Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Reaction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architects, builders and tenants clash over demolition thresholds and upfront engineering demands
Summary
At the informational hearing, architects and builders warned the draft ordinance would drive routine projects into conditional‑use review and raise costs; tenant groups and preservationists supported stronger notice and penalties to stop illicit demolitions and preserve rent‑controlled units.
Speakers at the June 20 hearing split along predictable lines: tenant advocates and preservation groups urged clear demolition definitions, stronger notice and stiffer penalties; architects, builders and realtors said the draft was overbroad and would block ordinary repairs and family expansions.
Anastasia Yovanopoulos, a District 8 tenant, told commissioners she supported the bill’s intent to protect rent‑controlled housing and called for lower thresholds to avoid gaming of the calculation. "Having a simple and easily calculable way to identify demolition pollution is a key to preventing the loss of affordable housing," she said.
On the other side, several architects and members of the Residential Builders Association said the addition of structural drawings and engineering calculations to the neighborhood‑notice packet would require thousands of extra conditional‑use hearings. Architect John Lum asked for data on where the alleged loss of 4,200 affordable units cited by the sponsor originated and argued the proposal risks stopping home improvements and family expansions.
Multiple industry speakers highlighted case studies staff presented. Michael Morrison, an architect, said staff’s major‑expansion/FAR example would make 33 of 34 current RH‑district projects subject to conditional‑use review and consequently block 13 proposed new units.
Tenant advocates countered that discretionary review is necessary to catch speculative schemes that target rent‑controlled units. Jennifer Feber of the San Francisco Tenants Union said the commission has been inclined to approve projects over staff recommendations; a stronger code, she argued, would simplify and make enforcement more consistent.
Commissioners repeatedly asked staff for quantified estimates of additional staff time and applicant cost. Planning and DBI staff said they were still compiling data and would provide estimates in subsequent rounds.
