How the Battle against "Monster Homes" in San Francisco has now made it almost impossible for families to remain in the City.
Photo: San Francisco Examiner Illustration
I’ve been practicing architecture in San Francisco for more than 23 years now and have worked with all types of homeowners and families. Although I'm known for my work on accessory dwelling units (ADU), a lesser-known parts of my practice include working with homeowners to help create homes that work for their unique family needs.
My clients are not rich by most standards. In fact, I often have to work on very tight budgets to eke out every square inch possible for them at the lowest cost possible. I’ve worked with couples entering retirement who have an elderly parent moving in with them. I’ve worked with many young couples welcoming their first child. And I’ve worked with many multi-generational families who need a home that can house 3 or 4 generations of their family. Sadly, I’ve seen those same families give up when they can’t get their projects approved in a way that meets their needs. Many times in fact.
Recently, I’ve been reading a lot about the challenges our public schools are facing. Funding for the schools is based on enrollment, but there are simply not enough children in the city to support all the schools we currently operate. Based on my experience, our housing policies may be to blame for the exodus of families with children from San Francisco.
The Battle Against Monster Homes: How Big is Too Big?
In 2022, Supervisor Mandelman, the representative for District 8 which (includes Noe Valley and the Castro), introduced legislation that created the “Central Neighborhoods Large Residence Special Use District,” which affects a large portion of his district. His intentions were good. He wanted to prevent monster homes in San Francisco from making it unaffordable for families to buy a home in the city. Unfortunately, this policy may be having the opposite effect, by making it so difficult to create a home that works for their family that they are compelled to leave San Francisco.
Within this Special Use District Supervisor Mandelman created, single-family homes are limited to a size of 3,000 gross square feet. The key here is the phrase “gross square feet.” That means the garage, exterior walls, utility spaces, and stairs count toward the total square footage of the house, even though these areas are not habitable. Basically, it means that, in a 3,000 gross square foot home, 1,200 square feet of that area is unusable because it is made up of walls, garages, and utility space – a loss of over 40%.
For those of you who don’t work in square feet, let me simplify this further. If we count habitable square footage, a 3,000 square foot home can easily accommodate 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, a nice kitchen, formal living, and a dining room. BUT, when the limitation is changed to gross square feet, that same home is only be able to accommodate 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, and will lose entertaining and storage spaces. That’s a major loss of usable area and a home that doesn’t work for families with 2 children who also need space to work from home.
I’ll give you another data point to chew on. A standard lot in SF measures 25’ x 100’. Once setbacks and height limits are factored in, a typical lot can accommodate a single-family home with 7,000 gsf of floor area. And yet - the limit is less than half that amount. It’s even worse if your lot is larger than a standard size, and there are no exceptions in his legislation for larger lots; something my architectural colleagues have long pointed out as an issue that needs to be addressed.
The Impact to Real Families
I have seen all types of families and worked to accommodate their unique needs. There is no one-size-fits-all home. Some families may be accommodating an elderly parent. Some families live with 4 generations together with a cultural need for large common living spaces and private spaces for each family member. Since Covid, we now find that most people work from home at least some of the time, creating the need for dedicated home office areas.
I have a client within this zone, right now. They just welcomed their second child and they both work from home full time. Their 3-bedroom home no longer fits their family’s needs. When they initially approached me their project was, again, quite modest. They wanted to add a small addition to their house so they could create a primary suite for themselves, carve out offices for each of them, and create a true guest suite at the basement for one of their parents who often comes for extended stays.
Unfortunately, within this District this project is not possible because – under the gross square feet limitation – the size of their home already exceeded 3,000 gross square feet. The only way they could add the space they needed was to utilize an exception in the code to add a second unit at the ground floor. A unit they have no desire to rent out, which will likely sit vacant and be used for extended family visits. A unit they will be required to pay vacancy tax on.
I’ll admit - I don’t know why Supervisor Mandelman selected 3,000 gross square feet as a limit, or why he decided to apply a limit to gross square footage, rather than habitable floor area, but there it is, now embedded in stone in the San Francisco city code. I wish he had consulted the architecture community prior to setting such a stringent limit. The only exception available is that the house can be increased by 15% even if it’s over the 3,000 gsf limit. But for a family that needs a larger addition, this limit can force them right out of the city and into the suburbs
Photo: David Sacks / Digital Vision / Thinkstock
The Proposed Expansion of this Limitation
In June, Supervisor Mandelman introduced Ordinance 240637 to expand the area of this limitation to include Corona Heights. The Planning Commission and Planning Department reviewed this legislation and recommended some changes to the legislation, as follows:
The Planning Commission and Planning Departments recommended that the garage space be excluded from the calculation.
They recommended that the total area of a unit be increased to 4,000 sf if a second unit was added.
They recommended that shared spaces like hallways and common areas be excluded from the calculations for multi-unit buildings. The Planning department also made a point of noting that this ordinance may negatively impact BIPOC families with a tradition of multigenerational living.
After that hearing, Supervisor Mandelman amended his legislation to accommodate recommendations 1 and 3. This legislation was also heard at the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the Board of Supervisors and approved on September 16th. Next stop - the full Board of Supervisors for a vote. This is now urgent. Frankly, I am confident we will continue to see this limitation extended city-wide in the coming months. If approved as it is currently written, it will become the model and may be much more difficult to change.
This Legislation Affects Everyone
For those of you who are thinking - I don’t live in District 8, so this doesn’t affect me, it’s also worth mentioning that in November of last year Supervisor Mandelman was able to attach similar language to a crucial piece of housing legislation the City needed to stay compliant with the State; the result is that single-family home expansions above 3,000 gsf citywide would be subject to neighborhood notification, opening up the opportunity for a hostile neighbor to halt home expansion projects city-wide.
What You Can Do
If this ordinance will impact your family's ability to stay in the city you love, please contact your supervisor and cc Supervisor Mandelman to recommend that the legislation be amended. The more personal you make your plea, the more likely it is to impact this approval, so please share real-world stories of how this would impact your family. https://sfbos.org/roster-members
Personally, I would like to see the following changes to this legislation:
Eliminate the phrase “gross square footage” and change to “habitable square footage.”
Include exceptions for unique family situations including multi-generational family needs.
Include exceptions or amendments for large-lot conditions.
Increase the size of a single-unit to 4,000 habitable square feet, or 60% of the buildable area of the lot.
Last, but certainly not least, many people do not realize the significant impact one piece of legislation can have on an entire city. When it comes to changes to legislation that impacts land use, I call on all Supervisors to reach out to the San Francisco American Institute of Architects Public Policy and Advocacy Committee (AIAPPAC) for input and feedback prior to introducing legislation that affects land use. Together we can help shape a city that works for everyone.
This scary. Thank you for sharing Serina. Will message Supervisor Mandelman with the suggested changes