District 2 Supervisor Stephen Sherrill is not against the mayor’s proposal to upzone the city’s northwest neighborhoods, he said.
Does that mean he’s for it? When pressed on the issue by a crowd of his own constituents at a town hall on Tuesday evening, Sherrill declined to get more specific.
“I feel strongly that ‘no’ is not the answer,” said Sherrill, closely echoing remarks Mayor Daniel Lurie made on Monday.
The proposal, which will be up for vote before the Board of Supervisors later this month, would raise heights in neighborhoods like the Marina, Presidio Heights, and Pacific Heights — all of which are in District 2.
Lurie, speaking to Westside residents who have grown surly over the proposed upzoning, had warned on Monday that opposing the state-mandated upzoning could lead to “towers everywhere.”
Sherrill agreed on this point, too. “I feel strongly that a ‘no’ vote will lead to a state takeover, and that is a disaster,” he added.
Both officials must walk a fine line: Opposing upzoning would lead to ire from the young, YIMBY crowd — not to mention state leaders — clamoring for more housing. Embracing upzoning risks alienating many of the voters who helped sweep Lurie into City Hall, and who make up a good portion of Sherrill’s district.
District 2 may be the area most affected by the current upzoning plan, which increases building height limits to 160 feet along multiple streets including Geary Boulevard and Lombard Street, and up to 650 feet on Van Ness Avenue.
The current zoning plan would also, if adopted in its present form, scrap limits on the number of units that can be built per lot.
Still, Sherrill sought to present the zoning plan as a win for local control. If it’s adopted, he told the crowd, the city maintains some control over its own skyline, and millions of dollars in state funding.
If it isn’t adopted, both could go away. “I don’t need a bureaucrat in Sacramento to decide the future of San Francisco. I think the people in this room deserve to have that control.”
Sherrill said his support for the proposal was contingent on making amendments, including two amendments related to tenant protections. He’s currently working with the Planning Department to identify potential historic landmarks, he added, which would protect those sites from changes.
Alex Westhoff, a senior planner with the Planning Department, presented 25 potential sites in District 2 during the town hall. Currently, there are 45 sites.
Sherrill added that he would incorporate constituent feedback into amendments to the zoning proposal. “We have time to make the plan better,” he told the crowd.
Not much time, though. It’s not clear whether the plan can change significantly before Oct. 20, when it goes to the land use committee, and then the entire Board of Supervisors. The state has already signed off, and any substantive changes would require restarting a long process of state approval.
The state has given the city until January 2026 to adopt the plan.
Those gathered at the Calvary Presbyterian Church on Tuesday included housing advocates across the spectrum. There were YIMBY advocates who have championed the rezoning plan, and constituents who have organized against it.
Tuesday was the first time Sherrill made his stance on the plan clear.
That stance was not exactly a surprise: Mayor London Breed appointed Sherrill to his seat by former Mayor London Breed in December 2024, in part because of his alignment on housing (the related press release cited his ties to the pro-development neighborhood group Northern Neighbors and YIMBY Action).
The zoning plan, which has changed since its first inception, was originally introduced under Breed.
Sherrill is likely keeping future election prospects in mind. He must run for office to keep his seat in the next citywide election in 2026. He has raised over $140,000 for that campaign, according to campaign finance filings.
That balancing act was on full display Tuesday.
“I don’t mean to put you on the spot, but someone asked this question, and the answer’s ‘yes’ or ‘no,’” said a participant, who gave his name as Neil Dellacava. “If your constituency says, ‘We don’t want to go for this plan,’ are you a ‘yes’ or ‘no?’”
“Some constituents say ‘yes,’ some constituents say ‘no,’” responded Sherrill. “There is not one overwhelming majority on either side of this issue.”
Upzoning along the 3 busiest streets in the district is a no brainer. If folks are not going to allow that, they aren’t going to allow it anywhere..and at that point the NIMBYs deserve skyscrapers in their backyards
Weiner and Lurie’s density upzoning plan is a burn-the-village-to-the-ground-in-order-to-“save”-it plan. Wholly unnecessary and unworkable.
Wiener is a liar. The rents have never gone down as a result of his BS ever, anywhere, and the implicit threat of builder’s remedy is his actual goal.
He’s bought. It has nothing to do with helping poor people get housing.
We must get Wiener out of office, or else.
YIMBY liars are funded by the people benefiting. Not locals. Billionaires.
I know many YIMBYs. Not a one is funded by anyone. They want housing, and want more people to be able to live in SF.
Anti housing people/groups have gotten extremely nasty toward neighbors in the last couple of years as they’ve seen the tide start to turn on the ability for individuals to hold power over what gets built around them, and who gets to live there. I encourage you to speak with more actual YIMBYs in real life before creating boogieman characterizations.
Reasonable people can disagree on approaches to affordable housing, but when you assume bad intent, we will never move forward.
We’re obviously not talking about individuals but GROUPS, thanks for your intentional misunderstanding though?
“They want housing, and want more people to be able to live in SF.”
That’s why YIMBY’s ignore low-income housing, really?
Think harder please.
Please remember that YIMBY Action is a sophisticated lobbying group funded by big money.
https://housinghumanrt.medium.com/exclusive-tech-execs-and-venture-capitalists-spend-big-to-help-california-yimby-kill-tenant-44a1207be51b
Brian Hanlon is the CEO of California YIMBY with a history of snuffing dissent in favor of billionaire interests, under the guise of “abundant” housing.
https://housinghumanrt.medium.com/exclusive-tech-execs-and-venture-capitalists-spend-big-to-help-california-yimby-kill-tenant-44a1207be51b
Your photo, framing white-haired ladies, is an interesting choice and I would be happy to discuss the semiotics of that.
Ha Ha. This will be fun to watch what happens to district 2. I sincerely urge Sherrill and Lurie to sell off all libraries, schools and community centers at a huge discount to encourage the construction of luxury condos for absentee owners, VC entrepreneurs, startups and corporations. This is such an urgent crisis selling of fire stations, hospitals, and yes, police stations needs to be considered. I also think there is a large waste treatment plant in North beach (District 3, I know, but desperate times…) that can be properly repurposed to the needs of the people. Bold actions for bold people.