Supervisor Jake McGoldrick: 'In Law' Units Revisited?

Legislation has been introduce by SF Supervisor Aaron Peskin that would allow construction of "secondary units" in many San Francisco neighborhoods. It will soon be considered by the SF Planning Commission and the SF Board of Supervisors.

This legislation would allow construction of new secondary units of 750 square feet or less within the existing envelope of residential buildings. It includes safeguards to prevent owners of currently illegal units from "flipping" their units to legal status: for example, no permits will be granted for a legal secondary unit if evidence exists of the illegal operation of the in-law in the previous 10 years.

The legislation defines "secondary units" as additional, self-contained dwelling units constructed within the existing envelope of a residential building. Further restrictions would require that such units meet one of three requirements: 1) that it be close to a well-utilized transit corridor; 2) that it be specifically designed and constructed to accommodate the elderly or disabled (though this does not require that the resident actually be elderly or disabled); or, 3) that the unit be on a lot containing a qualified historic building and meets certain preservation criteria.

The legislation attempts to limit parking impacts by requiring that occupants of secondary units be prohibited from obtaining residential parking permits (RPP). Rent control would not apply to units added under this legislation.

Finally, this legislation would not affect covenants, conditions and restrictions on secondary units included on deeds. Mapping out the provisions of the legislation reveals that it would allow new secondary units to be added in most of the Richmond District.

While the legislation attempts to limit its effects on parking and traffic congestion by prohibiting occupants of such units from obtaining residential parking permits, this attempt clearly will not be fully successful for several reasons.

First, RPPs are only required in areas that have gone through a process whereby residents request, via petition of more than 50 percent of residents that their neighborhood, that their neighborhood be designated as a permit area. Most areas of District 1 do not require such permits, so occupants of secondary units would be free to park on the street without limitation. Even in those limited areas within District 1 where RPPs are required, the limitation is only in effect during the business day. Thus, the RPP prohibition would do nothing to prevent increased parking problems during evening hours.

It is my feeling that this legislation raises significant issues regarding the character of existing neighborhoods. In particular, do we want to create the potential for significant increases in density in neighborhoods like the Richmond without targeting such density more specifically through a community planning process?

If we choose to allow such added density, do we want to require that there be public benefits for transit improvements, affordable housing and parking problems? Are the provisions that the legislation proposes to limit the parking and traffic effects of density increases sufficient to mitigate such effects? Would such density increases be justified by significant increases in new housing units that the proponents argue will result from the legislation? These are important questions that I believe must be weighed in reaching a conclusion about this legislation.

Currently, I have reservations about whether this approach is the right way to go. Because of the significant questions raised by this proposal, I have decided to make it a key topic for discussion at our next Town Hall Meeting. Please join me on Wednesday, May 7, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Richmond Recreation Center, located at 251 18th Ave. for a discussion of Peskin's secondary housing units legislation.

We also will be discussing the Planning Department's completion of a new Housing Element of the General Plan, the document that is supposed to guide the City's efforts in meeting demand for residential housing over the next 10 years. Joining us for these discussions will be Amit Ghosh, chief of comprehensive planning for the Planning Department. I hope to see you there for this important discussion concerning the future of our neighborhoods.

Jake McGoldrick is a San Francisco supervisor representing District 1.