San Francisco Board of Supervisors – Land Use & Transportation Committee (Nov 17, 2025)

The Land Use & Transportation Committee met on November 17, 2025 to advance a building-permit timeline reform, consider a District 8 “large residence” special use district (SUD) boundary/cleanup ordinance, and hear extensive testimony on a sweeping Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO). The committee also held its third hearing on the Mayor’s Family Zoning Plan / Housing Choice San Francisco rezoning package and related code, map, and coastal program changes, with debate centered on state housing compliance (RHNA capacity, HCD constraints), tenant displacement risk, historic resource protections, and small business impacts. Public comment limits were set at 2 minutes per speaker for items 1–3 and 1 minute per speaker for rezoning items (items 4–9). Items continued are expected to appear on the Board’s agenda beginning December 2, 2025 unless otherwise stated.

Discussion Items

• Building permit expiration timelines (Item 1)

  • Sponsor/lead: Supervisor Bilal Mahmood.
  • Key policy changes described:
    • Create a flat 2-year expiration for building permit applications.
    • Create a 1-year deadline from permit issuance to start work, with the 1-year clock resetting when progress is made (e.g., inspection or site permit addendum).
    • Reaffirm validity of applying the building code in effect at the time of application, addressing situations where DBI required updates to newer codes. An example cited was 400 Divisadero, where a DBI request to update codes/plans was estimated to add $4 million.
    • Findings updated to demonstrate legality under SB 130 and clarify timelines with DBI consultation.
  • Staff present: Tate Hanna (DBI Legislative Affairs Manager).

• Central Neighborhoods Large Residence SUD expansion / Corona Heights SUD deletion & merger (Item 2)

  • Sponsor/lead: Board President Rafael Mandelman.
  • Purpose (in plain terms as stated): expand District 8 “large residence” controls to include Cole Valley (added to District 8 in 2022) and clean up code language.
  • Background/intent: curb “monster homes” (described as demolishing modest buildings and replacing them with very large single-family homes, cited as 6,000–8,000 sq ft).
  • Planning Department: Aaron Starr reported the Planning Commission (Aug 1, 2024) recommended approval with modifications, including:
    • Do not include accessory garage space in gross floor area calculations.
    • Exclude multi-unit building shared space from unit gross square footage.

• Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO) (Item 3)

  • Sponsor/lead: Vice Chair Supervisor Cheyenne Chen.
  • Context given: State laws (notably SB 330 – Housing Crisis Act) increase exposure to displacement; ordinance aims to strengthen local protections and enforcement.
  • Key provisions described (as presented by sponsor and Planning staff):
    • Applies citywide to projects involving demolition of residential units (whether or not a Conditional Use Authorization (CUA) is required).
    • Expanded tenant notification requirements (language-access compliant) through entitlement and lease-up.
    • Relocation assistance for all displaced tenants, with additional assistance to low-income tenants; Planning staff described additional payments of up to 39 months for low-income households to cover the gap between Section 8 fair market rent and what is affordable at their income level.
    • Broadened definition of “existing occupants” to include people present at preliminary application and those displaced by harassment, noncompliant buyouts, owner move-in evictions, temporary capital improvement displacement, and (via sponsor amendment) tenants displaced by Ellis Act eviction within the past 5 years.
    • Stronger replacement unit standards (comparable units: same bedrooms/full bathrooms, ≥90% of original square footage, accessibility when applicable).
    • Replacement affordability: affordable replacement units remain affordable for the life of the project (not 55 years).
    • Right to return / right of first refusal structure described by sponsor (including return to same site units).
    • Creates private right of action for tenants and qualifying organizations; sponsor amendment sought to match existing Rent Ordinance language for 501(c)(3)/(c)(4) tenant-rights organizations.
    • Rent Ordinance amendments: added relocation payments when temporary displacement for capital improvements extends beyond 3 months; tenant harassment hearing standards updated; buyout disclosure requirements enhanced.
  • Planning staff statistics: Planning Department staff stated San Francisco demolishes relatively little housing, averaging 18 units per year (as described during discussion of broader eviction drivers).
  • Chair amendments (Supervisor Myrna Melgar) described:
    • Require landlords filing Ellis Act withdrawal notices to disclose whether they intend to redevelop versus condo/TIC conversion (data/visibility rationale).
    • Align Planning Code demolition/CUA lookbacks with SB 423 concepts: 10-year lookback for tenant occupancy for affordable/rent-controlled units outside PEGs; PEG (Priority Equity Geographies) rules would remain as today.
    • Proposed restructuring of CUA findings (making certain criteria mandatory vs. point-scored); chair noted this portion required additional cleanup and was deferred.

• Family Zoning Plan / Housing Choice San Francisco package (Items 4–9)

  • Presentations: Mayor’s Office representative Allie Bonner and Planning Department leadership (Joshua Switzky; Lisa Chen) presented methodology for RHNA shortfall rezoning and SB 79 interaction.
  • Key compliance figures and methods discussed:
    • RHNA target for the period: 82,000 units; with 15% buffer = 94,000.
    • Counted from existing sites/pipeline: ~58,000 units; remaining gap: 36,200 (the rezoning “shortfall”).
    • HCD letter (dated Sept 9, 2025) found the rezoning methods sufficient in combination.
    • Three capacity estimation methods:
      • Citywide zoning buffer method: several hundred thousand legal units; historic entitlement share yields ~39,000 “realistic capacity.”
      • Soft sites method: rezoning yields 40,000–64,000 units depending on assumptions.
      • Financial feasibility (UrbanSim): 19,000–40,000+ units depending on economic scenarios.
  • SB 79 discussion:
    • SB 79 effective July 2026; sets minimum heights/densities around rail stops and certain rapid bus corridors.
    • Planning calculated SB 79 citywide capacity at ~763,000 units vs. San Francisco zoning under the Family Zoning Plan at 800,000+ units in those areas.
    • City would need to adopt an SB 79 “alternative plan” ordinance in Q1 2026 (goal: submit to HCD by end of March 2026 for the 120-day review window).
  • Amendments debated:
    • President Mandelman: exempt listed Article 10 landmarks and contributors from rezoning height/density increases.
    • Supervisor Stephen Sherrill: District 2 parcel swaps/adjustments stated to be capacity-neutral.
    • Supervisor Connie Chan and Supervisor Chen: multiple proposed “non-negotiable” protections (anti-demolition, historic, coastal, PEG changes), plus requests for HCD to appear publicly at a future hearing.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Item 1 (Permit timelines):

  • Joseph Smook (REP Coalition) opposed a provision he characterized as eliminating deadlines for completing construction after permits are obtained; argued it could encourage speculation and increase risk of “permanent displacement,” referencing a relocation assistance limit of 42 months under SB 330.

• Item 2 (Large residence SUD):

  • Speakers raised concerns about large-home conversions using ADU configurations to circumvent limits; referenced an ~8,000 sq ft project with a 665 sq ft ADU at 45 Montclair discussed at Planning Commission and raised concerns about historic resources.

• Item 3 (TPO):

  • Numerous tenant advocates and residents expressed support for stronger tenant protections, emphasizing buyout disclosure enforcement, Ellis Act and harassment-related displacement, and deeper affordability in Priority Equity Geographies (PEGs).
  • Some commenters urged making buyout ordinance compliance a mandatory prerequisite for demolition approval.
  • PEG-focused comments cited an income disparity statistic: median income in PEGs of $50,000 vs. $111,000 outside PEGs, urging deeper replacement affordability (e.g., affordability at or below 50% AMI).
  • One speaker questioned where replacement units would be located; Supervisor Chen responded that rights of first refusal apply to comparable units on the same site and described interim housing options including relocation payments up to 42 months.
  • A minority viewpoint cautioned that stronger requirements may reduce demolitions and thus reduce housing production; one architect suggested tenant protections should prioritize lower/middle-income tenants rather than “wealthy tenants” in rent-controlled units.

• Items 4–9 (Family Zoning Plan package):

  • Commenters split sharply.
    • Supporters argued new housing reduces displacement and rent growth; one cited research claiming new housing reduces nearby residents’ displacement risk by 17%; others warned losing compliance could risk ~$100–$110 million/year in state/federal funding.
    • Opponents argued upzoning would incentivize demolition/speculation, harm historic neighborhoods, and displace tenants and small businesses; many supported “Chan & Chen” amendments and urged more transparency, including requests for HCD testimony in public.
  • Some raised concerns about inclusionary obligations for small projects and argued many new units could be built without inclusionary contributions if under certain thresholds.

Key Outcomes

• Item 1 – Building permit expiration reform

  • Voted 3–0 to adopt amendments and continue the ordinance as amended to December 1, 2025.

• Item 2 – Central Neighborhoods Large Residence SUD / Corona Heights SUD merger

  • Voted 3–0 to adopt amendments and continue the ordinance as amended to December 1, 2025.

• Item 3 – Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO)

  • Voted 3–0 to adopt a set of amendments (including Planning Department amendments, Supervisor Chen amendments, and two Chair Melgar amendments) and continue the ordinance as amended to December 1, 2025.
  • Chair Melgar stated her third proposed CUA-criteria restructuring amendment was not ready and would return with cleaner reconciled language.

• Items 4–9 – Family Zoning Plan / Housing Choice SF package

  • Mandelman landmark exemption amendment: Adopted 2–1 (Chen aye, Melgar aye, Mahmood no).
  • Supervisor Sherrill District 2 map amendments: Adopted 3–0.
  • Supervisor Chen unit-mix amendments (local program): Adopted 2–1 (Chen aye, Melgar aye, Mahmood no).
  • Supervisor Chen SFMTA-site affordability/ROFR amendment: Failed 1–2 (Chen aye, Melgar no, Mahmood no), with discussion noting potential constraint/timing/uncertainty impacts on SFMTA joint development.
  • Supervisor Chen PEG removal amendment: Failed 1–2 (Chen aye, Melgar no, Mahmood no), with staff describing significant capacity/compliance impacts and potential SB 79 consequences.
  • Duplicate rezoning/code files (Items 6 and 8): Tabled 2–1 (Mahmood aye, Melgar aye, Chen no).
  • Continued to Dec 1, 2025 (3–0):
    • Item 4 (General Plan amendments)
    • Item 5 (Zoning Map amendments)
    • Item 7 (Planning Code / Housing Choice SF program)
    • Item 9 (Coastal Commission transmittal resolution)