Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Housing preservation measure raises drafting, scope concerns from planning staff
Summary
An initiative to bar demolition of residential buildings of 50+ units drew support from tenant advocates and concern from Planning and housing officials, who warned the draft contains inconsistent thresholds and could unintentionally block major redevelopment projects including HOPE SF and Park Merced.
A proposed planning-code amendment that would prohibit demolition of residential buildings with 50 or more units drew mixed responses at the Rules Committee hearing. Proponents framed the measure as a tool to preserve San Francisco’s limited stock of rent‑controlled housing by restricting demolition of sound buildings unless the Board of Supervisors grants a two‑thirds exemption or the replacement is 100% rental affordable at or below 60% of area median income.
Planning Director John Rahaim raised drafting and scope problems: the measure’s text inconsistently refers to both 20- and 50-unit thresholds; it uses terms that differ from the building and housing codes; and it could cover a wide set of property types including residential hotels, SROs, student housing and buildings constructed after 1979 that are not subject to rent control. Rahaim said a rough count suggests the ordinance could implicate thousands of properties and nearly 70,000 housing units under some readings. He flagged potential unintended effects on HOPE SF redevelopment, Park Merced and other large projects where demolition or phased redevelopment is part of a long-term plan.
Advocates from Tenants Together and tenant-advocacy groups urged the measure’s passage to stop large-scale removal of rent‑controlled units, pointing to the limits of replacement when Costa‑Hawkins rules bar new rent control on new construction. The Mayor’s Office of Housing staff raised technical concerns about ownership structures (ground leases, limited-partnership ownership used in tax-credit projects) that could exempt or inadvertently block particular projects if the ballot text is not clarified.
Supervisors questioned the authors and planning staff about intent and specific projects; several members urged sponsors to correct drafting errors and ensure the measure would not unintentionally prevent city-supported affordable-housing programs. The committee took no final vote. Chair and colleagues asked authors to re-evaluate the proposal and consult with planning and housing staff on clarifications.
Ending: Sponsors were urged to correct technical drafting issues and confer with Planning and the Mayor’s housing office before further action.
