Planning Commission backs expanded tenant‑protections package, sends TPO to supervisors with modifications

San Francisco — The Planning Commission unanimously voted Nov. 6 to recommend approval of a citywide Tenant Protections Ordinance that would tighten tenant rights tied to residential demolition and major renovation projects.

Sponsor Supervisor Cheyenne Chen said the ordinance was designed to “recenter the conversation” around the impact of redevelopment on existing tenants and residents and described provisions including expanded tenant notification, enhanced relocation assistance for low‑income households, a right to remain up to six months before demolition, a right of first refusal for lower‑income tenants and requirements to replace protected units. “It is imperative that we take steps at the local level to help stabilize tenants and local communities,” Chen said.

Planning staff framed the TPO as building on the state Housing Crisis Act (SB 330) and filling enforcement and implementation gaps. Senior planner Malena Leon Farrera told commissioners the ordinance would codify existing SB 330 protections and go further on enforcement, tenant protections and replacement units; staff recommended adoption of the ordinance with modifications and anticipated sponsor amendments.

Key proposed protections include expanding the definition of “existing occupants” to capture tenants tied to earlier preliminary applications or tenants displaced by harassment or buyouts; providing enhanced monthly relocation payments for lower‑income households for up to 39 months; requiring project sponsors to contract with vetted relocation specialists; and tracking replacement protected units in the department’s project information management system.

Public comment ran nearly two hours and was dominated by tenant advocates, neighborhood groups and tenants urging stronger demolition definitions, mandatory conditional‑use standards in some cases, disclosure of demolition intent when filing Ellis Act paperwork and more robust harassment remedies. Tina Valentina Guire of the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District urged commissioners to adopt the TPO “with Supervisor Melgar’s amendments.” Multiple speakers asked staff to lower the demolition threshold and study interior‑wall or partial‑floor triggers so gut‑and‑rebuild projects are not excluded from demolition protections.

Sponsor amendments presented at the hearing would make three tenant‑protection elements mandatory (notice/relocation plan, prohibition on sponsors with recent wrongful‑possession findings, and filing of buyout agreements), and reduce the number of objective CU findings from 12 to 9 — prompting a discussion among staff and commissioners about whether the pass threshold should be 80% (as in the original substitute ordinance) or 70% if three items are converted to mandatory requirements. Planning staff presented tables showing how the different thresholds affect small owner‑conversion and condo projects and recommended one staff modification to merge two affordable‑housing findings so smaller conversions could clear the test when appropriate.

Commissioners pressed staff and sponsors to refine the demolition definition (including possible thresholds for interior work and partial‑floor raises), to consider extra protections for Priority Equity Geographies, and to strengthen enforceability on harassment findings. Several commissioners praised the collaborative drafting process and the broad community engagement but asked for further legal review and technical analysis related to demolition calculations and potential legal risk.

On the motion to adopt a recommendation for approval with the modifications and the amendments read into the record, the commission voted 7–0 to send the TPO to the Board of Supervisors with the commission’s recommendations and requests for continuing work on demolition thresholds, lookback periods, harassment enforcement, and the conditional‑use findings.

Next steps: The Board of Supervisors will consider the ordinance and the sponsor amendments; planning staff indicated they will return with more detailed analyses — particularly focused on demolition calculations, the lookback periods tied to various state laws, and suggested mandatory elements for conditional‑use review.