seat, Sherrill has raised more than $1 million.
All the firepower of incumbency is enviable if, as Sherrill says, voters are optimistic about the direction of the city. “San Franciscans are seeing real progress but aren’t looking for a victory lap just yet,” he tells The Frisc.
“If most voters are relatively satisfied with the way things are going, they will be more likely to vote for Sherrill due to his connection with the mayor,” says SF State’s McDaniel. “Brooke can be successful if she is able to get most voters to see Family Zoning as an existential threat to the community’s identity.”
Sherrill doesn’t shy from his Family Zoning Plan record: “People will absolutely remember those votes, and I am comfortable with that.”
He points to a recent GrowSF poll that shows D2 voters support the housing plan, market-rate housing in general, and even the Marina Safeway project. GrowSF director Steven Bacio calls Brooke’s coalition “people who will take us backwards.”
Brooke dismisses the poll as coming from a “special interest group” backing Sherrill.
In contrast to his opponent’s preference for the pre-Family Zoning policies — such as nothing over 40 feet in much of District 2 — Sherrill believes in making market-rate housing development easier by lowering fees.
The city can’t lower the cost of labor or a loan, he notes, but it can control how much it charges for the right to build. “Keep the fees that serve a real purpose, but reduce unnecessary delay, [and] eliminate duplicative requirements,” he says.
Sherrill is also running on “by-right” construction, which makes permitting relatively fast as long as builders meet a clear set of standards. SF only gives by-right approval these days because it’s under state sanction for falling behind its affordable housing goals. Sherrill would prefer this to be the local status quo.
In District 4, Lurie installed Wong only a few months ago, and he’s already had some stumbles. But with Sherrill’s longer track record and institutional advantages in District 2 — money, incumbency, and the support of most sitting politicians in the city — a loss will likely send a larger shockwave through City Hall, and it will be especially noticeable in the mayor’s office.