Feature

by Aaron Peskin

San Francisco’s chronic housing shortage is no secret. In fact, it has been well documented by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that our city must add over 2,500 housing units per year to meet current housing needs. Of these units, 62 percent should be low and moderate income. San Francisco is miles from that goal. A trickle of housing has been built over the last decade, often requiring a phenomenal amount of public funds and sparking divisive community battles.

No silver bullets exist for solving the city’s housing crisis. Simply put, we live in a fairly built-out city with distinct neighborhoods that residents are committed to protecting. In recognizing these limitations, we see secondary units as a promising way to create new housing.

Secondary units, often called “in-law” units, refer to small one-bedroom or studio units typically located in existing single-family homes. Secondary units provide economical, private-sector-driven housing creation for they do not rely on public funds, are dispersed throughout the city, and do not change the physical form of neighborhoods. Secondary units also provide a win-win situation for homeowners and tenants by helping to cover their mortgages and/or provide extended family members semi-independent places to live. They also provide tenants modest, relatively affordable housing.

Early last century, thousands of these units were created in San Francisco to house the working poor, household help and extended family members. In World War II, more secondary units were added to meet housing demand generated by the boom in defense jobs.

In 1982, the State of California adopted the Mello Act to promote the development of secondary units. It permitted such units in all California cities, leaving discretion for the implementation of this policy to local jurisdictions. Thirteen Bay Area cities quickly approved secondary units in all zones of their cities, resulting in a significant addition of housing units. After a contentious battle in San Francisco, our city government refused to change its laws to allow secondary units. Leaders argued that the high density of the city, zoning areas for multiple-unit buildings, and the city’s affordability programs satisfied Mello Act requirements. This position was never challenged in court.

Since then, several other attempts to create new secondary units and to legalize existing units have been pursued without success. As a result, in this era of soaring rents and low vacancies, few new legal secondary units have been created.

The legislation that I have introduced at the Board of Supervisors would enable the creation of new secondary units. It allows for units under 750-square feet to be built in existing buildings if they meet one of three requirements: 1) lie within a quarter-mile of a major transportation corridor; 2) designed and constructed specifically for the elderly or persons with physical disabilities; or 3) located within a qualified historical building with owners who agree to adhere to preservation guidelines. These units would be exempt from the city’s rent control laws since they are receiving a Certificate of Occupancy after 1994 (a clear exemption from local rent control laws under the State’s Costa Hawkins Act).

San Francisco Apartment Association members should know that this legislation would allow for additional units to be added to multiple-unit (apartment) buildings.

My proposed legislation also addresses the long-standing concerns that neighborhood residents have expressed about a loss of on street parking from the creation of additional secondary units. In areas with the most acute parking supply and demand imbalance—where there are Residential Permit Programs in place—occupants of secondary units would be prohibited from obtaining a Residential Parking permit.

We know that many currently illegal secondary units have been built without proper permits, and hence provide substandard housing conditions. While I believe the issue of legalization and the upgrade of current units is a legitimate one, this legislation focuses solely on the creation of new units, and hence does not allow for the legalization of currently existing illegal units.

I firmly believe that finding real and lasting solutions to our housing crisis is the most important mission of local leaders. While it is easy to carp on this complex problem and bicker about its origins, we need to unify around practical, workable solutions. Along these lines, my office has worked for several months in partnership with San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association and other community leaders to create secondary-unit legislation that is fair, responsible and creates real opportunities for housing production. I greatly appreciate the San Francisco Apartment Association’s support of this legislation, and welcome any questions or feedback that Association members have regarding this legislation.

Editors Note: The SFAA Board of Director’s has formally approved of Supervisor Peskin’s Secondary Dwelling Units Proposal.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reßect the viewpoint of the SFAA or the SF Apartment Magazine. Supervisor Aaron Peskin represents San Francisco’s District 3, which includes North Beach, Chinatown, and Russian and Nob Hills. He is Chair of the Board of Supervisor’s Finance Committee and serves on its Budget Committee. He is past president of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers neighborhood organization and lives in North Beach with his wife Nancy. He may be reached at 415-554-7450. © Copyright 2002.