[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6676490,"mediaKeyId","3843095-91d2b5b9a157c57ef198f6c9ab580337","parentId",3843095,"title","Board committee fixes clerical error, sends hotel interim-housing ordinance to full board","audioSeconds",1335,"startMs",126000,"endMs",1461000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3843095-91d2b5b9a157c57ef198f6c9ab580337&start=126&end=1461","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3843095-91d2b5b9a157c57ef198f6c9ab580337/thumbnail_126000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6676490/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-committee-fixes-clerical-error-sends-hotel-interim-housing-ordinance-to-full-board","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6676490-c43ae7ad0336f9b868e6960b2e1c17dd/orig.mp4?Expires=1770917297&Signature=RubK9BVClqEzxLwyi-Yiay~43OzWKa~SfmWzC5NxcmtnmDVmzN1UXWJKS6n13ejyBxyXAjlMScK9ouhq2i84kVEFMJ-vq1Moydu~RZ9-DGedz-J8ZyyEEtaSeVVANSnr91yLp08blN0iiEzdn7IG~mjAHgC2GHIka701acOw14HpVOLORc1azf9w-2~QwWc1mdyG1Wu-7QbtBuIYhDhkYdO3RZaw~EAMFeRzWjrloWCU0xjrPm4XDtn-Cvg~VnbsPxNQPHu7tmQ1X9TevCOeBOqK5uU31iTCqznlYBe06v-Sl1BDAARC-YAk6TMxmUbunmI~D3KzK1Q2gPpMyhEXsw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Francisco County","date","2025-06-16T00:00:00Z","article","The Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously June 16 to forward to the full board an ordinance that would allow certain tourist hotels and motels to serve as interim housing without abandoning a property's hotel use classification and to permit reestablishment of hotel use at specified shelter-in-place hotels.

The move came after committee members corrected a clerical error in the item and rescinded an earlier vote. Chair Supervisor Mirna Melgar made the motion to forward the ordinance as a committee report after public comment on the item concluded. When a minor lot number in the ordinance text was discovered to be incorrect, the committee voted to rescind the prior approval, amend the ordinance (correcting the lot number from 101 to 010), and then vote again to forward the item to the full Board. The corrected motion passed on a 3‑0 roll call (Vice Chair Cheyenne Chen — yes; Member Bilal Mahmood — yes; Chair Melgar — yes).

Why it matters: The ordinance would change both the Planning Code and the Building Code so that short-term use of certain hotel properties as interim housing does not automatically alter the long-term zoning or occupancy classification of those structures. Proponents said the change would preserve the option to restore traditional hotel operations when shelter-in-place uses end while allowing the city to use hotel rooms for emergency or interim shelter needs.

What the committee did and said: The item was placed on the committee agenda as a potential committee report. There were no public commenters for the item when the committee opened public comment. After the clerk confirmed no speakers, Chair Melgar moved to send the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. A clerical error in the ordinance’s lot number was later identified; the committee rescinded the initial vote, adopted the clerical correction as an amendment, and again passed the committee report recommendation 3‑0.

Next steps: The ordinance, as amended by the committee to correct the lot number, will be transmitted to the full board for consideration at its next available meeting.

Votes and procedural actions recorded in the committee:
- Motion: Recommend ordinance as a committee report (initial motion). Maker: Chair Mirna Melgar. Vote: Chen — aye; Mahmood — aye; Melgar — aye. Outcome: Passed (later rescinded due to clerical error).
- Motion: Rescind prior motion to forward (to allow correction). Maker: Chair Mirna Melgar. Vote: Chen — aye; Mahmood — aye; Melgar — aye. Outcome: Passed.
- Motion: Amend ordinance (correct lot number on page 8, line 3 from '101' to '010') and forward as amended. Maker: Chair Mirna Melgar. Vote: Chen — aye; Mahmood — aye; Melgar — aye. Outcome: Passed and item forwarded to full board.

Authorities mentioned in the committee report and ordinance text include amendments to the San Francisco Planning Code and the San Francisco Building Code; the committee relied on those local codes to authorize interim housing without changing an occupancy classification.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","San Francisco County - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Jun 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Land Use and Transportation Committee voted unanimously June 16 to forward to the full Board an ordinance authorizing use of certain tourist hotels and motels for interim housing and to allow reestablishment of hotel use at shelter-in-place hotels after staff corrected a clerical lot-number error and re-voted.","taxTitle","San Francisco County, California","taxId",2862,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6676485,"Planning department previews large-scale housing rezoning; supervisors, public press for tenant protections, historic preservation and small-business support",2221,235000,2456000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3843095-91d2b5b9a157c57ef198f6c9ab580337&start=235&end=2456","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3843095-91d2b5b9a157c57ef198f6c9ab580337/thumbnail_235000.jpg","/articles/6676485/San-Francisco-County/California/Planning-department-previews-large-scale-housing-rezoning-supervisors-public-press-for-tenant-protections-historic-preservation-and-small-business-support","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6676485-8ad5db82c2524f1ba39a7b510ce0c67a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770917297&Signature=TSyNHUk0yi8VoCFIVW0ik4GrNDdFs5scZrhADYH6da1kA8zPJkMt9xMf32OGnHHGsCgT4-K01pBfpvcgva1cA3Luj4DQ-6bPBeKmT0WZAeWUETspSg0JdgMglD5aPXnRjt-meSUvaMtm2d9fmSQSIWWtWdtZH3WicKLGOsLUsQ6~YlL4inFnfBT8czDJn~YaWOf-Lr4ZzQrGA142SeY2p8CMQqyhRPV6-SN6kCU0eR6DkWoav8x9TxFAidiljrsvuLfyYEx5gsE8dPNs80Lio-LR9oO2j7ItBEWNurmN9-kosr~kIxEGBpfooFoYNjySiw2YbC4E6IFw~SLixhtHSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Francisco planning staff on June 16 presented a sweeping family zoning proposal to the Land Use and Transportation Committee that would rezone broad areas of the city to create capacity for the housing the state requires in the 2025 housing element.

In a presentation to the committee, Rachel Tanner, director of the Planning Department’s citywide division, said the city must identify sufficient sites and zoning capacity to accommodate an additional roughly 36,200 housing units on land the state considers suitable and available for the RHNA period through 2031, and that Planning has added a 15% buffer to its calculations. The department showed a map concentrating mid‑rise and taller housing along major transit and commercial corridors (van Ness, Market, Geary and other arterials) and described a new local program that would offer developers a San Francisco‑specific alternative to the state density bonus.

Tanner and Lisa Chen, the department’s principal planner and project manager for the rezoning, said the package is intended to expand housing and “create stronger, more inclusive, and more resilient neighborhoods.” Chen described a set of base zoning changes, a menu of local waivers modeled on waivers used under state density bonus projects, and additional citywide policies: minimum density standards near frequent transit set to align with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit‑Oriented Communities rules, dwelling‑unit mix rules to preserve family‑sized units, maximum new‑construction unit sizes, a new residential transit‑oriented commercial (RTOC) zoning district, and reduced parking maximums.

Key points from staff and committee discussion
- Capacity numbers and timing: Planning said the rezoning aims to demonstrate realistic capacity to meet the state shortfall (36,200 units), noting roughly 58,100 units are already in the pipeline; the department is working toward code adoption at the Planning Commission in September and final approvals, signature and state review by January 2026.
- Local program vs. state density bonus: The draft allows properties to use a local San Francisco program with a menu of waivers and programmatic choices (including more flexible inclusionary housing options) or to pursue the state density bonus; in many neighborhoods a “density control” approach would cap heights unless the project opts into the local program. Chen said the local program would retain a 25% requirement for two‑bedroom (and larger) units in its unit‑mix standard for family‑sized housing.
- Tenant protections and demolition rules: Committee members and many public speakers pressed staff to strengthen protection for existing rent‑controlled units and to define demolition triggers that require Planning Commission authorization. Planning staff said the department is working with supervisors’ offices and the City Attorney to craft tenant protection legislation intended to implement state SB 330 compliance and to seek mechanisms for right‑of‑return for displaced low‑income tenants where state law permits; staff said state law (and the Ellis Act and Costa‑Hawkins limitations) constrain what the city can require.
- Historic preservation: Supervisors and numerous speakers urged a clear, resourced plan to identify and protect historic resources before upzoning encourages demolition. Planning staff said they plan to triage vulnerable buildings for survey and landmarking and noted the department’s intent to coordinate a larger preservation strategy.
- Small business displacement and mitigation: Business groups and merchant associations asked for proactive outreach, language access, funding for relocation/leasing support and construction‑period mitigation; staff said they are coordinating with the mayor’s office, Office of Small Business and supervisors’ offices on targeted assistance and a commercial corridor support fund.

Public comment was extensive and sharply divided. Vice Chair Cheyenne Chen tallied the speakers during the hearing and reported a rough summary to the committee: 39 speakers opposed the plan as proposed, 17 sought amendments for equity or stronger protections, and 19 supported the proposal. Opponents raised risks of displacement, loss of rent‑controlled units, threats to historic buildings and small businesses, and questioned the state RHNA figures; supporters said the city needs more housing to keep workers, families and young people, emphasized benefits to small‑business revenues and transit ridership, and urged the board to proceed while strengthening protections.

Committee action and next steps: After the informational presentation and public comment, the committee voted to file the hearing record (Vice Chair Chen — aye; Member Mahmood — aye; Chair Melgar — aye). Planning said it will hold an informational hearing at the Planning Commission on June 26 and further public meetings through the summer; staff expects commission adoption in September and subsequent Board of Supervisors consideration and transmittal to the mayor and the state HCD for final review by January 2026. The Planning Department committed to continue stakeholder outreach on tenant protections, historic preservation strategies and small‑business supports.

Why this matters: The rezoning would rewrite large portions of San Francisco’s zoning map and alter what can be built in many neighborhoods. Supporters say it’s necessary to meet state RHNA obligations and to increase housing supply to lower rents and support transit corridors; opponents warn it risks demolition of existing affordable and rent‑controlled housing, harm to small businesses and loss of historic neighborhood character without firm, funded protections.

Votes at a glance (committee):
- Motion: File public hearing for informational item on 2025 housing element rezoning and related policies. Maker: Chair Mirna Melgar. Vote: Cheyenne Chen — aye; Bilal Mahmood — aye; Mirna Melgar — aye. Outcome: Filed (3‑0).

Evidence in the record includes the Planning Department presentation, map handouts and a multi‑hour public comment record that planning staff said will inform the legislative package to follow.","At an informational hearing on June 16, planning staff outlined a proposed citywide rezoning (the Family Zoning Plan) to meet the 2025 housing element and state RHNA goals, including a map and a new local program as an alternative to the state density bonus. Staff said the city must create capacity for roughly 36,200 additional units (with a 15%","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board committee fixes clerical error, sends hotel interim-housing ordinance to full board

Planning department previews large-scale housing rezoning; supervisors, public press for tenant protections, historic preservation and small-business support