By Neal Wong
District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong has introduced an ordinance to change a decades-old building rule that housing advocates say has kept thousands of existing housing units off the legal rental market. The change would make those existing homes legal without requiring expensive renovations, and could make new construction more affordable, since lower ceilings require less material to build.
The rule requires habitable rooms such as bedrooms and living rooms to have ceilings at least 7 feet, 6 inches tall – 6 inches taller than the California Residential Code minimum of 7 feet. Wong’s legislation would bring the City in line with the state standard.
Right now, homeowners across the City have units that are legal under state law, but illegal under City law, according to Bobak Esfandiari of SF YIMBY.
“They have to do tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in renovations to change their ceiling height away from what is legal in California to what San Francisco requires,” Esfandiari said.
The change grew out of Wong’s “Dumb Laws Contest,” launched in March, which drew more than 200 submissions from residents. The ceiling-height rule was named the winner. The issue is personal for Wong, who grew up in the Sunset in accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also called in-law units.
“Having ADUs made it possible for my dad, with his $18 -$20-something-an-hour job, to support a family of four in the Sunset,” Wong said about his father, who was a hotel worker. “Every ADU represents another opportunity for somebody to stay in San Francisco.”
Wong stressed that the proposal, which was introduced on June 26, does not remove any safety protections. Homes would still have to meet every other building requirement, including fire safety, emergency exits, structural standards, electrical, plumbing, ventilation and natural-light rules.
“The only thing we’re doing is removing a local requirement that exceeds state standards without providing additional safety,” Wong said.
Pro-housing groups backed the change, framing it as a way to add homes without new construction.
Graham Griffin of Abundant SF described the measure as a common-sense alignment with state law.
“For many homeowners, the biggest obstacle to building or legalizing an ADU is not willingness. It’s cost, it’s complexity,” Griffin said. “Housing abundance is not achieved through one sweeping reform. It is built through dozens of smart decisions.”
Witt Turner of the Housing Action Coalition said building ADUs is one of the most powerful tools for increasing the City’s housing supply.
“They don’t displace anyone and without changing building envelopes or height limits,” Turner said. “It costs nothing but the political will to fix a rule that should have been fixed many years ago.”
Asked why San Francisco adopted the stricter standard in the first place, Wong said “I don’t think there is a good reason. I think that sometimes San Francisco creates standards that exceed others when it’s not necessary.”
He pointed to the stakes for current renters and owners alike.
“We have thousands of in-law units in San Francisco right now that could be used for housing or that already are being used for housing, not legally,” Wong said. “We should make sure that homeowners feel that they are able to rent out these in-law units, some of which are not being rented out because they are afraid of potential fines.”
The ordinance is now pending action from the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the Board of Supervisors.
Categories: housing
Both this legislation and every quote supporting it are from Moritz-, Wiener-, and corporate property developer-backed organizations.
Given that the Board of Supervisors is stacked with rubber-stampers for all of the above, there’s no question that this will pass. This is truly the return of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, all hopped up on billionaire and cryptocurrency funding.
I’m a small-time, one-off property developer with an active imagination. I turned my personal residence into the first bona fide San Francisco TIC in 1981. As a city employee at the time, I didn’t have funds to buy out my co-owner buddy, who wanted to use his equity to buy a house in Sonoma County and start a family with his new bride. If necessity is the mother of invention, money definitely is the father.
I’m weighing in because today, 40 years later, I am taking on multi-family projects where the tenants want to become owners of their current dwelling and stay in the city until they’re ready to move on to greener pastures. I’ve helped that happen multiple times. I like creating spaces where people want to live, and fortunately I’ve never had to evict anyone.
Health and safety don’t have to be compromised to support this change. There are many small spaces with great potential to become highly desirable units by mindfully relaxing some restrictions, incorporating the growing trend of multi-functional furniture, and some imagination.
If carefully considered, Sup. Wong’s proposal could do a lot of good for a lot of people who want to control their own destiny. For those reasons, I’m all for it.