Posts Tagged ‘socketsite’

That’s It, the Golden Age of Airbnb in San Francisco is Over: City Starts Accepting Short Term Rental Applications Feb 2nd

Friday, January 16th, 2015

The always-reliable Socketsite has the bad news.

Here it is, just posted by the Planning Department.

Oh, be sure to show them your half-million dollar liability insurance policy that I’m sure you already have (haha!).

If Airbnb is your bidness, you might even welcome these new regs. But if you are the more casual renter-outer, well, brace yourself for dealing with SFGov.

And here’s the kicker:

“You may not rent your unit (in all or a portion) as a short-term residential rental until you have received a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration number from the Planning Department.”

Choose wisely, Airbnbers…

“Short-Term Residential Rental Registry

Frequently Asked Questions

Applications Accepted Beginning February 2nd, 2015.

What is the SF Short-Term Residential Rental Ordinance?
On October 27th, 2014 Mayor Lee signed San Francisco Ordinance No. 218-14, amending the Administrative and Planning Codes to allow some residential properties to conduct short-term residential rentals without violating the requirements of the City’s Residential Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 41A) or the Planning Code. A short-term residential rental is a rental of all or a portion of your residential unit for periods of less than 30 nights. This law will become effective on February 1st, 2015. At that time, eligible Permanent Residents (owners and tenants) will be able to apply to place their residential unit on the Planning Department’s Short-Term Residential Rental Registry.

What can I do with a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration?
With a valid Short-Term Residential Rental Registration you may rent your primary residential unit for periods of less than 30 nights without violating the requirements of the City’s Residential Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 41A) or the Planning Code. This includes renting a portion or your entire unit while you are also present for an unlimited number of nights per year and renting a portion or your entire unit while you are not present for a maximum of 90 nights per year.

How can I apply to be on the Registry?
Short-Term Residential Rental Applications will be made available online and at the Planning Information Center (PIC) located at the ground floor of 1660 Mission Street. To register your unit, you will need to make an appointment with the San Francisco Planning Department to meet with staff and submit your application.Applications must be filed in person by the permanent resident whose name will appear on the registry. Applications may not be filed by representatives or agents. Drop-ins or dropped off applications will not be accepted. The Planning Department will begin conducting intake appointments on Monday, February 2nd. To schedule an intake appointment, please call 415-575-9179 after Monday, January 26th.

You may not rent your unit (in all or a portion) as a short-term residential rental until you have received a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration number from the Planning Department.

Who is eligible to register?
In order to conduct a short-term residential rental you must meet all of the following conditions:

  • You must be the Permanent Resident (owner or tenant) of the residential unit that you wish to rent short-term. This means you must live in that specific residential unit for at least 275 nights of any given calendar year. If you are a new resident you must have occupied this specific unit for at least 60 consecutive days prior to your application. If you own a multi-unit building, you may only register the specific residential unit in which you reside.
  • You must obtain liability insurance in the amount of no less than $500,000 or provide proof that liability coverage in an equal or higher amount is being provided by any and all hosting platforms through which you will rent your unit.
  • Your residential unit must not have any outstanding Planning, Building, Housing, Fire, Health, Police, or other applicable City code violations.
  • You may only register one residential unit.
  • Please note that residential units that are subject to the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program and residential units designated as below market rate (BMR) or income-restricted under City, state, or federal law are not eligible to register.
  • Important note for tenants:  The Planning Department strongly recommends that you review your lease before submitting an application. The registration of your residential  unit on the Short-Term Residential Rental Registry does not override any lease agreements, homeowner’s association bylaws, Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), or any other agreement, law, or regulations that prohibit subletting or use of your unit as a short-term residential rental.

Is there an application fee?
Yes. The fee for the initial application is $50.00. Your registration will remain valid for two years (pending the registered unit remains in good standing)

At your appointment you will need to provide all of the following items:

  • A completed Short-Term Residential Rental Application (download application packet here)
  • A Business Registration Certificate issued by the San Francisco Treasurer and Tax Collector’s Office
  • Driver’s License or State Issued ID Card issued at least 60 days prior to the short-term residential rental application date and valid for at least the next 6 months
  • Proof of  liability insurance in the amount of no less than $500,000
  • A signed affidavit agreeing to abide by all conditions of the short-term residential rental ordinance included within the application (download application packet here).
  • A check made out to the San Francisco Planning Department for $50.00
  • At least two of the following listed documents to confirm your primary residency at your residential unit:
  • Proof of a Homeowner’s Tax Exemption. Accepted as a form of residency confirmation only if the proof of a Homeowner’s Tax Exemption is for a property that is either a single-family dwelling or condominium; 
  • Voter Registration Card or Certificate with the address on the application, issued at least 60 days prior to the short-term residential rental application date. You may obtain a copy through the San FranciscoDepartment of Elections;
  • Proof of Vehicle Registration with the address on the application, issued at least 60 days prior to the short-term residential rental application date;
  • Proof of car insurance, showing address of registration, issued at least 60 days prior;
  • Original utility bill, issued by a public utility or PG&E, at least 60 days prior to the short-term residential application date. Copies and printouts will not be accepted. You may only use utility bills as one form of residency confirmation. Cable, cell phone, and internet bills do not qualify.

If you are a tenant of your residential unit you will also need to provide a copy of your lease or rental agreement. Please note that upon receipt of your completed application, the Planning Department will send a notice to the owner(s) of your unit, informing the owner(s) that your application has been received.

What will happen at my intake appointment?
Staff will review your application and related materials for completeness and intake. Only applications deemed complete at the time of submittal will be accepted for intake and further review. Additionally, staff will go over conditions and limitations of renting your unit as a short-term rental.

What happens after I’ve submitted my application?
It is expected that the Planning Department will review a completed application within fifteen (15) business days. If the Planning Department determines that your application meets the criteria then your unit will be added to the Short-Term Residential Rental Registry. You will you receive a “Short-Term Residential Rental” certificate by mail, which contains your assigned Registration Number. This registration number must be included at the top of all short-term rental listings’ descriptions (online or otherwise). We recommend that you place this certificate in plain view within your unit.

What can I do and not do once I have obtained a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration Number?
Once you have obtained a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration Number, you may use your residential unit as a short-term residential rental without violating Administrative Code Chapter 41A or the Planning Code  under the following conditions:

  • You may rent the residential unit (in all or a portion) while you are not present for a maximum of 90 nights per calendar year.
  • You may rent a portion of the residential unit while you are present for an unlimited number of nights per year.
  • You may advertise your residential unit on any and all hosting platforms under the condition that you list your registration number at the top of all listings’ descriptions.

What you may not do with your Primary Residence registered as a Short-Term Residential Rental:

  • You may not rent your residential unit or a portion thereof for more than 90 nights per calendar year while you are not also present during the time of the guests’ stay.
  • You may not rent illegal residential units or unpermitted spaces associated with your property.
  • If you are a tenant, you may not make more than your monthly rent from your short-term rental fees charged to guests.

Due to the expected volume of requests and inquiries related to this matter, please continue to check back on our website for the latest news and updates pertaining to the Short-Term Residential Rental Registry.

It’s Blogger vs. Blogger, It’s SocketSite vs. Gannett’s “Bold” West Coast Blog – A Lopsided Victory

Tuesday, February 4th, 2014

Well let’s start backwards here. Let’s start with Gannett Co Inc’s carpet-bagging west coast outlet, The Bold Italic:

Elbo Room Is Not Closing! You Can Stop Sharing That News

(Oddly, bolded but not italicized. Here’s the ALLCAPS version: ELBO ROOM IS NOT CLOSING – YOU CAN STOP SHARING THAT NEWS”)

And here’s the reply from SocketsiteSan Francisco real estate tips, trends, and the local scoop:

“Our post and report is 100 percent accurate. What’s not accurate is the characterization that we reported that the owners are “set to demolish” the building.”

Oh snap!

“The owners have drafted plans to raze the building. The plans do not include a replacement club, but rather condos. And the preliminary plans were submitted to San Francisco’s Planning Department for review, which is the first step with respect to developing the property.”

Ooh, testify, Sister!

“‘Not closing any time soon’ is not the same thing as ‘it’s not going to happen,’ but it has successfully distracted people from what has been going on behind the scenes.”

Man, what a burn!

And here’s the original from the SocketSite.

So that’s the kerfuffle, from Omega to Alpha.

Hey TBI, what’s with the attitude?

Hey TBI, why not write bits like this, Elbo Room Might Not Be Long For This World, instead?

Hey TBI, this is the kind of thing that makes San Franciscans not like you.

Just saying.

He’s Ba-aaack: Infamous Pacific Heights Foreclosee John Lee Hudson – BONUS: Cheesy ACQUIRE Replicar

Monday, June 25th, 2012

Or maybe John Lee Hudson isn’t back but his car sure is, having been spotted in the Financh on Friday.

(Parked illegally, of course, with the four-way flashers flashing.)

As seen on Halleck Alley in the heart of the 94111 – note ogler taking a snap while gushing about this 100% fake 1928 Mercedes Benz SSK replicar:

Click to expand

Now, if I had gotten taken down by Jim Cox over at the Socketsite in this fashion, well, I’d have left town vowing to never come back.

But some people are shameless.

Even more shameless than Hollywood Foreclosure King Nicolas Cage, who used to own 1945 Franklin* before JLH et ux. 

Anywho, this ride is not a “Refurbished 1936 Mercedes Excalibur,” just saying.

*I think he was the one who added the garages to the front – at least that’s what the nanny told me back in the day.

CitiApartments: Put a Fork in, Cause It’s Done – Your Chance to Bid on Remnants of Former Real Estate Empire

Monday, November 21st, 2011

Your Socketsite is up on things related to CitiApartments.

Check it.

“The sale will begin at 2:00 p.m. local time on December 12, 2011 at the offices of Stein & Lubin LLP, 600 Montgomery Street, 14th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111.”

Which will you bid on come December?

78 Buchanan Street
233-241 Church Street
252-258 Church Street
950 Franklin Street
1844 Irving Street
1401 Jones Street
2677 Larkin Street
2075-2083 Market Street
2099 Market Street
1870 Pacific Avenue
500 Stanyan Street
645 Stockton Street
1340-1360 Taylor Street
1320 Washington Street
1461-1465 Burlingame Avenue (Burlingame)

A famous logo no more:

All the deets, after the jump


It’s So Beautiful: Take a Look at Our New “City Target” Target Store Going in at Geary and Masonic – Rubber Stamp Tomorrow

Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

[Oh, SocketSite is, once again, all over this sitch.]

It’s happening, man. It’s finally happening!

Down at the Planning Department, they’re inking up the rubber “APPROVED” stamp for our new Target Store up at Geary and Masonic.

Here’s item 12 for tomorrow’s meeting:

Planning Commission Hearing

Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:00pm @ City Hall, Commission Chambers

2675 GEARY BOULEVARD – southeast corner at Masonic Avenue (aka the City Center); Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 1094  –  Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a “formula retail use” (d.b.a. Target) and a use size up to 120,000 square feet pursuant to Sections 121.2, 121.6, 303(c), 303(i), 703.4 and 712.21 of the Planning Code, in the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and the 40-X/80-D Height and Bulk Districts.“12. 2010.0623C  (M. WOODS)

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions”

Click the link – it’s an 11MB pdf of all the latest plans, loaded with illustrations and whatnot.

Like this:

Click to expand

Isn’t it beautiful?

You’ve come a long way, baby!

Bon Courage, Tar-GHEY de Ville!


The project sponsor proposes to convert vacant retail space (formerly “The Good Guys” and “Mervyns”)
in the City Center shopping mall to a general merchandise retail store (d.b.a. “Target”) offering clothing,
personal accessories, household goods, including home furnishings, electronics and groceries, which is a
“formula retail use” as defined in Planning Code Section 703.3. The proposed project, occupying the
former Mervyns and Good Guys stores, will consist of approximately 106,000 square feet of retail space,
with a potential to add an additional 14,000 square feet if vacant space becomes available within the
shopping center, for a project total of approximately 120,000 square feet. The proposal involves interior
remodeling work as well as exterior improvements including signage, which would require the creation
of a Special Sign District. (The Planning Code text amendment for the “City Center Special Sign District”
under Case No. 2011.0656T will be heard concurrently with the Conditional Use request.) The existing
City Center shopping center has approximately 601 off-street parking spaces and five loading spaces; no
additional parking or loading spaces are required or proposed. Pedestrian entrances to the project are
accessible from Geary Boulevard, Masonic Avenue and O’Farrell Street while vehicular accesses are
provided on Masonic Avenue and O’Farrell Street.”

Hanging Out on the Roof of Our Shut-Down Mervyn’s, That Brokedown Palace – When Oh When Will Our Target Store Come?

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

As they said back when FaceBook was popular, back when FB was the New Thang:

Yes! San Francisco Needs a Target!

Until we get a store open in there, feel free to hang out on the roof and groove on the gigantic blue mervyn’s sign whilst taking in the views:

Click to expand

See you there!

Via SocketSite: Request for Authorization for a Target Store at Geary and Masonic to Hit Planning Department Next Week

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011

Finally, news  of some movement on the resuscitation of Mervyns Heights, from the SocketSite.

That’s right, next week Target will officially request authorization to build a urbanified store at the corner of Geary and Masonic at the site of our defunct Mervyns, that brokedown palace.


Charlize Theron, if she ever gave consideration to the Godforsaken windswept hills of the Western Addition, would approve, I’m sure: 

Click to expand

Will this empty hulk be filled with stuff from Tar-ghey by Spring, 2012?

Look at all these Target boosters. There were some NIMBYs on hand at this community meeting last year, you know, to speak out, but they kept their big traps shut in the face of overwhelming support for the Target store:

One of the audience members at that time was “…surprised to see the crowd’s support of the project given that ‘all you hear in the media’ is that San Francisco is ‘anti-chain.‘”

X, sort of, marks the spot. To the northwest is the relatively new Masonic Trader Joes. See it?

Don’t count on the windmills though. (They’re what you call chimerical.)

Now, would Megan Fox chop up a NoPA NIMBY and stuff him in a desk if it would help speed this project along?

Hell yes!

Does San Francisco support its two new Target stores?

Via Laughing Squid


It’s happening, man. It’s finally happening…

Via Socketsite: Gavin Newsom’s City Residence is Officially For Sale – A $2.75 Million Asking Price for 1581 Masonic

Friday, July 8th, 2011

Of course Socketsite (“San Francisco real estate tips, trends, and the local scoop”) is all over this new listing for 1581 Masonic Avenue, you know, the place up in Ashbury Heights that was purchased just two years ago by former Mayor Gavin Newsom and former First Lady Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

The purchase price back then was $2,738,000, so that means that they’ll yield a “profit” of $12,000 if some lunkhead actually pays the asking price that was posted last night: $2,750,000.

They say it’s lovely on the inside:

Click to expand

Do you think 3000 square feet is enough room for a four-person nuclear family in San Francisco? You make the call:

Contact Barbara J. Callan or Robert R. Callan, Jr. to get your offer in.

The Pros and Cons of Progress at the Presidio Main Post – A Kind of Dialogue

Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

This recent post here regarding the Presidio inspired a correspondent to take pen to paper (so to speak) and leave a comment. Below are the words of “PresidioPal” along with some queries. (Surprisingly, he’s not a NIMBY.) Anyway, enjoy.

The mighty, historic Great Parking Lot of the Presidio is jeopardized by the Main Post Plan. The Presidio Trust just might unpave this paradise and put up a…lawn. Heaven forfend. What happened was the Army put it in and then left. Are we bound to have it forever?

Says PP:

“If we are talking about the “decay” of the historic character of the Presidio, which is a rare national historic landmarks district chosen for the layer upon layer of American history visible on Main Post…”

What does that mean to people – landmark status? Why should people care about this? The historic character of the South was Jim Crow laws (not that we didn’t have James Crow laws outside the South, but that’s another story)  – would the “historic character” argument be useful for maintaining segregation? Would you like to turn the Presidio itself into a museum, where nothing ever changes? Isn’t it an underpopulated Land of Wind and Ghosts now?

“…the Fisher art museum…”

Isn’t the name of the proposed museum Contemporary Art Museum of the Presidio (CAMP). Isn’t it specifically not called The Fisher? Isn’t that one of its selling points? Isn’t it going to have like a “b” as in boy billion dollars of art in it or something, that’s not otherwise available for public view?

  “…a hotel…”

Or lodge, some people are calling it a lodge, in keeping with the whole “park” theme of the Presidio. What’s wrong with a lodge in a park?

“and a modern movie house”

Or “modernized,” I’ll give you that. Didn’t it used to seat something like 1000 GIs back in the day? Do you think your millionaire NIMBY allies would like to have all those blue-collar types back in the Presidio in “their neighborhood” near the houses they inherited from their parents fair and square? Isn’t it true that the Presidio Theatre seats zero people today and that’s the way the owners of competing theatres in San Francisco like it? Isn’t it true theater owners kicked in money to oppose the Main Post Plan because they don’t want competition? Is that a good reason to oppose opening up a small three-screener that would seat far fewer people than the 1000 it was built for back in the day?

“…ADD to the “decay” by introducing non-historic elements that detract from the historic site itself…”

Does the non-historic TransAmerica pyramid detract from historic San Francisco? Should nothing ever change in town? Did a collection of histrionic societies, millionaire NIMBYs and movie theatre owners object to the Louvre Pyramid in Cour Napolean? Probably, but isn’t the pyramid a good thing, despite its “non-historic” status?

“If you take “decay” to mean delaying needed repairs to historic structures, the new buildings have nothing to do with that.”

You and your NIMBY allies are fighting for the status quo, whether you realize it or not. Congress, in its wisdom, could have put your organization in charge of the entire Presidio. It didn’t though, right? Do you acknowledge that?  Why should anybody pay attention to your unfunded mandates? Your half-baked if-we-had-some-ham-we-could-have-a-ham-sandwich, if-we-also-had-some-bread-but-only-if-five-million-dollars-fell-from-the-sky alternative plans? Back in the 1990s, Congress did something quite unique with the Presidio. Of course, it could have sold off a lot of land to condo developers. Would you prefer that?  

“Let’s get it straight, the proposal is for three major new structures in a national historic landmark.”

Is that really an argument? Shouldn’t you go further and explain why people should care about national historic landmark status? And actually, it’s more than three structures, but I get what you mean. Is the 700-car parking lot historic? Was the Burger King historic? Should we bring it back to honor the military?

“Why not a contemporary museum on Alamo Square?”

The reason why is that millionaire NIMBYs and the Planning Commission would tear that one apart. That’s the short answer.

If I had any advice for the Main Post, it would be this – lively up yourself, mon! This may or may not happen, depending upon the lawyers, the judges and the juries associated with the forthcoming lawsuits. 

We’ll see.

The Presidio: Public Comment Period for the Main Post Update Ends June 1st

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

The Presidio Trust has just announced a last call for comments about ending the arrested decay of the Presidio Main Post – so finish up your drinks and get your comments in by June 1, 2009.


June 1, 2009 is the end of public comment period for several key documents related to the Main Post planning process. Three draft documents have been circulating for public comment since February 27, 2009:

1. Revised Draft Main Post Update
2. Draft Supplement to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Preferred Alternative
3. Revised Draft Finding of Effect

The Revised Draft Main Post Update reflects the land uses and improvements the Presidio Trust intends to pursue to re-establish the Main Post as the heart of the park. Through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the Trust identified a “preferred alternative” that is detailed in the Revised Update and analyzed in the Draft Supplement to the SEIS. The Revised Update is also analyzed as the “undertaking” in the Revised Draft Finding of Effect; prepared under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as part of the assessment phase of the Section 106 consultation.

In June 2008, the Trust released an earlier draft of the Main Post Update and a Draft SEIS which analyzed a range of alternatives. An earlier Draft Finding of Effect was released in August 2008, which analyzed the effects on historic resources of all the alternatives that were presented in the Draft SEIS. All documents can be found on the Trust’s website:

Comments will be accepted on all documents, both current and past drafts. Commentators are free to organize their comments in any way they choose. They may comment separately on the different documents, or address all documents at one time. Commentators are also welcome to address specific issues or comment on specific proposals. The Trust will consider and respond to comments on all of the drafts when developing the final documents.


NHPA Section 106 Consultation: Finalizing the Finding of Effect and Resolving Adverse Effects
A Final Finding of Effect will be issued early this summer, formally completing the assessment phase of the Section 106 consultation under the NHPA. The Historic Resources section of the Final SEIS will be consistent with the Final Finding of Effect. The Final Finding of Effect will be available on the Trust’s website and will be sent to all consulting parties.

The next phase of the Section 106 consultation process is the resolution phase during which consulting parties identify ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects presented in the Finding of Effect. The resolution phase results in an agreement document that establishes parameters for how projects can proceed. A schedule for the remainder of the Section 106 consultation will be issued to all consulting parties early in June.

NEPA: Finalizing the SEIS and Main Post Update
Over the course of the summer, the Trust will finalize the environmental review, issuing a Final SEIS and Final Main Post Update sometime in the fall. The Final SEIS includes a response to all comments. A notice of availablity will be issued once the final documents are released. The final documents will also be available on the Trust’s website. After the final environmental documents are issued, a 30-day no action period ensues.

Record of Decision
The Trust will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) only after both the NEPA and NHPA processes are completed. The ROD memorializes the decision made by the Presidio Trust Board of Directors and clearly articulates the actions that the Trust will pursue in the Main Post and the reasoning behind the Trust’s decision. Once the ROD is adopted, the Final Main Post Update will amend the Presidio Trust Management Plan for the Main Post District.