Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Committee backs grandfathering for demolition ordinance, sends amended file to full Board and continues broader definition change
Summary
The Land Use and Transportation Committee advanced Supervisor Mandelmann’s ordinance to require conditional-use review for certain single‑family demolitions, approving a grandfathering date and sending that version to the full Board, while voting to continue a broader definition change (changing several “and”s to “or”) to allow additional review. Public comment split between preservation advocates and housing‑supply proponents.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee on Monday advanced an ordinance aimed at closing a loophole in Planning Code Section 3.17 that allows some single‑family demolitions to proceed without conditional‑use (CU) review, and asked staff to continue work on a broader technical change.
Supervisor Matt Mandelmann, the ordinance’s author, told the committee the current exception lets parcels with high land value—he cited a property‑value trigger currently at about $2,200,000—avoid CU review, a result he said that often leads to speculative demolition and replacement by much larger, less affordable “mega‑mansions.” He proposed two primary changes: retain the existing exception for unsound buildings and add a grandfathering provision so projects that filed with Planning before Feb. 11 would proceed under the current rules. “This ordinance would make a narrow amendment to eliminate a double standard that favors luxury mansions,” Mandelmann said, asking for a positive recommendation to the full Board.
Planning Department staff supported the grandfathering amendment but warned a separate textual revision proposed during the meeting—substituting “or” for instances of “and” in the demolition definition—would substantially broaden what counts as a demolition and could sharply increase workloads for the department and for Planning Commission hearings. Audrey Maloney, the Planning Department presenter, summarized the Commission’s April 23 vote (5–1) in favor of the ordinance with the grandfathering modification and told supervisors the Commission had not weighed the Peskin textual change in depth. Aaron Starr of the department added the practical impact: more projects could require CU hearings, creating many more cases for an already constrained commission.
Deputy City Attorney Anne Pearson advised the chair that the Planning Commission had considered the ordinance sufficiently that the committee could act without re‑referral, but that the textual amendments discussed at the meeting were substantive and therefore would require an additional one‑week continuance for public comment if the committee wanted to adopt them that day.
Public comment was sharply divided. Supporters—among them neighborhood groups and preservation advocates—said the change would restore consistent public oversight of demolitions and provide a chance to advocate for denser, better‑designed replacements. Bruce Bowen of the Dolores Heights Improvement Club said the code “should treat all residential demolitions consistently and treat them with a conditional‑use hearing.” Opponents, including housing‑supply advocates, builders and many renters, said the change would not increase affordability, could impede small additions and renovations, and risked diverting Planning Department and commission time from multifamily projects during the pandemic. SPUR’s Christie Wong urged the committee to “explore eliminating conditional use approvals for the demolition of non‑historic single‑family homes where additional units would be added post demolition.”
After debate, the committee duplicated the file: it voted to send one version—incorporating Mandelmann’s grandfathering amendment—to the full Board with a positive recommendation, and it amended the duplicated file to substitute “or” for certain instances of “and” in the residential demolition definition and continued that duplicated file to the call of the chair for further review. Roll calls recorded Supervisors Preston, Safaee and Peskin as voting aye on the motions to advance and amend the files.
Next steps: the original file as amended (with Mandelmann’s grandfathering language) was sent to the full Board with a recommendation; the duplicated file containing the broader definitional change will be continued to the chair’s call to allow Planning Department and other stakeholders to analyze the implications and return with additional information.
