SF APARTMENT magazine

San Francisco Apartment Association Office

265 Ivy Street San Francisco, CA 94102

Tel 415-255-2288 Fax 415-255-1112

Email memberquestions@sfaa.org

Web www.sfaa.org

SFAA Staff

Executive Director Janan New Deputy Director Vanessa Khaleel

Education Specialist Stephanie Alonzo

Government and Community Affairs Charley Goss

Marketing Lara Kisich

Member Services Gershay Castaneda

Member Services Maria Shea

Accountant Crystal Wang

SFAA Officers President J.J. Panzer

Vice President Robert Link

Treasurer Jim Hurley

Secretary Kent Mar

SFAA Directors

Eric Andresen, Honor Bulkley, David Gruber, Neveo Mosser, Chris Bricker, Bert Polacci, James Sangiacomo, Dave Wasserman, Paul Gaetani

VOLUME XXXV, NUMBER 4

APRIL 2023

Published by San Francisco Apartment Association

Publisher Vanessa Khaleel

Editor Pam McElroy

Art Director Jéna Safai

Production Manager Cameron Shaw

Tel 415-255-2288

Web www.sfaa.org

SF Apartment Magazine (ISSN 1539-8161) Periodicals Postage Paid at San Francisco, California and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the SF APARTMENT MAGAZINE, 265 Ivy Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

The SF Apartment Magazine is published monthly for $84 per year by the San Francisco Apartment Association (SFAA), 265 Ivy Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. The SF Apartment Magazine is not responsible for the return or loss of submissions or artwork. The magazine does not consider unsolicited articles. The opinions expressed in any signed article in the SF Apartment Magazine are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the SFAA or SF Apartment Magazine. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If legal service or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. Acceptance of an advertisement by this magazine does not necessarily constitute any endorsement or recommendation by the SFAA, express or implied, of the advertiser or any goods or services offered. Published monthly, the SF Apartment Magazine is distributed to the entire membership of the SFAA. The contents of this magazine may not be reproduced without permission. Publisher disclaims any liability for published articles. Printed by Printing Partners Copyright @2023 by SFAA.

Housing Bills in the Works

AB 1114 —Assemblymember Matt Haney is proposing to eliminate building-permit appeals once a project has been fully approved by the Planning Department. Projects must be at least two-thirds residential to be included in the bill.

“We’re literally the only city in the state that allows anyone to stand up and object and stop a project even after it has received all its approvals. It’s insane,” Haney told the San Francisco Chronicle

SB 4 —With this bill (dubbed “YIGBY” or “Yes in God’s Backyard”), Senator Scott Wiener hopes to fast-track the process for religious institutions and nonprofit colleges to develop affordable housing on their properties.

SB 423 —This bill, also proposed by Senator Wiener, would make 2017’s SB 35 permanent. SB 35 is Senator Wiener’s housing bill that accelerated the construction of subsidized affordable housing in cities across the state. Currently, SB 35 is scheduled to sunset at the close of 2025.

A study conducted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development says that SB 35 has brought more than 11,000 homes to the state—3,000 of which were created in San Francisco, 80% of them affordable housing. And, according to the San Francisco Planning Department, SB 35 has shortened approval times for affordable housing from as long as three years to just four months.

Family-Sized Housing

Supervisor Myrna Melgar has introduced legislation that aims to incentivize much-needed familysized housing on the west side of the city. While clearly in line with the City’s housing production goals, it includes some requirements that could make it inapplicable to most of the west side properties it aims to cover.

The draft legislation would create the Family Housing Opportunity Special Use District, which shares a boundary with the Well-Resourced Neighborhoods Map included in the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element. The map covers the entire west side of the city, plus the Marina, Cow Hollow, and parts of North Beach. As drafted, the ordinance would expire eight years after it becomes effective.

The proposed ordinance encourages the construction of two-to-fourunit projects that provide at least two 2-bedroom units within the new special use district. Qualifying projects would be exempt from an otherwiserequired conditional use authorization (CU), including CUs that typically apply to the demolition of an existing residential unit. Eligible projects would also be exempt from Section 311 notice and the discretionary review process. Obtaining approval of a CU or having a project sent to the Planning Commission by a neighbor via discretionary review creates uncertainty and can add many months to a project’s approval timeline. Taking both CU requirements and Section 311/discretionary review off the table are meaningful incentives.

The legislation does not automatically exempt these projects from CEQA— but small new construction projects should be eligible for Class 3 (new construction of small structures) categorical exemptions.

Specifically, the new rules would apply to projects that construct twounit buildings (including a two unit building with a third standalone unit outside the proposed building envelope) and three-unit buildings (including a three unit building with a fourth standalone unit outside the proposed building envelope). At least two of the units in a qualifying project must have at least two bedrooms.

Projects must consist of ground-up new construction, and while they would be exempt from the otherwise-applicable density limit (up to four units per lot and not including any permitted accessory dwelling units), projects would not be exempt from the otherwise-applicable height limit for the property in question.

As drafted, the legislation includes several other restrictions that will limit its potential impact:

Qualifying projects cannot demolish a historic resource and must comply with the Residential Design Guidelines and the Planning Code, except for lot-based dwelling unit density limits. While requiring Code compliance in exchange for bypassing Planning Commission review is reasonable, the Residential Design Guidelines are not entirely objective, which will make it difficult for sponsors to assess whether Planning staff will deem a particular project in compliance with the guidelines. It’s also difficult to imagine how a third or fourth unit constructed outside the main building envelope could comply with the Planning Code’s rear yard and obstruction controls.

Additionally, projects cannot propose the demolition of any of the following:

• Units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past five years;

• Units that are or were subject to the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (Chapter 37 of the Administrative Code) within the past five years;

• Units that are or were occupied by lower or very low income households within the past five years; or

• Units that were withdrawn from the rental market pursuant to the Ellis Act within the past ten years.

The requirement related to the Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (i.e., the “Rent Ordinance”) is very limiting as drafted. Most residential units in San Francisco are subject to the Rent Ordinance, which has a rent control component and an eviction protection component.

Units built after June 13, 1979, most single-family homes and condos, and units that have undergone substantial rehabilitation are subject to the Rent Ordinance, but only to the eviction controls (not the rent increase limitations that apply to other units). If the legislation intends to exclude these units and older units subject to rent control limits, there will be nothing left for redevelopment pursuant to the proposed Family Housing Opportunity Special Use District. Protecting affordable units from demolition is a logical policy choice, but hopefully the legislation will be amended to limit this restriction only to units subject to the Rent Ordinance’s rent control protections.

Supervisor Melgar’s proposal has the potential to be an impactful piece of legislation to spur development on the west side of the city, and we’ll be keeping an eye on its progress through the legislative process.

This news item was authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose Attorney Chloe Angelis. She can be reached at 415-567-9000.

Storm-Related Anti-Price Gouging

The growing list of counties in the current storm-related state of emergency include Amador, Butte, El Dorado, Fresno, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Lake, Los Angeles, Madera, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Bernadino, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara,

Santa Cruz, Sierra, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne, and Yuba.

During the state of emergency, it is illegal to increase the price of goods and services by more than 10% above pre-emergency levels. This applies to rental housing for existing tenants, as well as rent increases during unit turnovers. Violators can face a year in county jail, a fine of up to $10,000, or both, as well as civil penalties.

Fire Alarm Upgrade Deadline

July 2023

By now, you’ve probably heard about the San Francisco fire alarm code section 1103.7.6.1, which was adopted in 2016. The entire process can take anywhere from two to four months, so if you haven’t started the process yet, don’t wait any longer.

Building owners of (R-2) residential buildings with three or more units with an existing building fire alarm system need to comply with sound level requirements for sleeping areas by July 2023. Alarm systems have to pass the “pillow test,” meaning the central fire alarm system must be loud enough for all residents to hear it from their bedroom (meeting a sound level of at least 75 dBA).

If this applies to you and you haven’t upgraded your fire alarm system, contact your existing fire alarm provider and see what they can do for you. They may already know what needs to be done and can help with your unique building. The alarm system professional you work with should consider whether or not you have electronic floor plans available, if there’s an elevator or sprinkler system in your building, or if you have construction or remodeling work planned.

For a list of SFAA-affiliated alarm system professionals, turn to page 46 of the member directory. For more information on the legislation and FAQs, visit sf-fire. org/308-sleeping-area-fire-alarm-requirements