- David Costello - Contributing Writer - SF
SF Board of Supervisors Pending 'Conditional Use' Renovation Legislation: Making it impossib

No one seems to question how much
automobiles have changed over the past
80 years. Engines, sizes of cars as well
as their appearances have changed dra-
matically. Our expectations change as
society evolves. So why can’t our city
planning policies and codes allow for a
similar evolution for homes?
Our housing stock has a life which
will not last forever. In San Fran-
cisco most homes over 70-80 years of
age require a tremendous amount of
maintenance. While older homes may
appear to be affordable, first time home-
owners frequently experience the hard
way what the true costs actually are for
maintaining an older structure. Unex-
pected funds are often needed to replace
nob & tube wiring, updating old gal-
vanized plumbing to copper, adding
insulation missing from walls and ceil-
ings, and for dealing with inefficient
furnaces, faulty heating ducts, and leak-
ing roofs and windows - not to mention
worn out water heaters and single
pane windows. And all of these hid-
den expenses don’t factor in desirable
upgrades such as a bathroom or kitchen
remodel, or an expansion.
Many San Franciscans are unaware
of legislation that is actively pending at
the Board of Supervisors which erro-
neously claims that older homes with
deferred maintenance are affordable.
This same legislation would make major
kitchen remodels or home expansions
almost impossible. If approved, this pro-
posal would result in a common kitchen
renovation becoming a non-permitted
use known as a ‘conditional use’. It would
also make meaningful vertical and/or
horizontal additions to homes become
classified as non-permitted/conditional
use as well. Worse yet, if more than 25%
of a façade (6.25’ for most homes) is
removed, a demolition would be trig-
gered, again causing a non-permitted/
conditional use situation. Conditional
uses will make it almost impossible to
get a permit for meaningful expansions
of more than 10%.
Today’s modern family wants a
wide-open floor plan, 3 bedrooms on
the same level, a bedroom downstairs
for their guests or in-laws, and perhaps
a family room to gain a little distance
from the kids. If we want families to
remain in the city our focus should be
on making the permitting process easier
rather than it beco
ming more compli-
cated and highly restrictive.
In the past residents wanting to
expand their homes have had to com-
promise their expectations, having to
deal with hostile neighbors well versed
in the ‘Discretionary Review’ pro-
cess, where they can force applicants to
present their projects to the planning
commission. This process by definition
as it stands is already a long and daunt-
ing path. We have all heard the horror
stories. So why are our Supervisors on
a mission to make this process even
harder? Supervisors Peskin, Fewer, Yee,
Ronan and Mandelman, all sponsors
of this draconian legislation, need to be
reminded that families have a choice,
and can get all of these amenities eas-
ily approved for their home in less than
three months within a 20-minute radius
of the city in all directions. As a city we
hear constant complaints about families
leaving, but at the same time we seem to
ignore the fact that our housing policies
continue to fail families that are trying
to modernize their homes. What mes-
sage are our legislators sending to those
who want to expand their homes to
allow for an aging parent? Clearly this
detrimental pending legislation needs
to be discarded and rewritten to reflect
the typical three-month permit process
that our neighboring communities have
in place. It is time for common sense to
prevail!
David Costello,
Global Real Estate Advisor
David.costello@sothebysrealty.com
www.bayarea-marketreport.