By Michael Durand
On May 9, we posted a commentary from a reader titled “The (Not so) Subtle Takeover of Private Property by the City.”
I heard from District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio who said some of the claims were not true. Here is Supervisor Engardio’s comment that can be found at the end of the original commentary:
I would like to clarify some points in this article. First, it is important to note that the Family and Senior Housing Opportunity Special Use District (SUD) was unanimously supported by the Board of Supervisors, including the members of the Land Use Committee: Supervisor Melgar, Supervisor Dean Preston and Board President Aaron Peskin.
This SUD doesn’t change baseline zoning, which is still single family residential for most communities across the west side. It creates a local density bonus program to allow for the construction of a few additional units where single family homes are permitted.
Couples, aging parents and young families now have options to build generational wealth through their single family homes: there’s a state density bonus program that allows the construction of non-rent controlled ADUs, and there are several local density bonus programs that allow the construction of additional units under rent control.
Everything in this SUD is voluntary. It allows private property owners to decide for themselves what they want to do with their property. The SUD doesn’t require any single-family homes to build three or four new housing units per lot. It doesn’t require anyone to accommodate an ADU in their backyard.
It’s also important to note that the SUD did not change 2022’s Prop. M residential vacancy tax and residential unit registration requirements. If a spare unit is occupied by friends, family or neighbors for half the year, it is not considered a “vacant unit” and won’t be taxed. Lastly, the SUD can’t change the rules around property tax re-assessments, which are enshrined in California’s state constitution.
This SUD provides solutions that can benefit families who choose to use it. For some, this SUD allows single family homeowners the flexibility to build generational wealth and add new housing in the westside communities they love. Everything about the SUD is voluntary and if a family wishes not to use it, that is their right.
We have a lot to fix in San Francisco and that’s why I ran for supervisor. I believe we should address today’s challenges and not leave them for future generations to deal with.
I welcome constructive dialogue on our city’s most pressing issues. I welcome everyone who wants to bring solutions to the table and help fix our city. Learn more at engardio.com.
Supervisor Engardio also sent me clarification from Janan New, director of the San Francisco Apartment Association who said the writer “… is not a member of our organization or affiliated with us in anyway. We do not know her.”
Michael Durand is the editor and publisher of the Richmond Review and Sunset Beacon newspapers and the RichmondSunsetNews.com website. He can be reached at Editor@RichmondSunsetNews.com.
Categories: From the Editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
Dear Mr. Engardio, I went back to the August 5, 2023 article “Supervisors Pass Ordinance to Increase Housing Options and Density” and could not find one reference that you make concerning promoting generational wealth the cause of building one or two ADU’s under your ordinance. My article does not state that we are being required, forced, or even mandated to build ADU’s. My article addresses the consequences once those units/rooms are built. Of course it’s voluntary if you can afford to build ADU’s to your parcel of land. But let’s not get distracted by this sort of rhetoric. The article dated Aug. 2023 quotes Dean Preston as saying “What I appreciate in this legislation is the attempt of adding a bunch of units on the west side and gain some of the community benefits, particularly through having the added units as rent controlled units. And the Amendments strengthening some of the anti displacement language and tenant protections.”
Please explain why its Ok to have our friends, family, or neighbors stay on our property for only half a year? Why not the whole year or maybe two? It’s because one will not be taxed if the unit is vacant for that long but after 182 days (half the year), the vacancy tax kicks in with restrictions on who is considered a legitimate tenant. I think constructive dialogue would be productive if the truth was spoken with relevant facts. It’s important to address the fundamental issues of the consequences that people will face IF they build these units.
It’s unfortunate that the president of the SFAA only statement is that “We don’t know her” instead of addressing some of these serious issues facing property owners that are her members. Off hand, she may not know me. I attend important public hearings and support their stance in the public comment forum promoting their dialogue which is handed to me from her staff. I never said I was a member for either organization. Sadly enough I am only one of three people who attended the last hearing where you voted YES to Peskin’s new ordinance not allowing property owner/landlord to pass through General Bond infrastructure measures to tenants. Another example of property owners shouldering the cost for everything in the City.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Engardio tried to sneak in the 50 story building at 2700 Sloat along with the newly named Cultural Center on 45/Wawoma.Engardio is also for the destruction of the sand dunes.During the Easter event on the Great Highway people dug into the sand putting plastic eggs to be dug out by children.Hundreds of children slid down and climbed up the dunes.Engardio was there handing out candy.I have pictures.He cannot lie about any of this.He also left out the area where he lives in his rezoning of building options.Watch out for his further antics.
LikeLike
Susan, we heard from Supervisor Joel Engardio about your comment. He wrote:
There is a lot of misinformation in this comment.
First, I have always been opposed to the “50 story tower” which was never a serious project. It was a scare tactic by a disgruntled developer who didn’t get their way and now they’ve abandoned the site. See news report: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-sunset-tower-19470878.php
Second, the legislation to allow the Irish Cultural Center to rebuild for its future existence does not jeopardize the coast. It was written in close collaboration and support from the Coastal Commission, using language drafted by their staff. Board President Aaron Peksin is a co-sponsor of the Irish Cultural Center legislation and there is no one more protective of the coast than Aaron Peskin. He and I are in complete agreement on this.
Third, my neighborhood and my home is not excluded from the special use district legislation that was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors. I live by the same law as everyone else.
Fourth, the Easter egg hunt was fully permitted and the eggs were wooden, not plastic. We brought joy to hundreds of kids and families. That is a good thing.
LikeLike
Just what exactly are this publication’s editorial standards? Instead of figuring out what is and isn’t true—doing journalism—it publishes an unhinged rant by Tracy Thompson with obvious factual errors (for example, Thompson’s understanding of the vacancy tax is bizarre; if a unit is occupied by friends, family, or neighbors, it is by definition not vacant) and then publishes a government response. Wouldn’t it be more useful for someone to help readers out by discerning the truth here, refraining from publishing falsehoods, and letting us know whether Supervisor Engardio is describing the law accurately?
LikeLike
Dear Eric,
Please refer to https://files.amlegal.com/pdffiles/sanfran/11-08-2022-PropM.pdf. This is where you will find in the definitions “Lease Period means the period during which any owner of a residential unit or any person in the ‘Owner’s Group’ of that owner leases that residential unit to one or more tenants under a bonafide lease intended for occupancy but not including any lease or rental of that residential unit to anyone in ‘Owner’s group’ or to travelers, vacationers, or other transient occupants.” See also Sec2953(j) in addition to the definition of ‘Owner’s Group’ in the same legal text which also includes “affiliates” for which there is a separate definition. For full understanding, use the link above to read and verify Article 29A. I hope that offers some clarification for you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m afraid that doesn’t clarify anything, no. The basic definition that applies is the definition of “vacant”: “‘Vacant’ means unoccupied, uninhabited, or unused, for more than 182 days, whether consecutive or nonconsecutive, in a tax year.”
If your friends, family, or neighbors are living there, it’s not vacant. The law is quite clear on that: “A person shall be liable for the Empty Homes Tax only if that person, while owning a Residential Unit, has kept or is deemed to have kept that Residential Unit unoccupied, uninhabited, or unused, for more than 182 days, whether consecutive or nonconsecutive, in a tax year.”
The law goes on to provide exceptions to the tax, situations where a unit is vacant but don’t count toward the 182 days, such as for construction, after a disaster, if it’s the homeowner’s principal place of residence, a time period after construction, or if an owner is in the hospital/a care facility or has recently died. One of those exceptions is that a unit isn’t considered vacant as long as it is rented out to someone under a bona fide lease, as long as the lease isn’t to someone in the “Owner’s Group” or for transient occupancy.
It’s just to prevent loopholes so that people can’t say “well yeah it’s vacant, but I leased it to my son even though he doesn’t actually live here in any way, so the tax doesn’t apply.”
Again, there’s no tax at all if the place isn’t vacant. Your article claimed “you will be slammed with a hefty vacancy tax for the unit(s) you have built and have allowed family members to occupy,” but this is false: if your family members occupy the units, they aren’t vacant!
Also, none of this applies at all to duplexes.
LikeLike
I am an architect practicing in San Francisco and, like Eric, was disappointed to find this article in the Richmond Review. The Planning code provides several options for adding dwelling units above density and it would be more useful for the public to know their options, and the various pros and cons of each program. To begin with, adding a “dwelling unit” vs. adding an “accessory dwelling unit” are different actions with different parameters. Section 249.94 (Family Housing Opportunity SUD) and Section 207 (ADU program) are different programs with different parameters. So, while it is true that adding an ADU turns your single family home into a 2-unit building, it is not always true that this unit is rent-controlled. Most ADU projects that come to our office can be added through the State Program and these are not required to be rent controlled. Nor are you required to report who lives there. And, while it is true that your property is reassessed if you add a unit, this is also true for any type of remodeling or addition work that isn’t just a pure repair (like roof replacement). So that point in and of itself is not really relevant.
I don’t think that any one of these programs will solve the housing problem on its own. But, I do believe that having a variety of options gives us a chance. I am appreciative that the Board of Sups, Planning & DBI (and the State) are helping move San Francisco towards solutions.
LikeLike
I looked at the SFPlanning.org website and put into the search field “accessory dwelling unit”. When I clicked on them and read the information about Accessory Dwelling Unit, for both SF and MF, rent control is all over it with waivers from the planning code. It says “This program offers waivers or exceptions to some planning code requirements for ADU’s added to existing buildings. Where waivers are granted, a Costa Hawkins Regulatory Agreement may be required which subjects the ADU to rent control. It would be a good idea for people to know their options before diving into building an ADU. Camille states that “its not always true that this unit is rent-controlled”. or ” State Program and these are not required to be rent controlled.” If a waiver is given in the Planning Code for one thing or other, chances are high that you will be signing the Costa Hawkins Regulatory Agreement which , correct me if I am wrong, you’ll be giving up your right to raise the rent. People definitely need to be informed of all the intricacies of doing this. Of course the person who commented above would be disappointed..
LikeLike