Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission adopts code change to require conditional use authorization for demolition of "demonstrably unaffordable" single-family homes

San Francisco Planning Commission · April 23, 2020
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Commission approved an ordinance amending Planning Code Section 3.17 to remove the demonstrably unaffordable exemption and require conditional‑use hearings for proposed demolitions in RH1/RH1D zones, with a grandfathering clause for applications filed prior to Feb. 11, 2020. The measure passed 5–1.

The Planning Commission voted 5–1 to recommend approval of a targeted amendment to Planning Code Section 3.17 that would require conditional‑use authorization for demolition of single‑family homes zoned RH1/RH1D even when the property meets the demonstrably unaffordable exemption.

Jacob Bintliff of Supervisor Mandelmann’s office said the amendment closes a loophole that allowed higher‑value properties to bypass Planning Commission review; staff framed the narrow change as a step that would provide neighbors a forum to raise concerns and allow commissioners to encourage more density where appropriate. Planning staff recommended adding a grandfathering clause tied to the ordinance’s introduction date (02/11/2020) so projects in active review would not be unintentionally caught mid‑process.

Public comment was extensive and sharply divided: neighborhood groups and many long‑term residents urged closing the exemption and requiring more scrutiny; architects, developers and housing proponents warned that retroactive regulation risks delaying or killing projects and urged grandfathering tied to application filing/completion to avoid unfair retroactive change. After deliberation, the commission approved the ordinance with staff‑recommended modifications including grandfathering for applications filed before the ordinance’s introduction date; Commissioner Fung dissented, voting no. The motion passed 5–1.