SF Apartment Magazine August 2023

SF APARTMENT

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 8 AUGUST 2023

Published by San Francisco Apartment Association

Publisher Vanessa Khaleel

Editor Pam McElroy

Art Director Jéna Safai

Production Manager Cameron Shaw & Stephanie Alonzo

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.

Legislation Lowdown

Voice Your Opposition to SB 567

A bill that has raised concerns among landlords, SB 567, is gaining momentum in the State Assembly, posing potential challenges to property owners across California. The legislation, introduced by Senator Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles), and opposed by the California Apartment Association (CAA), aims to modify eviction provisions and impose new requirements that could hinder landlords’ ability to manage their properties effectively.

It is crucial for rental property owners to understand the potential negative impacts and take immediate action to oppose SB 567.

The proposed bill introduces a redefined definition of “owner,” which may restrict landlords from moving into their own properties, even in situations where it is necessary for personal or family reasons. Additionally, it imposes requirements for securing permits before terminating tenancies for significant repairs, potentially complicating essential property maintenance. Moreover, SB 567 seeks to extend notice periods for landlords who wish to

remove units from the rental market, affecting property sales and reducing market value.

To safeguard your rights and the health of the rental housing industry, your prompt action is required. Voice your opposition to SB 567 by sending a message to your Assembly member. Every landlord’s contribution matters, and together, we can make a substantial difference in shaping legislation that preserves our ability to effectively manage and invest in rental housing.

Act now and stand against SB 567 to protect your interests and the future of the rental housing industry in California. Send a message to your Assembly member through this link: caanet.quorum.us/campaign/48964

New State and Local Laws

The following are State and local laws that went into effect as of July 1, 2023.

SB 6 and AB 2011 to Streamline Construction

SB 6 by Senator Anna Caballero (D-Merced) and AB 2011 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland)

will streamline affordable multifamily housing construction on land zoned for commercial, retail, or parking purposes, while strengthening wage and health benefit regulations for construction contractors.

The bills are meant to convert vacant and under-used commercial buildings (like vacant big-box stores, strip malls, and office buildings) into housing by incentivizing housing projects in commercial corridors originally intended for retail and offices. The bills will expedite the construction process near city centers and public transit at unionscale wages.

With thousands of potential commercial sites across California, the bill would allow production of new affordable housing units at scale, without changing the density or character of existing residential neighborhoods. One recent analysis found the potential for 2.4 million units statewide.

The bill also includes new homeownership opportunities for middle-income Californians, while promoting climatefriendly affordable development on sites close to jobs and transit.

Minimum Wage Increase and Workers’ Comp

As of July 1, 2023, the minimum wage has increased in several Bay Area cities. In San Francisco, the minimum wage increased from $16.99 to $18.07, the biggest increase in the past eight years.

Employees performing work in San Francisco, including part-time and temporary employees, must be paid no less than the San Francisco minimum wage.

The minimum wage in Emeryville, now the highest in the country,

A roundup of recently enacted and pending legislation significant to San Francisco property owners.

SFAA TROPHY AWARDS

SAVE THE DATE!

Mark October 26, 2023, on your calendar for this year’s big event. The awards show will take place at the St. Regis Hotel in San Francisco.

The Trophy Awards honors the firms, employees, and properties leading San Francisco’s Rental Housing Community. Purchase tickets at sfaa.org/events. See pages 43, 59, and 65 for more information, including sponsorship details. You can also email sfaatrophyawards@sfaa.org.

And don’t forget to nominate your favorite industry professional. You can also nominate yourself—no need to be modest! Send nominations to sfaatrophyawards@sfaa.org

increased from $17.68 to $18.77. The minimum wage is now $16.80 in Fremont, $17.20 in Milpitas, and $18.07 in Berkeley.

SB 216 dictates that contractors without workers’ compensation insurance will be risking their license.

For more information, visit sf.gov

Criminal Records Sealed

Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 731 into law, permanently sealing most prior convictions on a person’s criminal record in California. Conviction and arrest records for most former offenders who have not been convicted of another felony within four years after finishing their sentences, probation, or parole, will be sealed. Records of arrests that did not lead to convictions will also be sealed.

Juneteenth State Holiday

Juneteenth, which is celebrated on June 19, will now be recognized as an official state holiday. Community colleges and public schools will be closed, and state

employees will receive paid time off for the holiday.

Boosting Home Ownership

In 2022, SB 9 took effect, imposing radical new requirements on local jurisdictions to approve new housing in singlefamily neighborhoods. Although the results of SB 9 have been mixed (more on that later), Sacramento has seized upon the SB 9 playbook and looked to expand it with SB 684.

SB 684 seeks to “create new pathways to homeownership for middle-income Californians” by making it faster and easier to build smaller, more naturally affordable “starter” homes near jobs, schools, transit, and other amenities. The bill streamlines approvals for homes in infill developments of ten homes or fewer, in multifamily zones, and on vacant lots in single-family zones. (It’s worth noting that in San Francisco, inclusionary requirements kick in at ten units, so projects seeking eight or nine units under this bill may get some pressure to do ten and fulfill the inclusionary requirement.)

The bill supercharges the lot-split provisions of SB 9. The bill amends the Subdivision Map Act, the state law that regulates the creation and improvement of subdivisions and lot splits, to make it faster and easier to build more housing on a single parcel of land.

Specifically, SB 684:

• Requires ministerial approval of a subdivision map that creates up to ten units on qualifying parcels in multifamily neighborhoods and on vacant lots in single-family neighborhoods.

• Shortens the timeframe development by requiring local agencies to approve building permits once a tentative map has been approved under the Subdivision Map Act.

• Prohibits the removal of housing that is low income, rent-controlled, or occupied by tenants within the last seven years.

• Ensures streamlined projects meet environmental sustainability standards.

SB 684, introduced by Senator Anna Caballero (D-Salinas Valley), was passed by the state Senate and is with the Assembly.

Speaking of SB 9: the 2022 law was adopted with great fanfare. A 2021 analysis by the Terner Center estimated that over 700,000 new homes could be newly feasible to build if SB 9 passed—taking into account on-the-ground market dynamics. But the reality has been different. Many California cities passed urgency ordinances implementing additional regulations prior to implementing the benefits of SB 9. Some jurisdictions still have yet to adopt the objective design standards needed to approve SB 9 projects.

Local regulations—such as low maximum unit size, height limitations, and other design rules—can render the construction of SB 9 homes infeasible. Not to mention high construction costs and/or lack of expertise with homebuilding. As a result, few jurisdictions in California are seeing much SB 9 activity, and many are seeing none. In San Francisco, only 34 applications have been submitted, and 16 approved (21 total units). Los Angeles had the most overall activity in 2022, with 211 applications for new units under SB 9. We will continue to monitor the progress of both SB 9 and SB 684.

The above news item was reprinted with permission and authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Thomas P. Tunny.

Free Estate Planning

San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Joaquín Torres announced the next phase of the Estate Planning Program in partnership with the nonprofit organization Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA). Building off the program’s initial success, an additional one hundred free or low-cost estate plans will be provided to low-income and moderateincome households in San Francisco.

Your Space or Mine?

written by THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT BOARD

Editor’s Note: The following San Francisco Rent Board cases are real, though they have been edited for space and clarity. They have been selected to highlight some of the more interesting cases that the Board reviewed at its recent commission meetings. For full Rent Board agendas and minutes, please visit sfrb.org.

3000 Block of Divisadero Street

The tenant stated that he’s lived in the unit since 1995, and that his parking spot has always accommodated two cars. He stated that he submitted witness testimony at the hearing that corroborated his claim to tandem parking. He stated that the property manager’s testimony that she had not seen him park tandem vehicles in his spot is of little value, because the witness admitted her visits to the property are infrequent.

A property manager stated that at the time the landlord bought the building, they were provided paperwork showing there were fifteen parking spaces, not sixteen, and that the parking space the tenant appellant is assigned has space for only one car.

Another property manager stated that the tenant never informed the new owner or property manager of his parking arrangement and has no written evidence that this arrangement exists. He stated that he’s been a property manager for many years, and it’s generally accepted that if you don’t have an agreement in writing, you have nothing to rely on.

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was denied. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the tenant failed to meet his burden of proving that tandem use of his parking space was a housing service provided by the landlord.

The tenant appeals, arguing that he presented substantial evidence in support of his claim and that the ALJ gave disproportionate weight to the property manager’s testimony.

Decision: To accept the appeal and remand the case for the ALJ to consider the tenant’s additional evidence that was submitted on appeal (5-0).

1300 Block of La Playa Street

The tenant stated that this appeal highlights the importance of requiring landlords to provide notification to tenants before beginning construction projects that will affect their quality of life. She stated that the landlord omitted important details from their tenant notification, and that the tenants were denied due process.

The attorney for the landlord told the Board that the only issue on appeal is whether the landlord’s proposed ADU plans will result in a substantial decrease in housing services for the tenants. She stated that whether the tenants received notice “on the first go” is irrelevant, since all the tenants have now received notice and been given an opportunity to object at the Rent Board. She stated that a

landlord’s ADU Declaration doesn’t have to describe the landlord’s construction plans in great detail; that garbage and laundry services will be improved after the ADU work; that the tenants’ balconies are not being removed; and that the project will not result in a substantial decrease in housing services for the tenants.

The tenant’s objection to the landlord’s ADU Declaration was denied. The ALJ found that the landlord’s proposed ADU construction project, as proposed, would not result in a substantial reduction in housing services pursuant to Rent Ordinance Section 37.2(r).

On appeal, the tenant argues in part that she was not provided proper notice of the proposed ADU work under the Planning Code, and that she was unfairly prejudiced by the landlord’s late submission of evidence.

Decision: To deny the appeal (5-0).

1200 Block of Washington Street

A tenant stated that the prior landlord increased the rent far above the lawful amounts, but the tenants did not contest the increases at the time because they were afraid of being evicted and because the prior landlord informed them that they would have to sell the property without the increased rent. He stated that the tenants decided to file the petition after the property was listed for sale, which they felt was the right thing to do at that time.

A former landlord of the property stated that the tenants came up with

If an agreement isn’t in writing, is it even an agreement?

the rent increase amount and agreed to it, and the owners could not afford to keep the building with the low rent paid by the tenants. She stated that the property was recently sold to a new owner, and that the decision should therefore be adjusted to pro-rate liability for overpayments. She also stated that the decision is inconsistent with the Rent Board’s mission statement to ensure “fair and adequate rents”; that the tenant bullied the owners; and that the Board should take fairness into consideration.

The tenants’ petition claiming an unlawful rent increase was granted and the landlords were found liable for rent overpayments in the amount of $38,353.29.

On appeal, the landlords claim there were factual errors in the decision; that the tenants’ rent history evidence was insufficient; and that the tenants’ corrected rent is inadequate and not comparable with rents in neighboring units.

The former landlord of the property stated that she agrees with the Commissioner who commented that the burden of proof was on the tenant; that the tenant’s evidence was scant and unverified; and that she would like the Board to adjust the amount owed to the tenant since she only collected rent for part of January 2023 before the property was sold.

Decision: To deny the appeal (4-1).

The above information was reprinted from the Rent Board website. For more information, visit. sfrb.org.

FORCE MAJEURE AND COVID IMPLICATIONS ON TENANCIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

What happens when a tenant does not pay rent, citing the financial impacts of the COVID pandemic? Can such tenant rely on the force majeure provision in the lease to excuse the payment of said rent?

These questions arose in lease contexts throughout the pandemic, and a recent Court of Appeal case weighed in on one such situation. In West Pueblo Partners, LLC v. Stone Brewing Co., LLC (C.A. 1st, April 3, 2023. Westlaw Cite: 2023 WL 3151827), the court found that West Pueblo Partners, LLC (“Landlord”) could bring an unlawful detainer action to evict Stone Brewing Co., LLC (“Tenant”) and Tenant was not excused from paying rent due to a force majeure event, specifically the COVID pandemic.

In West Pueblo, Tenant operated a brewery and restaurant that was shut down in different capacities due to COVID restrictions during 2020 and 2021. Tenant alleged they did not have to (and did not) pay rent, citing the force majeure provision in the lease, which stated in relevant part, “if a party is delayed from performing any of its obligations under the lease due to act of god or governmental act, then the time for performance of such party shall be extended for an equivalent amount of time.” Tenant argued the governmental regulations and business interruptions triggered the force majeure provision, and they were excused from paying rent during such time.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the force majeure provision in the lease (which, to note, did not include a typical qualification that payment of rent is always required regardless of any force majeure event) and found that if the force majeure event had effectively stopped Tenant from paying rent, that is one thing (for example, a snowstorm blocked the ability to send a wire), but here, they had the financial means and chose not to pay the rent due to COVID restrictions and negative impacts on their business. The Court of Appeal also dug into prior cases analyzing force majeure provisions generally: it reiterated that “the qualifying event must have still caused a party’s timely performance under the contract to become impossible or unreasonably expensive.” The Court of Appeal found that force majeure events that merely make performance unprofitable, more difficult, or expensive do not suffice to excuse a contractual obligation.

The West Pueblo court noted that Tenant admitted it had the financial means to pay the rent but elected not to—a relevant consideration for the Court of Appeal when it reviewed other (out of state) cases that held certain tenants were excused from paying rent due to COVID and force majeure considerations. In those cases, the tenants could not pay rent due to COVID because they did not have the financial ability to do so. Here, Tenant was a company with multiple operations and admitted it could have paid the rental amounts due but had dramatically less income due to the restrictions.

The West Pueblo case highlights that although a party’s performance may be delayed if they are unable to act due to the force majeure event, it does not necessarily excuse them from performing said action if it was just more expensive or harder to do. It must be impossible or egregiously expensive to comply to warrant excusing a contractual obligation. Even COVID restrictions, which decimated restaurants’ ability to make money, do not necessarily insulate such tenants from their obligations under their leases. This is especially true if the tenant objectively has the means to make the rental payment otherwise.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Lindsay Petrone.

Playing the Marathon

written by VARIOUS AUTHORS

Q.A tenant asked for a rent decrease after seeing an ad for a neighboring unit at a lower price. What should I do?

A.The Doom Loop’s effects will not spare the residential rental market. With office occupancy in desperate straits and retailers fleeing the City, apartment pricing is bound to suffer a downward adjustment. The media posts endless debates as to the cause of our decline and what is needed to fix the Herculean problems plaguing the once glorious San Francisco, but the reality is that no one knows how deep we descend and for how long.

And unlike other slowdowns or corrections, the current situation is unparalleled in modern history. While housing providers witnessed such events as the Dot Com Bust or the Great Recession, this time the environment appears to be much more perilous. Indeed, past setbacks did not include a massive business exodus, a seemingly neverending drug and homeless crisis, or an onslaught of overly negative press coverage by national and international media outlets. Today is truly different, and we should rejoice if there is meaningful relief three or five years from now.

In the meantime, rents set within the recent past, save for the one or two years when there was massive pandemic flight and the rental market plummeted, might very well be higher

than market. And even without advertising, building residents are now able to ascertain what their neighbors are paying through the Rent Board’s housing inventory database that will soon be accessible to everyone online. So unlike in past recessions, housing providers now must register their apartments and rents with the Rent Board, and, as has been advertised since the law’s passage in 2020, all pertinent rental data will be annually registered with the Rent Board. This massive library will permit anyone to search for an address to ascertain the basic terms of tenancy, including current monthly rent. In particular, the law states that:

“The Rent Board shall use the information it receives under [the Housing Inventory Law] to create a housing inventory that may be used for purposes of inspecting and investigating the level of housing services being provided to tenants, investigating and analyzing rents and vacancies, monitoring compliance with [the Rent Ordinance], generating reports and surveys, and providing assistance to landlords and tenants and other City departments as needed.”

Thus, there are no more secrets, even if you are not advertising a vacant and available apartment. Moreover, if you think you can just ride out the Doom Loop by keeping housing off-line, think again. As you likely already know, the voters passed a vacancy tax measure set to take effect

in 2024 that will impose taxes on vacant rental housing should there be no rental activity for more than half of the year. As summarized by the Department of Elections:

“Under Proposition M, in 2024, the tax would range from $2,500 to $5,000 per vacant unit, depending on the unit’s size. In later years, the tax would increase to a maximum of $20,000 if the same owner kept that unit vacant for consecutive years. The tax would also be adjusted for inflation.”

What should you do? You may certainly decline the request and risk a move-out. Conversely, you may readjust the rent commensurate with today’s market conditions, but keep in mind that the reduction is permanent even if the local economy rebounds while the residents are still in occupancy. The Rent Board’s longstanding rule is that rent adjustments due to market conditions are permanent, period. Therefore, choose wisely, and consider the financial implications of a prolonged vacancy in the event you decide to push yesterday’s pricing into today’s reality.

—Dave Wasserman

Q.When the tenants in a unit of my duplex toured the property, they asked if I lived on site, and I said no. My circumstances have changed, and I moved into the upper unit. They’re threatening legal action because I “disclosed” I lived elsewhere. Is this legit?

A.Under California rental law, a landlord has a duty to disclose certain information to a potential tenant, e.g., existence of mold, sex offender database, bedbug issues, death in the unit.

Consider negotiating a fair rent reduction before entering the current market with a vacancy.

Disclosing whether or not you live in the building is not among these requirements. In fact, with larger buildings of sixteen or more units, an owner or manager would be required to live on site.

At a local level, despite strong eviction protections, a landlord generally has a right to live in at least one unit in their property (through one means or another). There’s also a constitutionally protected privacy interest in an owner’s ability to decide who lives in their residence, and a vacancy tax (currently subject to a challenge by SFAA) if an owner fails to primarily reside in their home—so, the idea that a tenant of a different unit could exclude the landlord from a unit they already have possession of is preposterous.

In our high-stakes industry, we sometimes have to remind clients that anyone can sue anyone for anything. That doesn’t mean it is a good idea or that it will be successful, and there are possible consequences including sanctions for bringing frivolous lawsuits or independent actions for malicious prosecution.

It is also hard to imagine what the damages would be even if the tenant could substantiate something like a misrepresentation claim. Are they worried you’re going to be in a better position to enforce your rights and their obligations if you lived on site? This is something you’re already privileged to do (provided you respect their right of privacy just as if you lived off site).

It might be awkward living next to a tenant/neighbor who is threatening legal action. You may have to tread more lightly than you expected, and a threat like this suggests some ulterior motive (like the desire for you to pay them to vacate), but in the meantime, you are not violating their rights by moving into your home.

—Justin A. Goodman & Laura Dang

Q.Our contractor needs to access our neighbor’s (SFH) backyard to perform a quick repair to

the property. I’ve emailed and called her multiple times, but she hasn’t responded. Can my contractor just go back and complete the repair?

A.Unfortunately, no. In San Francisco, it is not uncommon for property owners to build to the property line and then find that they need access to their neighbor’s property to make necessary repairs. Although it may seem harmless to quickly access your neighbor’s backyard to make a repair, this self-help fix is trespassing and could expose you, and your contractor, to significant legal consequences.

A trespass is entering the land of another without permission. A trespasser could be liable for actual damages, emotional distress experienced by the owner, and punitive damages. If your neighbor believes you intend to trespass, she could preemptively get a court order prohibiting you from entering his or her property. Violating a court order could subject you to sanctions and contempt of court. There are also criminal statutes that prohibit trespassing. The penalties for criminal trespassing include fines and jail time. Moreover, trespassing on your neighbor’s property will likely cause considerable ill will and could permanently damage the relationship.

So, what can you do? Under state law, you could petition the court for a right to temporarily use your neighbor’s property under a private right of eminent domain. (Civil Code Section 1002). The following conditions must be met:

• There is a necessity to do the work and a great necessity to enter upon the neighbor’s property because either (i) the work cannot be done safely without entry, or (ii) the cost of the work would be substantially higher;

• The property that is being repaired adversely affects the surrounding community without the repair;

• The right to enter will be exercised in the least intrusive manner possible; and

• The hardship to the person seeking access clearly outweighs the hardship to the impacted owner.

If you met these elements, a court would issue an order allowing access. The court may require you to make a deposit to cover potential damage, and to pay a reasonable rent for access. Seeking a private right of eminent domain may well be expensive and even unsuccessful, but the threat of legal action often causes a recalcitrant neighbor to return a call.

Ultimately, preparing a formal access agreement with your neighbor is the best long-term pathway for maintaining your property. You should consult a real estate attorney to ensure you get the access you need within the confines of the law.

—Laura Strazzo

The information contained in this article is general in nature. Consult the advice of an attorney for any specific problem. Dave Wasserman is with Wasserman Offices and can be reached at 415-567-9600. Justin A. Goodman, Laura Dang, and Laura Strazzo are with Zacks & Freedman, PC, and can be reached at 415-956-8100.

Chopping Blocks

Written by THE MAYOR’S PRESS

Legislation to Expedite New Housing

The San Francisco Planning Commission approved legislation introduced by Mayor London Breed and Supervisors Joel Engardio and Matt Dorsey to remove barriers to make it easier and faster to approve new housing. This legislation amends the Planning Code to eliminate unnecessary processes and hearings, eliminate certain requirements and geographic restrictions, and expand housing incentive programs for new housing that fits within the City’s existing zoning laws.

This legislation is a key piece of Mayor Breed’s Housing for All Plan, which is the City’s effort to build 82,000 new homes over the next eight years. This legislation meets obligations set out in the City’s Housing Element, which was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors in January and certified by the State.

“This is a good step forward for removing barriers to new housing in San Francisco, but we’ve still got work to do to get this legislation across the finish line,” said Mayor London Breed. “If we are going to make San Francisco an affordable place for everyone to live, we need to be aggressive in reforming how we approve housing, reduce fees, and get rid of all the obstructions that get in the way of building housing.”

The approval by the Planning Commission is a crucial step in this process. Next, the proposed legislation will go to the Board of Supervisors for approval, first at the Land Use and Transportation Committee.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development wrote a letter to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, urging them to approve it.

The Planning Commission approved legislation to streamline new housing, eliminating unnecessary procedures and requirements, and expanding incentive programs.

OFFICE

The proposed legislation would make significant changes to the Planning Code to remove constraints on new housing across three main categories:

Eliminate Unnecessary Processes

This legislation would amend many existing code provisions that require the approval of a Conditional Use Authorization (CU) by the Planning Commission. A CU approval can add six to nine months to the housing approval process by requiring hearings and discretionary approvals for projects that already comply with zoning laws. By eliminating CUs for code-compliant projects, this legislation would allow new housing to be approved faster.

Remove Restrictive Standards and Geographic Limitations

This legislation would eliminate requirements that limit the form or location of certain types of housing. This includes easing geographic limitations on senior housing, shelters and group housing, as well as reforming development standards like private open space and 1950s-era requirements for how far back a building must be offset from the property line, which will provide more flexibility for new housing proposals.

Expand Incentives for Housing

The legislation would eliminate certain restrictions to expand existing incentive programs for housing. As a result, access to the City’s HomeSF program would be expanded, and the City could waive fees for certain affordable housing projects.

This legislation executes on goals set forth in the Housing Element while responding to current economic conditions. High construction costs and challenging economic conditions have made most types of new housing construction infeasible. However, by

reducing approval timelines and creating greater certainty for permit approvals, this legislation will help clear the path for new housing construction by limiting costs associated with the City’s own approval process.

Affordable Housing in the Haight

In July, Mayor Breed joined local leaders and development partners to celebrate breaking ground at 730 Stanyan Street, a new mixed-use, 100% affordable housing development in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood.

Located at the intersection of Haight and Waller Streets, directly across the street from Golden Gate Park, 730 Stanyan will provide 160 new permanently affordable rental units serving households earning between 25% to 80% of the area median income (AMI), with twenty units designated for transitional aged youth, twelve units for families exiting homelessness, and thirty-two units supported by Project Based Vouchers (PBV) administered by the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco (SFHA).

“This project is not only adding 160 new homes for low-income families and youth, but it’s also adding to what it is an incredible community in the Haight,” said Mayor Breed. “Years of work by the City and the community have gone into this corner at Haight and Stanyan, and I can’t wait to welcome the first residents into their new homes. This is exactly the kind of project we need in neighborhoods across San Francisco.”

In addition to community spaces for residents, 730 Stanyan will feature four separate commercial spaces open to the community on the ground floor, including an early childhood daycare center, a neighborhood-serving community space, a food hall, and a

micro-retail space. The commercial spaces will reflect the distinct character of the historic Haight Street Business Corridor.

The $153.2 million project is funded by a mix of federal tax credits, as well as substantial support from the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD), funded in-part by the voter-approved 2019 Affordable Housing General Obligation Bond. Additional construction lending was provided by Bank of America.

730 Stanyan will be co-developed and managed by Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC) and Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC), two nonprofit organizations with more than 85 years of combined experience in both the development and management of affordable housing in San Francisco.

730 Stanyan was designed by architecture firms OMA and Y.A. Studio, who created a model partnership between an internationally recognized architecture firm and a San Francisco-based African American-led architecture firm. Local firms GLS Landscape Architecture, Cahill Contractors, and Hercules Builders are principals in the project’s design and construction.

This will be the first development to meet City Planning’s agreement process to pay tribute to Native American land through public art. The project will pursue LEED Gold certification, which authenticates that the project was designed and constructed using strategies aimed at improving energy savings, water efficiency, and overall indoor quality.

730 Stanyan is slated to open in the fall of 2025, and builds on Mayor Breed’s efforts to increase housing across San Francisco as part of

Housing for All, which is the City’s strategy to fundamentally change how it approves and builds housing. Housing For All sets out the steps the City will take to meet the bold goal of allowing for 82,000 new homes to be built over eight years.

Public Parks in Mission Bay

On July 1, the City started operating more than twenty-four acres of public parks in the Mission Bay neighborhood. The Port of San Francisco and the Recreation and Parks Department will jointly manage the space, previously overseen by the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII).

The Mission Bay Parks network includes the Mission Creek Complex sport courts, a dog play area, plazas, lawns, esplanades, pavilion, boathouse, and boat launch. Additionally, the Department will oversee Mariposa Park, Mission Bay Commons, the Channel Street Dog Park, and the Mission Bay Kids Park. The Port of San Francisco will manage the Bayfront parks along the Bay and Terry Francois Boulevard.

The process to transition the Mission Bay Parks network to City management has been 25 years in the making and marks a significant milestone for San Francisco. The community’s redevelopment began in 1998 under the direction of the former San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. This project is one of the largest and most innovative urban developments initiated by the City.

Previously, OCII (formerly known as the Redevelopment Agency) operated the Mission Bay Parks through a private management company that handled day-to-day operations, such as permits for special events, security, gardening, and janitorial duties. The

parks system includes playgrounds, dog parks, picnic areas, boat launches, sport courts, and pocket parks.

“Every San Franciscan deserves access to nature and high-quality recreation, and we are so pleased to now serve those who live, work, and visit Mission Bay,” said Recreation and Parks General Manager Phil Ginsburg.

“The Eastern part of San Francisco has historically been underinvested in and disenfranchised. This transfer marks the culmination of a process that has provided much-needed housing, jobs, and open green space,” said Sarah Davis, Chair of the Mission Bay Community Advisory Committee, and long-time Mission Creek Harbor resident. “Mission Creek originally flowed from what is now Mission Dolores, into the San Francisco Bay, and provided a natural habitat and refuge for wildlife. These parks are the next step in reclaiming nature and open space for all San Franciscans. We will be providing crucial access to the waterfront and water activities, particularly for the low-income and BIPOC communities that live here.”

San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Division manages more than 225 parks, 25 recreation centers, 9 swimming pools, and 4,113 acres of open space throughout the city. The Port of San Francisco manages more than 150 acres of parks along its 7.5 miles of San Francisco shoreline. In 2017, San Francisco became the first U.S. city in which every resident lived within a ten-minute walk to a park.

Business Tax Reform

Mayor Breed, Board of Supervisors

President Aaron Peskin, and Supervisor Rafael Mandelman announced a goal of placing a business tax reform measure on the November 2024 ballot.

Treasurer José Cisneros, Controller Ben Rosenfield, and the City’s Chief Economist Ted Egan issued a report that analyzed the key vulnerabilities of San Francisco’s business tax system in the context of our post-pandemic recovery.

The report found that remote work has a sizeable fiscal impact on the City’s revenue:

• Business tax revenue relies on technology, financial services, and related office industries. Remote work has reduced leased office space in these industries and makes the city vulnerable to large taxpayers leasing offices elsewhere.

• Remote work can directly affect how much tax a business owes the City, given how current taxes are calculated.

• The City’s tax revenue is increasingly reliant on commercial property, through its Commercial Rents Tax, and Transfer Tax. Remote work is likely to reduce the rent and value associated with commercial property, which will lead to future revenue weakness.

• Voter-approved tax measures, along with structural changes in the city’s economy, have created a highly progressive system in which the largest five businesses — who make up 0.04% of business taxpayers — pay 24% of the revenue. In addition to the risk of these businesses leaving the city, such a system is potentially unstable and runs counter to the policy goal of broadening the tax base to promote revenue stability.

The above content was written by the Mayor’s Press Office. For more information, visit sf.gov/news/ office-mayor.

The team is composed of seasoned professionals with over 180+ years of combined extensive knowledge of the real estate market. With strong negotiation and communication skills, our primary goal is to help clients make informed decisions that align with their business objectives and maximize their return on investment. With a deep understanding of the local market, a wide network of contacts, and a commitment to delivering outstanding results.

TWO-WAY STREET

Written by DANIEL BORNSTEIN, ESQ.

Lawful buyout agreements—in good faith and with proper counsel—can be less costly and onerous than unlawful detainer actions.

“Cash for keys” is a term that was popularized during the subprime mortgage crisis that began in 2007. Paying a tenant to leave is a practice that exists to this day, but what many rental property owners do not recognize is that there can still be legal residue arising from the tenancy. For instance, a tenant receives money to move out, six months go by, and they develop a respiratory illness from an alleged mold infestation in their former abode and sue the landlord.

In a properly prepared, compliant, and enforceable Tenant Surrender of Possession Agreement—known colloquially as a “tenant buyout agreement”—the tenant is not only agreeing to vacate voluntarily but also relinquishing any legal claims arising from the tenancy. So, when we ink a buyout agreement, owners are not just paying the tenant to get the keys but also paying for a complete release of claims.

What Does a Buyout Go For?

We’re often asked what typical payout is required to entice a tenant to move out, and we can’t give a straight answer, because it is all across the board. It can range from as low as a rent waiver and the return of a security deposit to as much as six figures.

Every case is different, but we can tell you what the San Francisco Rent Board says, because legally reported buyout agreements are in the domain of public records. In 2022, the average payout was $53,828.

While this number may seem astronomical, landlords can get this number down through proper counsel, savvy negotiation, and having a leveraged discussion with a tenant.

But wait. Before we even open our mouths and broach any discussion with the tenant about buying them out, we have to notify the San Francisco Rent Board that we are entertaining a buyout agreement.

When there is a meeting of the minds and parties agree to something, normally it is not scrutinized. Ordinarily, contract law applies because two parties agreed on the terms.

This is not the case with tenant buyout agreements. Regulators want a bit more oversight to ensure that in these types of voluntary move-out arrangements, renters are not being taken advantage of and get a square deal when they are asked to be uprooted.

Of paramount concern is whether the tenant is apprised of their rights and informed that they can decline to come to the negotiating table. Oftentimes when presented with the prospect of getting cash and/or other concessions, the tenant simply says, “No, thanks. I’m happy to be here for the rest of my life.” And, in fact, they are entitled to do so unless the landlord can find a just cause reason to legally terminate the tenancy under San Franciso’s Rent Ordinance.

Different Scenarios for a Tenant Buyout Discussion

A buyout when there are no other convenient or legal means to evict: Absent a just cause reason to evict under San Franciso’s Rent Ordinance, owners have few other options to effectuate a vacancy.

Buyouts give owners more flexibility because they haven’t taken their rental units off the market (Ellis Act), and they can avoid the statutory requirements of an owner move-in eviction, such as living in the unit for thirty-six continuous months and re-renting it at the original rent amount.

Compromise to avoid litigation: Perhaps the owner does have a legitimate reason to evict; say, the tenant is having parties at night or is engaging in some sort of other nuisance behavior, but the owner wants to avoid the time, expense, and aggravation of an unlawful detainer (eviction) action. This presents an opportunity to have a leveraged discussion with the problematic tenant about a chapter change in their housing.

Aided by no shortage of free legal representation by capable tenants’ attorneys, litigation is proliferating throughout the Bay Area. In the unfortunate event a housing provider is sued for an alleged wrong, ironclad insurance coverage will ideally pay for the settlement, but the owner will likely have to pay out of pocket to escort the tenant out.

Also, when a tenant commences an affirmative lawsuit, the owner must be represented by proper counsel at any mediation or settlement conference to ensure that the deal includes a move-out.

When to Make Payments

Our office likes to offer a small portion of money upfront to ensure the tenant finds another housing arrangement and gets psychologically locked into the deal, with the balance paid out once the tenant has vacated and there is a certainty that the unit is vacant and free of possessions.

This may defy conventional wisdom because many landlords would say, “I’m not paying a tenant until all of their stuff is out and they hand over the keys.” Yet when a tenant gets tangible money in their hands on the front end of the deal, they generally become emotionally committed to complying with the terms.

So, for those of you worried that the tenant will take the initial payment and not move out, our hard-won experience has shown us that this concern is misplaced.

Of course, in the eventuality that the tenant takes the money and does not fulfill their agreed-upon move-out, the landlord can take legal action because there is a breach of contract. We find this to be exceedingly rare because once we get the tenant in the mindset of moving on with a first, small, and token installment of money and they anticipate a larger chunk of money once they move out, they follow through.

Remember that a tenant buyout agreement is voluntary and our strong preference is compliance, not enforcement.

How to Broach the Conversation

It’s worth noting that before a San Francisco landlord even opens their mouth, they must first serve a disclosure on the tenants and file a declaration with the Rent Board. We won’t get bogged down in the procedural details here, but assuming that these rigors are met, the next question is how to come to an agreement.

We would much like the client to have a non-threatening dialogue with the tenant themselves, in a friendly environment like a coffee shop. Bornstein Law can engage with the tenant, but we frown on that because the tenant can become intimidated by an attorney.

It’s more likely than not that the tenant, after hearing from a high-caliber attorney, will retain an attorney of their own to negotiate the buyout, and their legal counsel will come back with a number that is not economically feasible. We often field calls from tenant attorneys that go something like this: “Mr. Bornstein, I’m representing John Doe and we thank you for your offer to transition him out of the unit because the status quo

Ways to Connect.

to have your questions and concerns promptly addressed, or call the office at 415-255-2288. You can also follow the happenings of your fellow SFAA members and find out the latest in the industry by connecting with SFAA.

• Email SFAA at MemberQuestions@sfaa.org

• Follow SFAA on Twitter at twitter.com/SFAptAssoc

• Follow SFAA on Linkedin

is not acceptable. John would embrace your offer in exchange for a rent waiver and $180,000.”

So, one of the downfalls of a tenant buyout agreement is that the numbers are totally unreasonable, especially when attorneys get involved. We prefer, then, for clients to have a solid agreement with the tenant remotely interested in hearing out a buyout agreement, as Bornstein Law works behind the scenes in a coaching role.

Sometimes, we like clients to ask openended questions like, “What would it take for you to move out?”—because the number floated may be less than what the landlord was willing to pay. This is the first rule of negotiation—know what the other side wants.

Some Landlords Cannot Have a Productive Dialog

We understand that in some instances, where there is so much acrimony in the rental relationship, it is difficult or impossible for the parties to have a constructive conversation about moving on. Some clients, candidly, are a bull in a china shop.

In these types of toxic relationships, an attorney can take charge in negotiating the buyout, but it will come at additional expense to the owner.

Are Buyouts Worth It?

Of course, the answer is determined on a case-by-case basis, but as a bit of real estate knowledge—not scientific, but generally speaking—an extra $1,000 in rent that can be commanded will result in a $100,000 appreciation of the building.

We understand that a voluntary vacancy can pay enormous dividends, and so whenever our law office encounters a tenant who is willing to consider an offer to surrender possession of the premises and the dollar amount is within reason, we strongly recommend that our clients take it.

It may be more costly to hire an attorney to prosecute an eviction action than to

Prevent Fires.

simply part ways with some sort of compensation, return of the security deposit, or any mixture of incentives for the tenant to move out.

Buyer’s Remorse

In certain locales like San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland, tenants are afforded some time to marinate on their decision to accept a buyout agreement or not, and even if they first accept the offer to voluntary vacate as part of a quid pro quo, they have the right to change their minds. In San Francisco, a tenant has an absolute right to rescind the buyout agreement within forty-five days of signing it, and this right cannot be waived.

Tape and Bag Lithium Batteries

What should you do with old lithium batteries? A big part of the answer is clear tape. Old lithium batteries may no longer have the power to run devices, but they can still release energy though their contact points. Lithium batteries that are not taped can cause fires in collection trucks and recycling facilities, and harm workers.

• Place clear tape over the contact points of used lithium batteries.

• Put taped lithium batteries in a clear plastic bag, and seal it shut.

• Place the bag on top of your landfill bin. Recology will collect the bag, sort the batteries, and safely ship them to companies that specialize in battery recycling.

San Francisco’s rules relating to buyout agreements have become particularly pernicious and fraught with litigation with regard to when a government body can interfere with a contract between two parties. Certainly, politicians and the Rent Board want transparency and control, but this impulse to meddle in private contracts has been challenged in the courts.

Housing has become very politicized throughout the Bay Area, and so there is added scrutiny when buyout agreements are entered into. This is reflected in a host of procedural obligations for housing providers to follow.

Rest assured, there is a labyrinth of rules to follow. It’s not just handing over cash for the return of the keys. But with proper counsel, owners can, in good faith, broker a win-win agreement to transition tenants out of the unit to realize upside potential on the property, while giving outgoing residents some support as they move on to different surroundings.

The information contained in this article is general in nature. Consult the advice of an attorney for any specific problem.

Daniel Bornstein, Esq, is of Bornstein Law and can be reached at 415-409-7611.

Written by SARMAD NAQVI & PAM MCELROY

When it comes to owning rental properties, navigating the realm of home insurance can often be a perplexing journey. As a rental property owner, understanding the ins and outs of insurance coverage is vital to protect your investments and ensure financial security. However, the complexities of insurance policies and the unique considerations of rental properties can leave you with numerous questions and uncertainties.

In this article, we address some frequently asked questions about home insurance for rental property owners, providing you with the knowledge and insights necessary to make informed decisions and alleviate the confusion surrounding this essential aspect of property management.

Q. I signed a property insurance contract, with the obligation that I install a home security system as soon as possible. It’s been a couple of months now, and no one has followed up. I’m having second thoughts. What am I risking if I don’t actually install one?

A. Immediately make sure your property insurance is active or has not seen an increase in cost. Typically, a requirement like this needs to be finished within a certain time frame to avoid an automatic cancellation/rate increase. The timeline can be as short as thirty days and sometimes it is before the next renewal.

Navigating insurance can feel overwhelming for housing providers. Read on for answers to frequently asked questions.

WE WANT TO HEAR YOUR QUESTIONS!

Have you been grappling with home insurance matters? Perhaps you find yourself facing a barrage of perplexing questions regarding coverage, policy options, or claims processes.

We understand that navigating the intricacies of home insurance for rental properties can be a daunting task, and we’re here to help!

We invite you to send your home insurance questions to the magazine’s editor (contact information below), and an SFAA associate member insurance provider will answer them in an upcoming issue of the magazine. Please use “Insurance Question” in the subject line.

Whether you’re curious about liability coverage, tenant-related issues, or premium considerations, our goal is to provide you with the knowledge and insights you need to navigate the world of home insurance with confidence.

Pam McElroy Editor SF Apartment Magazine pam@sfaa.org

A. You are not liable. However, if your tenant does not have renters insurance or adequate limits, your property insurance will be primary to respond. If that is the case, it would still affect the rate going forward. It’s best to require renters insurance for your tenants and even put force-placed renters insurance if they do not provide proof of their coverage.

Q. The lower unit in my duplex was damaged during the severe winter storms and was inhabitable during four months of repairs. I’ve been working with my insurance company during this time, but I haven’t gotten a clear answer as to whether the loss of income will be included in the check. Should it be?

A. If you and your broker have put the proper coverage in place, yes, it would be covered. However, loss of rent/loss of income/business interruption coverage is often miswritten within insurance contracts. When negotiating an insurance contract, you need to make sure the coverage is broad enough to cover the time and compensate you adequately.

The worst time to deal with a coverage gap is after a loss. It’s best to do an insurance contract review with a competent broker before a loss happens.

assuming the tenant is responsible for the fire and if the tenant has renters insurance, you should be able to have their insurance respond.

Q. Tenants smelled mold, and I had a professional check out the property. He found a burst pipe behind the wall. We had to rip out the wall, replace the old pipes, and then hang new drywall and repaint the entire room. My insurance claim was denied because the agent said the pipe broke more than two weeks prior. Why would this cause the claim to be denied? Especially because we acted on the problem as soon as it was reported.

A. Certain insurance companies hate water/mold losses, and they put strict stipulations in their contracts. It can be avoided if you negotiate these clauses upfront. But sometimes they cannot be negotiated.

When that is the case, we recommend turning off the water to vacant units and making sure water/mold is a covered loss on your tenants’ renters insurance.

The burden is on you and your insurance agent to turn in the proof of installation. If you somehow got away with it, you risk the insurance company voiding your contract at the time of the loss. This means a covered loss is denied. Not worth the risk.

Q. I’ve repeatedly asked a tenant not to charge his lithium battery skateboard in the shared garage for safety reasons (in person and in writing). Eventually, it combusted, causing a small fire that damaged multiple tenants’ belongings. Am I liable?

Q. There was a small kitchen fire in a rental unit. As a result, the kitchen needs to be cleaned, a wall repaired and repainted, and the gas range replaced. My insurance agent told me the total dollar amount of the claim wasn’t significant enough to make filing a claim worth it, because the amount my rate would increase afterward would be higher. Could you explain this? When wouldn’t this be the case?

Yes, that might be the case. Insurance companies look at loss severity and loss frequency when determining the rate. It can be to your benefit to avoid a small loss. However, for this instance,

Also, in this case, we would push back against the insurance company. The pipes, wall, and anything else directly impacted by the pipe burst could be a covered loss. Mold claims that are seldom covered are the ones that are not tied to a direct physical loss.

Q.Despite it being in our lease agreement, tenants in a unit refuse to acquire renters insurance. Does this make me liable for their belongings?

A. If you did not cause the loss, no. If you caused the loss, yes. Frankly, it’s best to have force-placed renters insurance in place if your tenant does not provide you with proof of renters insurance.

On Short Notice

written by M. BRETT GLADSTONE, ESQ.

In June 2020, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors amended the Planning Code to create a new category of dwellings for rent called “Intermediate Length Occupancy (ILO) units.” These are units rented for a period of between thirtyone days and one year.

ILOs differ from the existing program and regulations dealing with Short Term Rentals (STRs), which are for rentals of thirty days or less. The Planning Department has a subdepartment that handles STRs, which are available through platforms like Airbnb.

The new ILO law, found in Section 202.10 of the City’s Administrative Code, limits the total number of ILO units in the City to 1,000, and building owners must apply for approval. None of those units may be : (1) below market rate with rents regulated by the City; (2) currently under San Francisco Rent Control; (3) in buildings of three or fewer units; or (4) in buildings that have received a Notice of Violation from a City Department. Student housing, residential hotels, and buildings owned by certain non-profits are exempt from the 1,000-unit cap.

Based on input from industry providers and analysts, the San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst reported to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in February 2020 that there are

between 2,000 and 2,700 housing units in San Francisco being used for intermediate-length occupancy housing.

One-to-three-unit buildings cannot contain ILOs. Approvals for other buildings are given by either Planning Department staff or the Planning Commission. For eligible buildings of four to nine units, no Planning Commission approval is needed (but only one-quarter of the units in a particular building can be rented as ILOs). If a building has ten or more dwellings, ILO rentals will require advance approval by the Planning Commission, subject to the following restrictions:

(1) no more than 20 percent of the building’s units may be classified as ILOs; (2) two-thirds or more of the allowed 1,000 ILO units must be in the “downtown core” (due to the policy goal of keeping such uses near hotel and tourism districts and job centers); and

(3) no more than one-third of the City’s total allowable ILO units can be within “Census Tracts in Sensitive Communities,” as defined in the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project Sensitive Communities Map.

The tracking system used by the Planning Department states that, as of July 24 of this year, 65 of the 333 units allowed in Sensitive Community areas have been approved, and 84 of 333 units allowed outside downtown have been approved.

If you’d like to check out the Planning Department’s tracking page, visit sfplanning.org/project/intermediate-lengthooucpancy-ilo-dwelling-units#tracking

These regulations came about after affordable housing activists complained that rentals of between one month and one year were mainly for corporate rental agencies and that these kinds of units competed with long-term housing for San Francisco residents. Statistics were provided showing that the nightly rate for renters is excessively high. As a result, the Board of Supervisors considered banning such intermediatelength occupancies. However, testimony at hearings made clear that this kind of housing appropriately serves workers in higher education, healthcare, theater, and other industries, many of whom are in town too long to stay in a traditional hotel but do not need a full one-year lease. These units also provide housing for long-term family visitors, such as grandparents visiting newborns or relatives caring for sick family members.

Some owners of ILO units testified that they might wish to change back and forth from long-term rentals to ILO use, and that by allowing occupancies of one year or more, they did not want to lose the right to revert later to intermediate-length use. The new law offers this flexibility, but states that authorized ILO use will be considered permanently “abandoned” under the Planning Code’s definition of “abandonment” (e.g., cessation of a particular use for a period of three or more years).

A limited number of ILO permits remains up for grabs.

COLUMN PLANNING AHEAD

e c u r i t y D e p o s i t I n t e r e s t C a l c u l a t i o n s

C o l l e c t i o n o f R e s i d e n t ' s R e n t B o a r d F e e

L e t u s h e l p y o u S t a t e w i d e !

•

•

•

Thomas

thomas@kosterleadbetterlaw.com 415-680-0023

The legislation does not affect residential hotels and student housing, both of which are exempt from Section 202.10 of the Planning Code; nor does it affect housing owned by a 501 (c)(3) organization that has as its primary mission the provision of housing to the public.

Once the 1,000-ILO-unit maximum is reached, no further ILO units can exist in the City. If some units revert to leases of over one year or to rentals of less than one month under the Short-Term Rental program, additional ILO units can be approved. No later than March 1 of each year, all owners and operators of every ILO unit must submit to the city an Annual Unit Usage Report for the prior calendar year, providing the City with information about the number of ILO units they control, along with other details.

One important thing to note is that most buildings that have current Notices of Violation from the Department of Building Inspection or the Planning Department cannot get ILO units approved— unless and until such violations are cured.

As of now, the City becomes aware of apartments that have not been registered as ILO units on a complaint basis only. The complaints may come from former tenants, employees, building residents, or neighbors. The Board of Supervisors has not allocated money for active code enforcement by any City department and, as a result, for the foreseeable future, there will not be active investigations of buildings by City employees.

Many ILO providers in the City have been in the business for decades. However, there are also several newer companies that have entered the marketplace—such as Sonder—most of which started in 2010 and after. Many of these companies are distinguished from the older companies by master leasing an inventory of housing units from a building owner, furnishing them, and managing all aspects of marketing, leasing, and servicing. The newer market entrants are also distinguished by making greater use of information technology for marketing

and leasing, and for the provision of tenant services.

For example, one can book a space and request certain services on one’s cell phone. The most recent example of note is the leasing by Sonder of an entirely new building built by developer Brian Spiers at 2100 Market Street.

When this came to light, it stirred some controversy as some local elected officials felt that new housing should be used for existing San Francisco residents who need permanent housing and not for quasi-corporate rentals.

This project was one of several that lead affordable housing activists to seek regulation of the ILO industry.

The information contained in this article is general in nature. Consult the advice of an attorney for any specific problem.

M. Brett Gladstone is Of Counsel at Goldstein Gellman Melbostad & Harris.

TROPHY AWARDS

J o i n u s a s a S p o n s o r !

S t . R e g i s H o t e l

T h u r s d a y , O c t o b e r

2 6 , 2 0 2 3

P

1 0 e v e n t t i c k e t s

P r e m i u m s e a t i n g a n d t a b l e s w a g

H o s t e d b a r a n d p r e m i u m w i n e s e r v i c e

P r e s e n t a w a r d t o w i n n e r

G r o u p p h o t o w i t h e v e n t s p e c i a l g u e s t

C o m p a n y v i d e o s h o w n d u r i n g A w a r d s

p r e s e n t a t i o n

F u l l - p a g e c o l o r a d v e r t i s e m e n t i n e v e n t

p r o g r a m

R e c o g n i t i o n i n S F A p a r t m e n t M a g a z i n e

O n e 2 0 2 4 m e m b e r - m e e t i n g s p o n s o r s h i p

R e c o g n i t i o n o n S F A A s o c i a l m e d i a

R e c o g n i t i o n o n S F A A w e b s i t e h o m e p a g e

R e c o g n i t i o n o n e v e n t m a r k e t i n g m a t e r i a l s

S t a n d - a l o n e e m a i l b l a s t t o e n t i r e S F A A

m e m b e r s h i p a f t e r e v e n t

G O L D $ 5 , 0 0 0

6 e v e n t t i c k e t s

P r e m i u m s e a t i n g

P r e m i u m w i n e s e r v i c e

1 / 2 - p a g e c o l o r a d v e r t i s e m e n t i n e v e n t

p r o g r a m

C o m p a n y a c k n o w l e d g e d d u r i n g A w a r d s

p r e s e n t a t i o n

R e c o g n i t i o n i n S F A p a r t m e n t M a g a z i n e

R e c o g n i t i o n o n S F A A s o c i a l m e d i a

R e c o g n i t i o n o n S F A A w e b s i t e

R e c o g n i t i o n o n e v e n t m a r k e t i n g m a t e r i a l s

S I L V E R $ 2 , 5 0 0

2 e v e n t t i c k e t s

1 / 4 - p a g e c o l o r a d v e r t i s e m e n t i n e v e n t p r o g r a m

C o m p a n y a c k n o w l e d g e d d u r i n g A w a r d s

p r e s e n t a t i o n

R e c o g n i t i o n i n S F A p a r t m e n t M a g a z i n e

R e c o g n i t i o n o n S F A A s o c i a l m e d i a

R e c o g n i t i o n o n S F A A w e b s i t e

R e c o g n i t i o n o n e v e n t m a r k e t i n g m a t e r i a l s

Background Block

written by FRIED, WILLIAMS & GRICE

Chong Yim v. City of Seattle, March 21, 2023

On March 21, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court upheld Seattle’s “Fair Chance Housing” ordinance, an ordinance enacted by the city to combat racial disparities in housing, stopping landlords from considering, inquiring into, or asking about a current or prospective tenant’s criminal history.

Typically, standard background checks performed by landlords include criminal histories, which are public records. Landlords are also prohibited from taking any “adverse action” based on criminal history, such as denying a tenancy.

The Court held that the inquiry provision of the ordinance “impinges” upon a landlord’s First Amendment rights but that the adverse action provision does not violate a landlord’s due process rights.

Seattle property owners challenged the law on several grounds, including the denial of a property owner’s constitutionally guaranteed choice to decide who to allow on their private property. As applied, the ordinance would prevent a property owner from basing a rental decision on factors like safety, sex offenses, or crimes against children.

The Plaintiff Landlords argued that the ordinance violated their free speech rights by preventing them from asking about criminal history, and their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process property rights under the state and federal Constitutions. The Plaintiffs relied on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Cedar Point Nursery vs. Hassid, which held that the “right to exclude” was a “cherished” fundamental property right under the takings clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Ninth Circuit partially affirmed and partially reversed the lower court by finding that the ordinance’s ban on a landlord’s access to criminal records violated First Amendment protections because it was not narrowly tailored to the City’s purpose of preserving access to housing. However, the Court rejected the argument that the City could not prohibit “adverse action” by landlords based on criminal history.

In their discussion, the appeals judges considered the question of whether a landlord’s access to a tenant’s criminal record, which is a public record available to all, constituted “noncommercial free speech,” which is subject to a strict scrutiny analysis, or “commercial speech,” which is subject to a lower threshold of intermediate scrutiny.

Ultimately, the Court did not answer this question in its majority opinion, stating that a broad ban on accessing criminal records would violate even the lower “intermediate scrutiny” standard as was not narrowly tailored to the City’s purpose.

The Court also addressed the Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment argument by considering the holding in Cedar Point Nursery vs. Hassid, which held that the “right to exclude” was a fundamental property right under the “takings clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment but not under the “due process” clause.

The Court could find no precedent for establishing the “right to exclude” as a fundamental property right under the due process clause, and thus ruled that the City’s violation of the right to exclude—by prohibiting a landlord from taking adverse action—was subject to the lowest level of judicial scrutiny standard, called “rational basis.” As “rational basis” scrutiny presents an extremely low bar, the Court held that the City of Seattle easily met that standard.

San Francisco has adopted a fair chance ordinance that applies to affordable housing where the City provides a rent subsidy. The holding in this case supports a landlord’s ability to inquire about criminal history. It is possible that San Francisco could someday expand its fair chance ordinance to apply to all housing in the City.

Landlords who enter long-term rental relationships with their tenants have a personal stake in knowing the background of their tenants, but ordinances

CONNER ATTORNEYS

Some ordinances aim to decide what housing providers are allowed to know and do based on knowledge of a tenant’s criminal history.

such as Seattle’s fair chance law are aiming to decide what housing providers are allowed to know, and what they can do based on their knowledge of a tenant’s criminal history.

—Mandana M. Arjmand

NCR Properties v. City of Berkeley, March 9, 2023

The issuance of a new certificate of occupancy for a residential unit after February 1, 1995, does not automatically exempt that unit from the City of Berkeley’s Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause ordinance. The City of Berkeley will examine whether a unit was converted from one residential use to another, or whether the unit was newly constructed and not used for residential purposes prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

In March 2023, the Court of Appeal issued a decision upholding a ruling that two single-family homes in Berkeley did not qualify for exemption under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act because they were not new construction that created an expansion of the housing stock.

Costa-Hawkins was enacted to moderate the application of local rental control by exempting certain categories of rental property, including properties that have a certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995.

Two corporate entities formed by the same person purchased two single-family homes in Berkeley, on Dana Street and Warring Street. The Dana Street property was operated as an unpermitted rooming house. That home had deteriorated to the point where it could not be legally inhabited. It was rehabilitated, converted to multiple units, and the City of Berkeley issued a certificate of occupancy reflecting a change in occupancy from a single-family dwelling to multifamily use.

The Warring property was registered with the Rent Board as an eleven-unit

rooming home since 2000. The dwelling was converted into two apartments, and a new basement unit was created. The City issued a certificate of occupancy reflecting a change from a single-family dwelling to a triplex.

In May 2015, the two new certificates of occupancy led the City to treat all of the units as new construction exempt from the Rent Ordinance.

However, in May 2017, the City changed its position and no longer exempted the units from the Rent Ordinance on the grounds that the space that became the current units had been previously used as residences. The prior residential use of these units did not constitute new construction that increased the housing stock.

A month later, the Rent Board enacted Resolution 17-13, interpreting the City’s Rent Ordinance: A rental unit with a certificate of occupancy issued after residential use of the unit began shall not qualify as exempt from rent control under the “new construction” exemption in the Rent Ordinance.

The Court of Appeal applied the rule of Burien, LLC v. Wiley and found that the units in dispute were converted from space long dedicated to residential use. Burien held that Costa-Hawkins does not exempt converted units from local rent control ordinances as new construction. The Court of Appeal went on to find that Resolution 17-13 interprets the City of Berkeley Rent Ordinance in a manner consistent with Burien and with CostaHawkins, so neither Resolution 17-13 nor the Berkeley Rent Ordinance is preempted by state law.

This case highlights the difference between “conversions” of properties from one form of residential use to another versus “new construction.” San Francisco law is not too different from how the City of Berkeley treats these cases.

In the City of Berkeley, residential property developers should not rely on a certificate of occupancy issued after

February 1, 1995, to qualify for an exemption from the City of Berkeley’s Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance, but also examine the extent of construction performed to create a new residential unit.

—Rowena Gargalicana

SFAA v. CCSF, May 2, 2023

The San Francisco Apartment Association sued San Francisco on behalf of its members and won. In SFAA v. CCSF, the Court of Appeal struck down Ordinance 36-20, which passed in 2020. Two other local landlord associations and one realtor association were also named as plaintiffs in the case.

The Ordinance changed some requirements for buyout agreements and made certain kinds of unlawful detainer settlements subject to the Ordinance governing buyout agreements. When the initial law establishing procedures for negotiating and executing buyout aagreements passed in 2014, it expressly excluded unlawful detainer settlements from the definition of “Buyout Agreement.” The 2020 Ordinance amended the definition to include unlawful detainer settlements if the unlawful detainer lawsuit was filed within 120 days after commencement of buyout negotiations.

As local landlord lawyers soon experienced after the Ordinance was enacted, it became difficult if not impossible to reach an unlawful detainer settlement agreement in which the tenant agreed to vacate within a month or so of the pre-trial settlement conference.

Buyout agreements cannot be executed until thirty days after the tenant is provided the pre-buyout disclosure, and the tenant can rescind the buyout agreement for forty-five days after signing the buyout agreement, meaning the date the agreement becomes final is two and a half months down the road, and there is no guarantee the tenant does not plan to rescind on the 44th day after execution, thereby delaying the unlawful detainer case for seventy-four days.

OpenScope Studio 1776 18th Street San Francisco, CA 94107 openscopestudio.com info openscopestudio.com (415) 891-0954

• Multi-family specialists

• Value add remodels

• Accessory Dwelling Units

• Physical needs assessments

• Pre-purchase consultations

• Feasibility and capacity studies

• Interior / Exterior renovations

• Urban infill

• Mixed-use

• Review Services

SFAA’s lawsuit challenged the Ordinance as conflicting with state law on the ground it violates the state litigation privilege by putting procedural and substantive restrictions on settling unlawful detainer actions, which would interfere with landlords’ access to legal remedies.

The lawsuit also alleged the Ordinance’s procedures are preempted by California’s unlawful detainer statute. The trial court ruled in favor of SFAA, and the City appealed, also challenging whether the Association had standing to challenge the Ordinance.

The trial court found the Ordinance facially invalid in three ways. First, the restrictions on unlawful detainers brought within 120 days of the commencement of buyout negotiations interfered with a state statute authorizing courts to enter judgment pursuant to lawsuit settlement agreements.

Second, the Ordinance is preempted by state law because it delays recovery of possession and allows agreements to be rescinded if they do not comply with the buyout statute. Third, the trial court held that the Ordinance violates the state litigation privilege because it makes landlords liable for threatening an unlawful detainer action without complying with the buyout statute.

The Court also identified the criteria for determining whether an association has standing to take legal action on behalf of its members: 1) its members would have standing to file suit for themselves; 2) the association is trying to protect interests central to the association’s purpose, and 3) neither the legal action nor the relief sought requires member participation.

The City only challenged the first standing criterion. The Appellate Court held that SFAA met the first criterion because the members have a special interest or right at issue in the case different than the interest “held in common with the public at large.” Court

ASSOCIATE MEMBER SPOTLIGHT

Editor’s Note: We are pleased to bring you the debut of our Associate Member Spotlight, where we’ll feature associate members new to SFAA and discuss how they can improve the lives of the association’s membership.

Let’s extend a warm welcome to the following new associate members of the San Francisco Apartment Association.

If you’re a new associate member who’d like to be featured or contribute to the magazine in another way, contact the magazine’s editor, Pam McElroy, at pam@sfaa.org

DIMITRIS DROLAPAS

Real Estate Agent

Vanguard Properties

SF Apartment Magazine: Can you tell us a little about who you are and what service your provide?

Dimitris Drolapas: My name is Dimitris and I specialize in the sale of San Francisco apartment buildings. I’m a San Francisco native and have been involved with commercial real estate in San Francisco since childhood. I’ve been selling San Francisco apartment buildings for thirteen years now.

SFAM: How can you help improve business for SFAA members?

DD: I can provide insights to the San Francisco apartment market from a broker’s point of view. I’m always available to share my opinions of the market with members, and offer free estimates of value.

SFAM: What is your favorite part of your career?

DD: I’ve enjoyed getting to meet the families and learn the history of the real estate they have owned for generations. Having the opportunity to represent some of these families in the sale or purchase of their real estate has been a privilege. Every deal has a story and being a part of it is something special.

Testimony from a recent client: “During the marketing campaign and subsequent negotiation adventure, Dimitris was impressive in his ability to manage tenants, prospects, multiple offers, and final negotiations. He is clearly a master at what he does.”

DIMITRIS DROLAPAS

2501 Mission Street San Francisco, CA, 94110 415-531-9659

dd@vanguardsf.com

CHAD SCHUTT

Regional Account Executive

PODS for Business

SF Apartment Magazine: Most of us have seen PODS containers around town for storage. Can you tell us what makes them popular?

Chad Schutt: PODS is your one-stop moving provider. Our containers can help streamline moving and storage for residents’ relocation, become a discreet storage option for temporary and seasonal projects, and efficiently assist as an on-site storage option for long-term remodels and renovations.

SFAM: How can PODS make the lives of multifamily property owners easier?

CS: PODS Moving and Storage can solve many property management headaches with minimal disruptions. From apartment complexes to commercial properties, PODS offers the flexibility and security a tenant needs when they move into a residence.

PODZILLA, our state-of-the-art lifting system, is designed to load and unload storage containers while keeping them level to minimize potential damage to stored contents from shifting—which is why we have a damage claims rate ten times less than the moving company industry average.

Testimony from a recent client: “The most positive aspect was the interaction with all of the associates. They were professional and yet friendly and quite knowledgeable. Would definitely recommend PODS to anyone I know who is moving or needs storage.”

CHAD SCHUTT

Regional Account Executive

310-270-5127

cschutt@pods.com

pods.com/business

sfaa2023calendar

August

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2

On-Demand Guard Yourself

From Predators, Creditors, Liens & Judgements

Zoom Recorded Link

Members $45 Non Members $65

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10

In Person Member Meeting

Jewish Community Center

3200 California Street

Fisher Hall

5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 22

On-Demand Landlord 101 Part I

Zoom Recorded Link

Members $65

Non Members $130

THURSDAY, AUGUST 31

Maintenance/Approved Vendors Webinar

Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

THURSDAY, AUGUST 3

Annual Increases Webinar

Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

FRIDAY, AUGUST 11

Online Lease Access

Demonstration

Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. FREE for SFAA Members Only

THURSDAY, AUGUST 24

Decrease In Housing Service/ Petitions Webinar

Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Free for Members

MONDAY, AUGUST 7

Board of Directors Mtg.

11:30 a.m.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 10

Capital Improvements Webinar

Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

THURSDAY, AUGUST 17

Serving Notices Webinar

Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

TUESDAY, AUGUST 29

On-Demand Landlord 101 Part II

Zoom Recorded Link

Members $65 Non Members $130

September

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5

Emergency Management Basics Webinar

Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12

Renting to Residents with Limited English Webinar Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20

Virtual Member Meeting

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6 Getting the Most Out of Your Technology with Intellirent Webinar

Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Free for Members

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13

Bed Bug Regulations & Remediation

Zoom Webinar System

1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21

Rent Collections, Late Fees & Utility Bill Backs Webinar

Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7

Maintenance Resident Requests Webinar Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14

Managing Elderly Tenants/Death of a Resident Webinar Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22

The History of Costa Hawkins Webinar Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

FRIDAY, AUGUST 18

On-Demand Termites 101

Zoom Recorded Link Members $45 Non Members $65

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30

Best Practices on Handling Nuisance Issues Webinar

Zoom Webinar System

1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27

Ps and Qs: Landlord

Etiquette Webinar

Zoom Webinar System

1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28

Roommates Webinar

Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11

Board of Directors Mtg. 11:30 a.m.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19

Section 8 Housing Webinar Zoom Webinar System

10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26

Rent Registry, Vacancy Tax & Costa Hawkins Webinar

Zoom Webinar System

11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Members $45 Non Members $65

SFAA office will be closed Monday, September 4th in observance of Labor Day.

SAN FRANCISCO’S RENT BOARD FEE $29.50

Chapter 37A of San Francisco’s Administrative Code allows the city to collect a per-unit fee for each residential dwelling unit that is subject to the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. This fee defrays the entire cost of operation of the Rent Board. This fee is billed to the landlord each year on the property tax statement sent in November, but the law permits landlords to collect a portion of the Rent Board fee from those tenants in occupancy as of November 1 of each year. A landlord is allowed to collect 50% of the cost of the fee from the tenant. If you have not collected Rent Board fees in the past, you can collect back to 1999.

ALLOWABLE

SFAA’S TENANT SCREENING SERVICE

THROUGH INTELLIRENT

STEP 1:

Create a free account at sfaa. myintellirent.com/agent-signup.

STEP 2:

Invite an applicant to apply via an online application customized to SFAA’s criteria. You can also publish your available rental on Intellirent across mulitple ILSs.

RATES

Intellirent is your free, online rental application and property marketing tool, partnered with Transunion to instantly return complete credit reports and nationwide eviction notices. Renters pay the $40 application fee, which covers your costs. For more information, simply create your free account or go to sfaa.org and choose the “Resources” tab. Then select “Tenant Screening.”

Please note that the maximum you can charge a tenant for screening services is $49.12.

CONTACT INTELLIRENT FOR MORE INFORMATION:

415-849-4400

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

The capital improvement interest rates for 3/1/23 through 2/29/24 are listed below:

INTEREST ON DEPOSITS

Deposits include all tenant monies that the owner holds, regardless of what they are called. At the landlord’s option, the payment may be made directly to the tenant or by allowing the tenant to deduct the amount of interest due from the rental payment.

ALLOWABLE RENT INCREASES 2023 - 2024:

3.6%

Effective March 1, 2022, through February 28, 2023, the allowable annual rent increase is 2.3 %. This amount is based on 60% of the increase in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers in the Bay Area. A history of all allowable increases and their effective periods is provided.

2007-2008 $13.00

2006-2007 $11.00

2005-2006 $10.00

2004-2005 $11.00

CONTACT THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT BOARD FOR MORE INFORMATION

415-252-4600 sfgov.org/rentboard

SFAA Professional Services Directory

1031 TAX DEFERRED EXCHANGE SERVICES

FIRST AMERICAN EXCHANGE COMPANY

Lisa Jackson 415-244-1339 lisajackson@firstam.com

LAWYERS EQUITY EXCHANGE

Brian Fogarty 415-701-1234 www.lex1031.com

SEQUENT

Eric Scaff 415-834-1031 sequent-rewm.com escaff@sequent-rewm.com

ACCOUNTANTS

SHWIFF, LEVY & POLO LLP

Elizabeth Shwiff 415-291-8600 x232 www.slpconsults.com

ALARM COMPANY

AEC ALARMS

Yat-Cheong Au 408-298-8888 Ext: 188 sales@aec-alarms.com

ARCHITECTURE

OPENSCOPE STUDIO ARCHITECTS

Mark Hogan 415-891-0954 yatcheong@aec-alarms.com

Q ARCHITECTURE

Dawn Ma 415-695-2700 www.que-arch.com

ASSOCIATIONS

PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

Renee A. Engelen www.ppmaofsf.org renee@hrhrealestate.com

ATTORNEYS

BARTH CALDERON, LLP

Paul Hitchcock 415-577-4685 Paul@barthattorneys.com

All languages welcome

BORNSTEIN LAW

Daniel Bornstein, Esq. 415-409-7611 www.bornstein.law

CHONG LAW

Dolores Chong 415-437-7807 chongdolores@earthlink.net

DOWLING & MARQUEZ, LLP

Jak S. Marquez 415-977-0444 x232 www.dowlingmarquez.com

Spanish

FISHER BOYLES, LLP

Matthew Weiner 415-595-8706

Matthew.weiner@fisherbroyles.com https://www.fisherbroyles.com/

FRANK KIM ESQ., EVICTION ASSISTANCE

Jo Biel 415-752-6070

Spanish, Korean, Cantonese and Mandarin

KIMBALL, TIREY & ST. JOHN LLP

Kelli Dodson 800-525-1690 kelli.dodson@kts-law.com www.kts-law.com

FRIED, WILLIAMS & GRICE CONNOR

Clifford E. Fried 415-421-0100 www.friedwilliams.com French, Spanish and Portuguese

HERZIG & BERLESE

Barbara Herzig 415-861-8800 bherzig@hbcondolaw.com

ILENE M. HOCHSTEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

Ilene Hochstein 650-877-8288 ilene@hochsteinlaw.net

KAUFMAN, DOLOWICH, VOLUCK

Ashley Klein 415-926-7612 aklein@kdvlaw.com

LAW OFFICES OF KOSTER & LEADBETTER, LLP

Denise Leadbetter 415-713-8680 denise@kosterleadbetterlaw.com www.kosterleadbetterlaw.com

LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL HEATH

Michael Heath 415-931-4207 Mheath_law@sbcglobal.net

Mandarin

LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD KAIGH, PC

Edward Kaigh 917-406-6063 edward@kaighlaw.com

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT T. OKAMOTO

Scott T. Okamoto 415-766-5871 www.scottokamotolaw.com

LAW OFFICE OF JULIANA E. PISANI

Juliana Pisani 415-800-7562 Juliana@jpisanilaw.com Italian

LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE M. SCANCARELLI

Lawrence M. Scancarelli 415-398-1644 www.sfrealestatelaw.com

THE LAW OFFICE OF ED SINGER

Edward Singer 650-393-5862 www.edsinger.net

MASTROMONACO REAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP

Leonard Mastromonaco 415-354-2702 len@mastrolawgroup.com

NIVEN & SMITH

Leo M. LaRocca 415-981-5451 leo@nivensmith.com

REUBEN, JUNIUS & ROSE, LLP

Kevin Rose 415-567-9000

www.reubenlaw.com

SHEPPARD-UZIEL LAW FIRM

Jaime Uziel 415-296-0900

ju@sheppardlaw.com

STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & ASSOCIATES, PC

Steven Adair MacDonald 415-956-6488

www.samlaw.net

sam@samlaw.net

Mandarin, Cantonese & Spanish

TRN LAW ASSOCIATES

Tiffany R. Norman 415-823-4566

tiffany@trnlaw.com

www.trnlaw.com

WASSERMAN

Dave Wasserman 415-567-9600

Dave@wassermanoffices.com

www.davewassermansf.com

WIEGEL LAW GROUP

Andrew J. Wiegel 415-552-8230

www.wiegellawgroup.com

ZACKS & FREEDMAN, PC

Andrew M. Zacks 415-956-8100

www.zfplaw.com

ZANGHI TORRES ARSHAWSKY, LLP

John P. Zanghi 415-977-0444

www.zatlaw.com

BEDBUG DETECTION

CROWN & SHIELD PEST

SOLUTIONS-PREMIER

Aurora Garcia-Vidaca 415-893-9551

www.crownandshieldpestsolutions.com

PREMIER CANINE DETECTION

Jordan Garcia 415-612-6645

www.premiercaninedectection.com

COMMERCIAL/RETAIL LEASING SERVICES

BLATTEIS REALTY CO.

David Blatteis 415-981-2844 www.sfretail.net

CONSTRUCTION

PODS

Chad Schutt 310-270-5127 cschutt@pods.com

CONSULTANTS: PERMITS & PLANNING

EDRINGTON AND ASSOCIATES

Steven Edrington 510-749-4880

steve@edringtonandassociates.com

CORPORATE RENTALS

AMSI

Robb Fleischer 415-447-2020

www.amsires.com

CREDIT REPORTING

INTELLIRENT

Cassandra Joachim 415-849-4400

www.myintellirent.com

DRAIN SERVICES

PRIBUSS ENGINEERING, INC.

Selina Pribuss 650-588-0447 selina.p@pribuss.com www.pribuss.com

EMERGENCY SERVICES

THE GREENSPAN CO./ ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL

Rebecca Holloway 707-540-5584 rebecca@greenspan-ai.com

ENERGY SERVICES

ARMADA POWER

GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICES

RECOLOGY GOLDEN GATE RECYCLING

Minna Tao 415-575-2423 recologysf.com

RECOLOGY SUNSET SCAVENGER

Dan Negron 415-330-2911 recologysf.com

VALET LIVING

Briana Sellers 813-613-5073 briana.sellers@valetliving.com www.valetliving.com

HARDWARE

MAINTENANCE REPAIR SERVICE

GREENTREE MAINTENANCE

Yvonne Figueroa 415-854-9495

Figueroa@veritasinv.com

MAVEN MAINTENANCE, INC.

Craig Lipton 415-829-2207 www.mavenmaintenance.com

WEST COAST PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Joseph Keng 415-885-6970 ext. 101 www.wcpm.com

MEDIATION

David Myers

614-918-7493 dmyers@armadapower.com

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING

P.W. STEPHENS ENVIRONMENTAL

Sheri Buenz 510-651-9506 sherib@pwsei.com

FACADE INSPECTIONS

BORNE CONSULTING

Cade Osborne 415-319-4789 cade@borne-consulting.com borne-consulting.com/

FIRE ESCAPE INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE

ESCAPE ARTISTS

Ben Maxon 415-279-6113 www.sfescapeartists.com

GREAT ESCAPE SERVICES

Terry Walsh 415-566-1479 www.greatescapeservice.com

FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTORS

A-TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY, INC.

Monte L. Osborn, CEO

Tyler Osborn, CFO 530-672-8495 accounting@atotalfireprotection.com www.atotalfireprotection.com

AEC ALARMS

628-208-0188 SFfire@aec-alarms.com

BATTALION ONE FIRE PROTECTION

Tim Morse 510-653-8075 www.battaliononefire.com

COMMERCIAL FIRE PROTECTION, INC.

Laine Sims 925-300-9534 www.fireprotected.com

EMERGENCY SYSTEMS, INC.

Eric Hagerman 415-564-0400 esmfire@earthlink.net

PRIBUSS ENGINEERING, INC.

Selina Pribuss 650-588-0447 selina.p@pribuss.com www.pribuss.com

FLOORING

DECK & BALCONY INSPECTIONS, INC

Dan Cronk 916-548-6943 dan@deckandbalconyinspections.com

LUXER ONE

Josh Grosser 415-215-4670 joshg@luxerone.com

HUMAN RESOURCES

INTERSOLTUTIONS, LLC jhong@intersolutions.com

INSURANCE COMPANIES

ARM MULTI INSURANCE SERVICES

Lisa Isom 866-913-6293 www.arm-i.com

BARBARY INSURANCE BROKERAGE

Gerald Becerra 415-788-4700 www.barbaryinsurance.com

COMMERCIAL COVERAGE

INSURANCE AGENCY

Paul Tradelius 415-436-9800 www.comcov.com

GORDON ASSOCIATES INSURANCE

SERVICES

Dave Gordon, CLU 650-654-5555x6972 David.gordon@gordoninsurance.com

USI INSURANCE

Sarmad Naqvi 510-590-0635 sarmad.naqvi@usi.com www.usi.com

INTERNET SERVICES PROVIDERS

COMCAST/XFINITY

Michael Juliano 925-495-9922 www.xfinity.com

LENDING / FINANCIAL SERVICES

FIRST FOUNDATION BANK

Michelle Li 415-794-2176 www.ff-inc.com

LENDING / FULL SERVICE BANKS

LUTHER BURBANK SAVINGS

Gabriel Basso 510-601-2400 www.lutherburbanksavings.com

LENDING / INSTITUTIONS

CHASE COMMERCIAL TERM LENDING

Sharon Groenendyk 415-315-8464 www.chase.com/commercialbanking

LOCKSMITHS

CROWN LOCK & HARDWARE

Joe Schoepp 415-221-9086

THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO CONFLICT INTERVENTION SERVICE

Scott Goering 415-782-8940 sgoering@sfbar.org

PAINTING CONTRACTORS

KRUITPAINTING, INC.

Pieter Kruit 415-254-7818 www.kruitpainting.com

PAC WEST PAINTING INC.

Brian Beaulieu 415-457-0724 www.pacwestpaintinginc.com

PETERS PAINTING SERVICES

Peter Pantazelos 415-647-4722 www.peterspainting.com

TARA PRO PAINTING INC.

Brian Layden 415-822-2011 www.tarapropainting.com

PEST CONTROL

ATCO PEST & TERMITE CONTROL & HOME RESTORATION

Richard Estrada 415-898-2282 www.atcopestcontrol.com

BANNER PEST SERVICES

Brad Erekson 650-678-2300 brad@bannerpc.com www.bannerpc.com

CROWN & SHIELD PEST SOLUTIONS-PREMIER

Aurora Garcia-Vidaca 415-893-9551 www.crownandshieldpestsolutions.com

PLUMBING & HEATING

C.R. REICHEL ENGINEERING CO. INC.

Tim Lordier 415-431-7100 www.crreichel.com

PRIBUSS ENGINEERING, INC.

Selina Pribuss 650-588-0447 selina.p@pribuss.com www.pribuss.com

R & L PLUMBING

Larry Bustillos 415- 651-4977 larry@rl.plumbing www.rlplumbingsanfrancisco.com

ROS PLUMBING

Niall 415-505-2180 niall@rosplumbing.com

URGENT ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC.

Albert Lee 415-387-8163

urgentrtr@sbcglobal.net

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

MELGAR REAL ESTATE SERVICES

Suzy Melgar 650-745-8186 info@mresbayareahomes.com

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

2B LIVING

Brooks Baskin 650-763-8552 brooks@twobliving.com www.twobliving.com

ABACUS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Timothy Cannon 415-841-2105 tim@sanfranrealestate.com www.abacuspropertymanagement.com

ADVENT PROPERTIES, INC.

Benjamin Scott, CCRM 510-289-1184 www.adventpropertiesinc.com

ALEXANDERSON PROPERTIES

Eric Alexanderson 415-285-3737 www.alexandersonproperties.com

AMORE REAL ESTATE, INC

Jerry Hsieh 415-567-4800 www.amoresf.com

ANCHOR REALTY

Mark Campana 415-621-2700 mark@anchorealtyinc.com www.anchorealtyinc.com

ARTAL PROPERTIES

John Artal 415-647-4400 artalproperties@gmail.com www.artalproperties.com

BARBAGELATA REAL ESTATE COMPANY

Paul Barbagelata paulb@realestatesf.com

BAY PROPERTY GROUP

Anna Katz 510-836-0110 anna@baypropertygroup.com www.baypropertygroup.com

BAYVIEW PROPERTY MANAGERS

James Blanding 415-822-8793 xt.4 bayview60@comcast.net www.bayviewpropertymanagers.com

BEAM PROPERTIES, INC.

Darius Chan 415-254-8679 darius@sfbeam.com

BLVD RESIDENTIAL

Debbie Brackett 650-328-5050 dbrackett@blvdresidential.com www.blvdresidential.com

Property Management Members

The following members are SFAA Property Management Members. They fully support the organization and are dedicated to SFAA’s goals. For more information about the benefits of becoming a Property Management Member, contact Maria Shea at maria@sfaa.org or 415-255-2288 x 110.

ADVENT PROPERTIES, INC.

Benjamin Scott, CCRM 510-289-1184 www.adventpropertiesinc.com

AMSI

Robb Fleischer 415-447-2020 www.amsires.com

CECCHINI REALTY CO.

Dante Cecchini, CCRM 415-550-8855 www.cecchinirealty.com

CITYWIDE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Carol Cosgrove 415-552-7300 www.citywidesf.com

DEWOLF

William Talmage 415-221-2032 www.dewolfsf.com

GAETANI REAL ESTATE

Paul Gaetani 415-668-1202 www.gaetanirealestate.com

GREENTREE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 415-828-8757 www.greentreepmco.com

HRH REAL ESTATE SERVICES CORPORATION

Renee A. Engelen (415) 810-6020 www.hrhrealestate.com

J. WAVRO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

James Wavro 415-509-3456 www.jwavro.com

LINGSCH REALTY

Natalie M. Drees 415-648-1516 www.lingschrealty.com

PAUL LANGLEY COMPANY

Misha Langley 415-431-9104 x 301 misha@plco.net

PONTAR REAL ESTATE

Merri Pontar 415-421-2877 www.pontarrealestate.com

PROGRESSIVE PROPERTY GROUP

Dace Dislere & Joe Gillach 415-515-4329

REAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY

J.J. Panzer 415-821-3167 www.RMCsf.com

S&L REALTY

Robert Link 415-386-3111 www.slrealty-sf.com

STRUCTURE PROPERTIES

Corey Eckert 415-794-0064 www.structureproperties.com

SUTRO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.

Salman Shariat 415-341-8774 www.sutroproperties.com

VERTEX PROPERTY GROUP

Craig Berendt 415-608-3050 vertexsf.com

WEST & PRASZKER REALTORS

Michael Klestoff 415-661-5300 www.wprealtors.com

WEST COAST PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Eric Andresen 415-885-6970 www.wcpm.com

VESTA ASSET MANAGEMENT

Paul Griffiths 415-994-3033

paul@vesta-assetmanagement.com

BROOKFIELD PROPERTY GROUPPRESIDIO LANDMARK

Jon King 855-327-5376

jon.king@brookfieldproperties.com

CITYWIDE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Carol Cosgrove 415-552-7300 www.citywidesf.com

DEWOLF REALTY CO. INC.

William A. Talmage 415-221-2032 www.dewolfsf.com

EBALDC Felicia Scruggs 510-287-5353 FScruggs@ebaldc.org

GAETANI REAL ESTATE

Paul Gaetani 415-668-1202 www.gaetanirealestate.com

GEORGE GOODWIN REALTY, INC.

Chris Galassi 415-681-1265 www.goodwin-realty.com

GREENTREE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Scott Moore 415-828-8757 www.greentreepmco.com

GM GREEN REAL ESTATE INC.

George Green 415-608-6485 ggreen@gmgreen.com www.gmgreen.com

GORDON CLIFFORD PROPERTIES, INC.

Patrick Clifford 415-613-7694 patrick@gcpropertiessf.com

HOGAN & VEST INC.

Simon Wong 415-421-7116 hoganvest.com

HRH REAL ESTATE SERVICES CORPORATION

Renee A. Engelen 415-810-6020 www.hrhrealestate.com

INCOME PROPERTY SPECIALISTS

Clayton Llewellyn 408-446-0848 www.ipsmanagement.cc

JACKSON GROUP PROPERTY MANGEMENT, INC.

Raymond Scarabosio 415-608-8300 ray@jacksongroup.net

JAMES D. MULLIN REAL ESTATE BROKER

James D. Mullin 415-470-0450 jamesdmullinre@gmail.com

JD MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.

Jonathan Davis 510-387-7792 jonathan.davis@jdmginc.com

LEGACY PTLA LLC

Brent Mustin 510-352-6310

LINGSCH REALTY

Natalie M. Dress 415-648-1516 www.lingschrealty.com

MERIDIAN MANAGEMENT GROUP

Randall Chapman 415-434-9700 www.mmgprop.com

MYND MANAGEMENT, INC.

Stacy Winship 510-306-4440 www.mynd.co

OPEN WORLD PROPERTIES

Jonathan Daryl Fleming 510-250-0946 jonathan@openworldproperties.com www.Openworldproperties.Com

PAUL LANGLEY COMPANY

Misha Langley 415-431-9104 x 301 misha@plco.net

PILLAR CAPITAL REAL ESTATE

Jonathan Ng 415-885-9584 jonathan@thepillarcapital.com

PONTAR REAL ESTATE

Merri Pontar 415-421-2877 www.pontarrealestate.com

PRIME METROPOLIS PROPERTIES, INC.

Tom Chan 415-731-0303 tomchan@pmp1988.com

PROGRESSIVE PROPERTY GROUP

Dace Dislere 415-794-9727 www.progressivesf.com

RAMSEY PROPERTIES

Brian E. Ramsey 415-474-5175 Brian@RamseyPropertiesSF.com

REAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY

J.J. Panzer 415-821-3167 www.RMCsf.com

ROCKAWAY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT

Kristine Abbey 650-290-3084 www.rockawayresidential.com

ROCKWELL PROPERTIES

Mark Kaplan 415-398-2400 propertymanagement@rockwellproperties.com

RNB PROPERTY MANAGEMENTGOLDEN GATE

Kaveh Gorgani 415-413-3827 kaveh@rnbemail.com www.rnbgoldengate.com

SHAREVEST PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC

Timothy D. Gilmartin 650-347-2020 tim@thegilmartins.com

SIGNATURE REALTY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Paul Montalvo 650-364-3167 paul@paulmontalvo.com

SIERRA PROPERTY PROFESSIONALS

Sonali Herrera sierrappinc@gmail.com

SKYLINE PMG, INC.

Nicholas Bowers 415-968-9903 Nicholas@skylinepmg.com

STRUCTURE PROPERTIES

Corey Eckert 415-794-0064 www.structureproperties.com

SUTRO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.

Salman Shariat 415-341-8774 www.SutroProperties.com

WEST COAST PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Eric Andresen 415-885-6970 www.wcpm.com

WEST & PRASZKER REALTORS

Michael Klestoff 415-699-3266 www.wprealtors.com

VERTEX PROPERTIESS

Craig Berendt 415-608-3050 craig.berendt@gmail.com

VESTA ASSET MANAGEMENT

Paul Griffiths 415-994-3033 paul@vesta-assetmanagement.com

YMPG

Yelena Gelzer 415-260-6325 yglezer@ympg-management.com

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

SOFTWARE

APPFOLIO

Mindy Sorenson 888-700-8299 mindy.sorenson@appfolio,com

DOOR LOOP

Maria Barbera 888-607-3667 mbarbera@doorlopp.com

RENT RAISERS

Michelle L. Horneff-Cohen 415-661-3860 www.propertymanagementsystems.net

YARDI

Kelly Krier 805-699-2040 kelly.krier@yardi.com

REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS

MARK WATTS COMMERCIAL APPRAISAL

Mark Watts 415-990-0025 www.markwattscommercialappraisal.com

REAL ESTATE BROKERS & AGENTS

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

FRANCISCAN PROPERTIES

Edward Milestone 415-994-5969 MilestoneRealEstateSF@gmail.com

BIG TREE PROPERTIES

Evan Matteo 415-305-4931 evan@bigtreeproperties.com

CHUCK & ASSOCIATES

Kevin Chuck 415-595-5832 chuckassoc@gmail.com

COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL NRT

Steven Caravelli 415-229-1367 steven.caravelli@cbnorcal.com

COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL- JAMES DEVINCENTI

James Devincenti 415-288-7848 www.THEDLTEAM.com

COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL

Payam Nejad 415-288-7872 www.colliers.com/payam.nejad

COMPASS

Tim Johnson 415-710-9000 tim.johnson@compass.com www.timjohnsonsf.com

COMPASS COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE

John Antonini 415-794-9510 john@antoninisf.com

COMPASS COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE

Chris J. Connor chris.oconnor@compass.com

COMPASS COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE

Adam Filly 415-516-9843 adam@adamfilly.com

COMPASS COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE

Jay Greenberg 415-378-6755 jay@jayhgreenberg.com

COMPASS COMMERCIAL

Mirella Webb 415-640-4133 mirella.webb@compass.com

CORCORAN GLOBAL LIVING COMMERCIAL Terrence Jones 415-786-2216 terrence@terrencejonesSF.com www.terrencejones.com

FERRIGNO REAL ESTATE

Chris Ferrigno 415-641-0661 www.ferrignorealestate.com

HRH REAL ESTATE SERVICES CORPORATION

Renee A. Engelen 415-810-6020 www.hrhrealestate.com

ICON REAL ESTATE INC.

Jason Quashnofsky 415-370-7077 jason@iconsf.com

KENNEY & EVEREST REAL ESTATE, INC.

Everest Mwamba 415-902-3411 maureen@kenneyrealestate.com

KILBY STENKAMP-VANGUARD PROPERTIES

Kilby Stenkamp 415-370-7582

LESLIE BURNLEY

Leslie Burnley 415-717-8709 leslie.j.burnley@gmail.com leslieburnley.com

MARCUS & MILLICHAP

Sanford Skeie 415-625-2153 www.marcusmillichap.com

MAVEN PROPERTIES

Matthew Sheridan matt@mavenproperties.com

MORGAN REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC.

Laurence Morgan 415-300-6503 laurence@morganrealestateadvisor.com www.morganrealestateadvisor.com

NHB REAL ESTATE INC.

Tanya Dzhibrailova 415-531-6779 tanya@nhbrealestate.com www.nbhrealestate.com

S&L REALTY

Robert Link 415-386-3111 www.slrealty-sf.com

STEELE PROPERTIES

Ryan Steele 415-881-7762 ryan@steeleproperties.com www.steeleproperties.com

WEST & PRASZKER REALTORS

Michael Klestoff 415-312-2245 klestoffmre@aol.com

VANGUARD COMMERCIAL

Allison Chapleau 415-516-0648 allison@allisonchapleau.com www.allisonchapleau.com

VANGUARD PROPERTIES

Dimitris Drolapas 415-531-9659 dd@vanguardsf.com

REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS

CITY REAL ESTATE

Arthur Tom 415-987-6788 art@cityrealestatesf.com cityrealestatesf.com

COMPASS COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE

Trigg Splenda 415-593-8616

KENNEY & EVEREST REAL ESTATE, INC.

Everest Mwamba 415-902-3411 maureen@kenneyrealestate.com

STEPHEN PUGH 415-497-8307 steve@pacwestcre.com

sfaa sfaa 2023 membership application

REFINISHING / RESURFACING SERVICE

MIRACLE METHOD OF SAN FRANCISCO NORTH

Jaime Munoz 415-673-4211

MiracleMethodSFO@gmail.com www.miraclemethod.com/San-Francisco

RENT BOARD PETITIONS

RENT RAISERS

Thank you for joining the San Francisco Apartment Association. SFAA is dedicated to educating, advocating for and supporting the Rental Housing Community so that its members operate ethically, fairly and profitably. Please consult a tax preparer in advance to determine deductibility for your tax situation. Membership fees are subject to change.

San Francisco Apartment Association

Michelle Horneff-Cohen michelle@propertymanagementsystems.net

REAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY

Melinda Greene 415-230-8895 www.RMCsf.com

RENT BOARD PASSTHROUGHS

Kim Boyd Bermingham 415-333-8005 www.rentboardpass.com

RENTAL LISTING SERVICES

COSTAR

Aj Herlitz 844-459-1495 www.costargroup.com aherlitz@costar.com

HRH REAL ESTATE SERVICES CORPORATION

Renee A. Engelen 415-810-6020 www.hrhrealestate.com

REALPAGE

Stacey Blackwell 972-820-3015 stacey.blackwell@realpage.com www.realpage.com

ZUMPER, INC.

Connor Hodges 949-702-1508 connor@zumper.com www.zumper.com

RESIDENTIAL LEASING

GORDON CLIFFORD PROPERTIES, INC.

PatrickClifford 415-613-7694 patrick@gcpropertiessf.com

HAMILTON FAMILY CENTER Mayo Lunt 510-763-8540 x230 www.hamiltonfamiles.org

HRH REAL ESTATE SERVICES CORPORATION

Renee A. Engelen 415-810-6020 www.hrhrealestate.com

J. WAVRO ASSOCIATES

James Wavro 415-509-3456 www.jwavro.com

KENNEY AND EVEREST REAL ESTATE, INC.

Maureen Kenney 415-929-0717 maureen@kenneyrealestate.com

LINGSCH REALTY

Natalie M. Drees 415-648-1516 www.lingschrealty.com

RELISTO Eric Baird 415-236-6116 x101 www.relisto.com eric@relisto.com

RENTALS IN S.F.

Jackie Tom 415-409-3263 www.rentalsinsf.com

RENTSFNOW Stephanie Versin sversin@veritasinv.com www.rentsfnow.com

STRUCTURE PROPERTIES

Corey Eckert 415-794-0064 www.structureproperties.com

VERTEX PROPERTIES

Craig Berendt 415-608-3050 www.berendtproperties.com

ZUMPER, INC

Connor Hodges 949-702-1508 connor@zumper.com www.zumper.com

SECURITY

KASTLE SYSTEMS

Michael Madisan 415-828-2157 mike.madisan@kastle.com

SECURITY DEPOSITS

THE GUARANTORS

Alexandra Nazaire 212-266-0020 alexandra.nazaire@theguarantors.com www.theguarantors.com

SEISMIC RETROFIT & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

BAI CONSTRUCTION

Behnam Afshar 510-595-1994 x101 www.baiconstruction.com

WEST COAST PREMIER CONSTRUCTION, INC.

Homy Sikaroudi, PhD, PE 510-271-0950 www.wcpc-inc.com

STAFFING

BG MULTI-FAMILY

Shannon Valentino 714-654-9498 svalentino@bgmultifamily.com

SUBMETERS

LIVABLE

Daniel Sharabi 415-937-7283 www.livable.com

TENANT PLACEMENT & LISTING

STRUCTURE PROPERTIES

Corey Eckert 415-794-0064 www.structureproperties.com

WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE

SF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Chandra Johnson 415-554-0704 www.conserve.sfwater.org

WATER DAMAGE SERVICE

FIRE AND WATER DAMAGE RECOVERY

Maria Neumann 800-886-1801 www.waterdamagerecovery.net

RESTORATION MANAGEMENT, CO.

Eric Shelton 510-815-0954 eric.shelton@rmc.com www.rmc.com

Please note that acceptance of associate membership does not necessarily constitute any endorsement or recommendation, express or implied, of the associate member or any goods or services offered.

index NEED A PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTOR OR VENDOR?

Landlord & Leasing Agent, A Winning Combo.

Having over 25 rental units of her own, Jackie brings rst-hand experience as a landlord to all of our Rentals In S.F. clients.

Every day, our team endeavors to nd quali ed tenants for our clients. With an expert understanding of the ever changing San Francisco rental market, we have made it our priority to ll your vacant unit quickly, e ortlessly, at market rent and with your ideal tenant!

With just one phone call, Jackie will come over to access your needs, appraise your unit, and do all the marketing, prospecting and screening. We then present you with a quali ed tenant ready to move in.

Call Jackie at Rentals In S.F. to ll your vacancy. It will be one of the best calls you’ll ever make. Just ask all our clients!

Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC – one of the Bay Area’s leading real estate law firms – is proud to announce the addition of three new attorneys to our team.

Laura Strazzo brings broad insight into California real estate law. Her practice covers a range of real estate matters including land use, nondisclosure and boundary-line disputes, construction defects, landlord-tenant, and compliance issues. Laura also has experience in energy and environmental law.

Brian O’Neill brings extensive experience in land use and environmental law. Prior to joining the firm, Brian worked at the California Coastal Commission on permit appeals for a wide range of projects, including subdivisions, commercial and residential development, affordable housing, and infrastructure. He regularly appears before planning commissions, city councils, and other government agencies.

Robert Little’s practice focuses on real estate litigation, including challenges to local ordinances and administrative decisions, landlord/tenant disputes, property rights, and land use. Robert received a J.D. and M.B.A. dual degree from the University of Wyoming, where he focused on environmental and business law.

Former SFAA winner

* Leasing Agent of the Year

* Landlord of the Year

Laura Strazzo Attorney at Law

Brian O’Neill Attorney at Law

Robert Little Attorney at Law

In this case, that special interest or particular right is the right to prosecute and settle unlawful detainer actions pursuant to the state statute, without the restrictions imposed on such actions by the 2020 Ordinance. This holding is consistent with prior holdings in cases involving the Ellis Act right to remove properties from the rental market, and liability for receiving excess rent: SFAA and similar associations have standing to file suit to challenge local ordinances that conflict with state law.

The bottom line is that landlords can negotiate for possession of rental units when settling unlawful detainer actions without complying with the Buyout Ordinance, thanks to SFAA challenging the 2020 Ordinance.

—David Semel

The information contained in this article is general in nature. Consult the advice of an attorney for any specific problem. The attorney authors are with Fried, Williams & Grice Conner and can be reached at 415-421-0100.

Background

Managing Elderly Tenants

INSTRUCTORS:

Michelle HorneffCohen of Rent Raisers

DATE & TIME:

Thursday

September 14 , 2023

10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

COSTS:

Members: $45

Nonmembers: $65

WEBINAR:

Once you complete registration you will be sent a separate link to register for the Zoom system.

For more information, contact Stephanie Alonzo at 415.255.2288 x110 or stephanie@sfaa.org.

sfaa’s

Managing elderly tenants requires a thoughtful and compassionate approach, as their needs may differ from younger tenants. In this webinar we will give a few tips to effectively manage elderly tenants.

• Communication

• Accessibility

• Special Services

• Flexibility

• Maintenance

• Community Resources

History of Costa-Hawkins Webinar

This one-hour class will examine the extremely impactful CostaHawkins statute and its impact on rental housing throughout California, and in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles that have restrictive rent laws. We will dissect the statute and discuss, among other topics, the law’s prohibition against vacancy control, the exemptions that have been created for single-family homes and condominiums, and the exceptions carved out for housing constructed after February 1, 1995. In addition, we will explore the statute’s effect on development agreements, as well as its imposition of vacancy control for tenancies that are terminated under certain circumstances. Lastly, we will opine as to what may or is likely to happen should this irreplaceable piece of legislation be repealed by the voters in 2024, or otherwise scaled back by our state legislators.”

PRESENTER:

Dave Wasserman & Curtis Dowling, Dowling & Marquez, LLP

DATE & TIME:

Friday

September 22, 2023

10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

COSTS:

Members: $45

Nonmembers: $65

WEBINAR:

Once you complete registration you will be sent a separate link to register for the Zoom system. For more information, contact Maria Shea at 415.255.2288 x110 or maria@sfaa.org.

10 TIPS TO ATTRACT GREAT TENANTS

A difficult tenant can bring so much stress to your life.

As a property manager, one of your most important tasks is to find and keep quality tenants. The right tenants can make your life easier and your property more profitable.

But how do you attract these ideal renters?

Although it’s impossible to gauge someone’s behavior behind closed doors, we’ve put together a list of tips to help you select the most suitable tenants.

1. Know your audience

First and foremost, know who your ideal tenants are. Are they young professionals, families with children, or retirees? Knowing who you’re targeting will help you tailor your marketing efforts to reach them more effectively.

When reaching out to your target audience, make sure to adhere to Fair Housing laws. Check out “Fair Housing Facts” by attorney Steven Williams in the July issue of SF Apartment Magazine (sfaa.org/magazine) for more information.

2. Highlight your property’s unique features

Figure out what sets your property apart from others in the area. Do you have a great location, unique amenities, or spacious units? Highlight these features in your marketing materials and property descriptions.

3. Offer incentives

Consider offering move-in specials, referral bonuses, or other incentives to attract quality tenants. These can be a great way to stand out from the competition and entice renters to choose your property.

4. Set realistic rent prices

Make sure your rental rates are competitive with other properties in the area. If you price too high, you may scare off potential tenants. If you price too low, you may attract lower-quality renters who are only looking for a bargain.

5. Screen tenants carefully

If you retain anything from this article, let it be this: don’t rush the tenant screening process.

Take the time to thoroughly check references, run credit checks, and verify employment and income. This will help ensure you’re bringing in renters who are responsible and reliable.

6. Keep your property clean and well-maintained

A clean and well-maintained property will attract highquality tenants who are looking for a comfortable and safe place to call home.

Keep up with regular maintenance and repairs to keep your property in top condition. This will not only help you gain positive feedback and possible referrals, but it will also help you in terms of retention.

7.

Respond quickly to tenant concerns

When tenants have issues or concerns, respond promptly and professionally. This will help build trust and show that you’re committed to providing a great living experience for your renters, which will help in terms of retention.

8.

Offer flexible lease options

Based on your housing market, consider offering monthto-month leases or shorter lease terms to attract renters who may not want to commit to a long-term lease. This can be especially appealing to young professionals or students who may be uncertain about their future plans.

This is where knowing your target market really comes into play; if your ideal tenant fits these parameters, consider catering to them.

Turn to “On Short Notice” on page 40 to read up on San Francisco’s Intermediate-Length Occupancy (ILO) laws.

9. Communicate clearly and effectively

Make sure your tenants know what’s expected of them and what they can expect from you as their landlord. Be clear about your policies, procedures, and expectations from the beginning to avoid misunderstandings and conflicts later on.

10. Emphasize the benefits of renting from you

Why should renters choose your property over others in the area? Emphasize the benefits of renting from you, such as convenient location, responsive management, and attractive amenities.

Bottom line

These ten tips will help you attract high-quality tenants and enjoy a more rewarding property management experience. Remember, finding the right tenants is key to your success as a landlord, so take the time to do it right and don’t cut corners.

David Bitton is the CMO and Co-founder of DoorLoop.

What You Need to Know

sfaa sfaa 2023

Q.After a bedbug infestation, a renter had to dispose of a lot of her belongings. She has submitted receipts to me for compensation. She has renters insurance—would her damaged items be covered?

A. No. Your property policy or liability policy will not cover infestation. Neither will your tenant’s renters insurance. Infestation is one of the four main exclusions on all property forms. There are a few exceptions to this, but they are rare.

Q. What are the most common insurance mistakes rental property owners make?

Annual Trophy Awards Show

Thursday, October 26, 2023 St. Regis Hotel Ballroom

• Not requiring tenants to have renters insurance and then not confirming that they do—or, upon finding out tenants don’t have renters insurance, not putting the insurance in place for them. A Master Renters Insurance Policy is a policy that provides coverage to all your tenants at a minimal cost per month per tenant. This cost is passed on to your tenants monthly as a part of the rent. They can opt out if they show proof of their own renters insurance. The tracking of the tenant’s renters insurance is done by the master renters insurance policy— not you.

• Underestimating/under-reporting rent to insurance broker/company. Too many owners think this will save them a few dollars on the policy, but when a loss happens, they do not have enough time/money on the policy to pay themselves during a rebuild.

• Not putting loss controls on your property. This helps you avoid claims, makes you a better risk (means a better rate), and makes your property safer.

• Underinsuring the property. The scarcity of materials and lack of labor has increased the cost of construction. Most property owners and insurance

agents do not review the dwelling coverage often enough. If you have not had this conversation in the last two years, you need to do this now.

Getting multiple bids from insurance people. This is the worst way to get a better price. Commercial insurance companies only provide one quote to one broker. When they see multiple brokers in the market, they quote higher terms as they see an unsophisticated buyer. Plus, right now the property market is so limited. If you have a bad application to a good market, you are now stuck with that quote. Instead, it’s best to choose one broker and have them go to multiple markets. Make the insurance companies compete—not the brokers. Interview the brokers and pick the one who is the most competent.

The above information is general in nature. Please contact an insurance provider regarding your specific circumstance. Sarmad Naqvi is an insurance broker at USI Insurance. He can be reached at 510-590-0635.

sfaa 2024officer & nominationdirector

Request for Consideration

Please tear out and complete this page. Then fax it to the SFAA office (by Friday, October 13, 2023) at 415-255-1112, or mail it to Chair, Nominating Committee, SFAA at 265 Ivy Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. Thank You! Please feel free to attach a resume to your application.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Name:

Member #:

Member since:

Business phone: Home phone:

Email address: Website:

Units owned or managed:

Local apartment association activities (if any):

State apartment association activities (if any):

Community interests:

Current or previous board experience: Reference

Legal Questions

Confused about local and statewide rental housing laws? Take advantage of SFAA’s legal information network. Before every SFAA General Membership Meeting, a diverse panel of San Francisco landlord attorneys answers your questions about your property, your tenants and the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. SFAA monthly meetings and legal panels are a benefit just for members, so make sure you are getting the most out of your membership and be sure to attend the next meeting. Email Maria with questions for the panel: maria@sfaa.org

Since first launching in February 2022, one hundred San Franciscans have worked with HERA to receive free or low-cost estate plans through the Estate Planning Program.

?Of the participants:

• Over 75% identify as very low or low-income households, with the rest identifying as middle-income,

• 95% are homeowners,

• 45% identify as Asian Pacific Islander,

• 17% as Black or African American,

• 19% as Latino,

• 15% as Caucasian, and

• 4% as other.

Throughout the last sixteen months, the Office of the Assessor-Recorder (Assessor’s Office) and HERA have partnered with nonprofit organizations, neighborhood collaboratives, faith-based groups, merchant associations, the San Francisco Public Library, and other city leaders. Together, they have hosted workshops, webinars, and informational sessions to raise awareness within the community around the importance of the services offered through the Estate Planning Program in relation to protecting and building intergenerational wealth.

Moving forward, the Assessor’s Office and HERA will continue to work with community stakeholders to enroll clients in the Estate Planning Program, with a particular focus on the southeast and other neighborhoods of San Francisco where there is a combination of high homeownership rates, lower-income communities, and communities of color. Neighborhoods include but are not limited to Bayview, Visitacion Valley, Portola, Excelsior, Outer Mission, Ingleside, and Western Addition.

Through this program, families save thousands of dollars through free or low-cost estate plans, which typically

cost between $3,000-$3,500. Without an estate plan, a family’s assets will go through probate, which requires intervention by the courts. This process is not only lengthy (minimum nine months), but it can cost tens of thousands of dollars. For example, a family would have to pay up to $46,000 in probate and legal fees for an estate valued at $1,000,000. For families that cannot afford these costs, inheriting families may have no choice but to sell the family home or other assets to pay probate costs. Preparing an estate plan ensures a family’s assets remain intact for the beneficiary or the next generation.

Estate plans are free for low-income households and $400 for moderate-income households. Eligibility is based on a household’s gross income before taxes per California Housing and Community Development income levels.

The Assessor’s Office seeks to advance the principles of antiracism, equity, integrity, and excellence in service to our diverse constituents and communities. The Estate Planning Program is part of a broader ecosystem of work spearheaded by Assessor-Recorder Torres to promote financial literacy amongst San Franciscans through the Family Wealth Series, Assessor in the Neighborhood Series, and presentations to community members regarding the basics of property assessment, taxes, and exemptions.

To sign up for estate plans, please contact HERA at 510-271-8443 ext. 300, or email inquiries@heraca.org. For additional outreach, please visit heraca.org.

Contacting SFAA

SFAA members are welcome to make an appointment to visit the SFAA office with questions.

However, the best way to have your questions answered is through email: MemberQuestions@sfaa.org. And just a friendly reminder: Timely payment of membership dues is the best way to help the association help you.

2023 Summer CCRM Webinar Series Schedule &

Upon registration the Zoom link will be emailed to the student Class is every Thursday

To Register

Online: www.sfaa.org

Call: 415-255-2288 x.113 Email: stephanie@sfaa.org

(includes 9th Edition Managing Rental Housing textbook, CCRM binder and Welcome Packet; does not include the $75 CCRM application fee)

Local Association ID Number:

Information: o Credit Card o Mailing Check o Series Invoicing (members only benefit)

Credit card number: Exp. Date Signature: Name printed:

Cancellation Policy: Cancellations must be made 72 hours in advance for a refund SFAA does not provide refunds for No-Shows. Non-members must pay by credit card only!!!

*Students requesting CalBRE Continuing Education Credits must show picture ID, immediately before admittance to the live offe ring.

CCRM Certification Renewal Policy: In order to keep the certification active, CCRMs must complete twelve hours of continuing education credits & submit a renewal application along with a renewal fee every other year (2 hours of these credits must be in Fair Ho using)

TO MOST PEOPLE, THIS IS JUST A TYPICAL MIDCENTURY MODERN

TO YOU, IT’S YOUR THREE KIDS’ COLLEGE EDUCATION.

We know the properties we manage mean more to owners like you than meets the eye. That’s why, for over 70 years and across three generations of our family, we’ve taken the long view -- building great working relationships as we build value. Because when it comes to taking care of your investment, we definitely see eye-to-eye.