|
 |
 |
|
|
Planning Home > General Plan > Housing Element
Housing Element
This second part of the Housing Element sets forth objectives, policies, and implementing programs to address the critical housing needs identified in Part I. In the last decade, San Francisco's population grew while new housing construction failed to keep pace. San Francisco households grew an average 2,400 annually, yet addition to the housing stock averaged just about 1,000 a year. Vacancy rates plummeted and even middle-income householders found themselves paying 50% or more of their income to rents. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), has estimated that San Francisco needs to build over 2,700 new units a year to meet its share of the region's projected housing demand. As recent production fell short of this annual target, 3,200 new units a year must be built between 2001 and 2006 to meet regional housing goals. At least 40% of these new housing construction should be affordable to low and very low income households, and 32% affordable to households of moderate means. Objectives and policies are general in nature and serve as the framework for decision making and priority-setting. They address specific needs and are followed by related implementation actions. For these implementation actions to succeed, three major prerequisites must be met:
San Francisco is a mature built-up city with very few large open tracts of land to develop. Still, opportunities for new housing do exist. Scattered across the City are vacant or underused lands suitable for in-fill development. As many as 29,000 new housing units could be built on such parcels under current zoning standards. But high land prices add tremendous costs to housing development. A particularly vocal citizenry can delay or even stop new development. And as housing demand rises, so do housing costs. Despite this, San Francisco continues to be a highly desirable place to live. It is a traditional employment hub and most workers who live in San Francisco can reduce commute distances and use the city's extensive transit network. Schools, services, institutions and cultural opportunities enrich San Francisco's neighborhoods. Residents value the City's unique combination of natural setting, built environment, and cultural diversity. New residents will continue to be attracted to San Francisco's new and established neighborhoods. City policy makers must determine how to comfortably accommodate the present and future population, keeping it diverse with varying incomes, household size, and composition. Policy makers must also preserve values that San Francisco residents cherish. There must be opportunities for families, children, seniors, and people of different cultural backgrounds to contribute to the unique blend that is San Francisco. Current and future residents of limited means are likely to need assistance to continue to live in San Francisco. Many future San Francisco workers will be earning below 80% of the area's median income. Sales clerks and secretaries, as well as technical professionals and bank executives, must be able to live here. The City must also house the additional firefighters, policemen, teachers, and health, recreation and primary care providers needed to support the City's growing population. Even construction workers who will be building the new houses will need housing they can afford. The high cost of being a San Francisco resident has already become evident in who now lives here. While service workers make up 44% of the City's workforce, only 14% of residents are employed as service workers. Unless housing is available for local service workers and their families, these trends will continue. Upper income (market rate) housing makes up most of the housing produced in the last 10 years and in the last several years has even exceeded projected needs for this market segment. Federal and state subsidies have provided some funds to build housing affordable to very-low and low-income householders, but moderate-income householders have found themselves in a tight squeeze for housing they can afford. The average San Francisco household size, which has grown steadily smaller following the War, increased in the 1990s as housing costs rose and forced shared rentals among non-relatives. Family households, which now make up less than half of all San Francisco households, are dramatically under-served by new market rate housing that seldom provides more than two-bedroom units. The proportion of children in the City sank from 25% to less than 15% from 1990 to 2000. Steps must be taken to encourage units suitable for families in neighborhoods with schools, libraries, parks and other services. San Francisco will need to aggressively produce affordable housing to avoid becoming a city where only the rich live or a city with few children. Increasing the City's housing supply and preserving existing neighborhood character are not mutually exclusive goals. The Planning Department's aim is to plan for growth to enhance the best qualities of San Francisco, strengthen the character of existing neighborhoods, and create new ones. Planning efforts must respond to human needs, ensuring that new development contributes to creating a more livable city. In-fill development should be encouraged in established residential neighborhoods where supporting infrastructure and community services already exists. New neighborhoods planned in redevelopment areas such as Mission Bay and the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard will provide housing in a variety of unit sizes, at both market and affordable rates. Neighborhood services, as well as community facilities, will also be provided. Neighborhood commercial corridors also provide opportunities for additional upper residential stories to be built above ground level retail. These areas are along transit lines and offer greater possibilities for linking housing, employment, and transportation. Reduced residential parking requirements in these transit intensive areas could be an added incentive to build housing above commercial uses. Denser construction, where it is already allowed, can also significantly boost housing counts and add vitality to street life as well. Sites near downtown and along transit corridors show the most promise for such development. However, much
of the new housing built in the last decade was produced on less-expensive
industrial land in the City's eastern portion, displacing some needed
services and threatening the vitality of the City's diverse economy.
Frequently
this development was unconnected to the amenities typically expected
and provided in established residential areas, amenities that contribute
to
the viability and livability of thriving residential neighborhoods. Continuing
this trend without clear policies and rules that balance the optimizing
of land uses while preserving and enhancing neighborhood character could
result in the loss of crucial support services, threaten the City's
economy,
and diminish the overall quality of life. To meet the challenge of housing production and affordability, the Planning Department will address the housing targets developed by HCD-ABAG through initiatives of a Citywide Action Plan (CAP). The CAP comprehensively explores the challenge of meeting the need for both housing and jobs in ways that capitalize upon and enhance the best qualities of San Francisco as a place. The CAP will direct a mix of housing and neighborhood-serving uses to places with good public transit and urban amenities, new office uses to the City's compact downtown core, and needed industrial uses to core industrial lands in portions of the City's east side, thereby releasing the rest for housing and other uses. A new Land Use Element will identify specific sites in these areas for housing. The CAP promotes housing by increasing densities in areas well served by transit. Specific strategies in these areas include: reducing parking requirements; floor-to-area ratio (FAR) exemptions; removing density caps in certain areas; increasing height limits; utilizing air-rights for housing; and increased density and height limits at key corner lots. These strategies will be applied throughout the City. Generally, increased housing densities and reduced parking requirements will be proposed in areas well served by transit. In the Central Waterfront area, a mix of uses is being planned to accommodate housing in a largely industrial area. Lands occupied by the former Central Freeway around Market Street and Octavia Boulevard are being programmed for new housing while increasing existing residential densities. In Balboa Park, new housing is planned capitalizing on city owned land and an existing transit node. In the Downtown area, dense housing is planned on underutilized parcels. In the redevelopment areas of Mission Bay and Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, new neighborhoods are planned that promise approximately 7,600 units. However, these density increases must be combined with the capture of some of the added development value through the provision of public benefits. The Eastern Neighborhoods, representing roughly one-quarter of the City, are being studied and re-zoned to identify core areas where vital production, distribution, and repair (PDR) businesses are needed to maintain economic diversity. These core areas will be zoned to promote business and job expansion while the rest of the Eastern Neighborhoods will allow or expressly encourage housing. In the Mission District and South of Market, residential densities will be increased along transit corridors and additional land will be re-zoned for housing. In Showplace Square, housing will be integrated into a vibrant and historic light industrial area. In Bayview, a town center will be created around the planned rail service allowing greater residential densities. In Visitacion Valley, an existing brownfield site will be developed into housing, open space, and neighborhood serving retail. These rezoning efforts can boost the City's housing capacity by as much as 12,000 additional housing units. Other strategies to increase housing include the expanded Jobs Housing Linkage Program that requires new large commercial developments to provide housing or pay an in-lieu fee to meet the housing demand new jobs generate. The recently revised and expanded inclusionary affordable housing ordinance now applies to all new residential developments of 10 units or more. Publicly owned lands are also being reviewed to assess residential development potential while revenues from surplus public land sales will be dedicated to future affordable housing production. Institutional Master Plans will be required to encourage higher educational institutions to provide housing. Education programs to foster the acceptance of new housing, particularly affordable housing, are also planned. Although there are more than enough in-fill housing sites to meet projected housing needs and aggressive housing policies and programs are set to encourage housing development, realizing the City's housing targets would require tremendous financing. It has been estimated that enormous amounts of public funding would be necessary to bridge the gap between the state-mandated housing production targets and what can be realistically be expected in the next five and a half years (Table I-58). Financing for housing production will continue to be affected by economic cycles. With the availability of future public subsidies impossible to predict, an optimistic assumption would anticipate funding that would sustain the previous decade's affordable housing production. Achieving production and affordability targets are clearly very difficult, but accepting more "realistic" ones will only weaken efforts to obtain the additional resources necessary to meet the City's housing needs. Consequently, the City will uphold these housing production targets and annually assess priorities against the reality of available resources. The objectives and policies detailed below address the state's, the region's and the City's goals of achieving decent, suitable, and affordable housing for current and future San Franciscans. Increasing the City's housing stock, protecting and conserving existing units, and encouraging housing choice are objectives predicated on affordability. The homeless and households with special needs are given particular attention as these vulnerable populations have limited housing options. Livability will not be sacrificed with the push to expand the City's housing supply. New housing will be directed to appropriate locations, with sufficient supporting infrastructure, institutions and urban amenities. The implementing programs accompanying these objectives and policies are in response to meeting San Francisco's fair share of the regional housing needs. These objectives and policies are instructed by and consistent with two of the General Plan's Priority Policies. These are:
OBJECTIVE 1 New housing, particularly permanently affordable housing, is required to help meet the City's housing needs. New housing is needed to accommodate projected population growth, improve the jobs/housing balance so that fewer new San Francisco workers will have to live outside the city and commute to work, relieve rent pressures, meet the needs of specific population groups not adequately housed in the existing stock, and reduce homelessness. New residential development must be of a character and stability that enhances the City's neighborhoods and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. How this new residential development can be accommodated without jeopardizing the very assets that make living in San Francisco desirable must be discussed. In order to enhance the city's livability, the supply of housing must be increased and new housing developments should respect the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. The lot pattern and building bulk should relate to surrounding properties. Transit and other public and private services should be available to serve the new residents. High quality design should ensure that new residential development is compatible with, and enhances, its surroundings. Neighborhood groups, project sponsors, and City agencies should work together to create designs that contribute to great neighborhoods for current and future residents. To ensure a balanced approach to development and the rate of change in San Francisco, the City should use its planning powers including zoning and permit review to encourage residential development in areas where it can be accommodated well and discourage it where it is less appropriate. The City should use its zoning and land use controls, environmental review processes, General Plan policies, area plans, and capital improvements and financial programs to address the location and intensity of growth in San Francisco. In order to advance General Plan policies, including the Housing Element, the Planning Department is engaged in several on-going projects and studies on overall growth in the City and housing need. These efforts include the Better Neighborhoods program, the drafting of a new Land Use Element of the General Plan, and community planning activities for the Eastern Neighborhoods of the City. These projects will result in specific zoning and design guidelines that will encourage housing development in appropriate locations throughout San Francisco. Over the past decade, the City's employment growth has far exceeded the production of housing. The significant jobs/housing imbalance specifically meant that not enough new housing was built to meet the needs of the City's expanding workforce. This jobs/housing imbalance has particularly harmed lower-income households who are unable to compete in the housing market as demand for and the cost of housing escalates. In the face of increasing pressures in the housing market, households with the fewest resources such as households with children and those with special needs became the most vulnerable to extreme rent burden, evictions, or even homelessness. POLICY 1.1 San Francisco enjoys an extensive network of transit lines and along transit-preferential streets are numerous in-fill-housing opportunities. While different zoning controls may result in different housing configurations and densities on these parcels, residential parking requirements in these cases should be, if appropriate, modified. Proximity to transit does influence rates of auto ownership and the need for parking. Some 29% of the City's households do not own cars and 31% of San Franciscans take public transit to work. These rates are even higher for households living in areas well served by transit. Locating new housing along transit-served areas supports the City's transit first policy and can discourage car dependency. Additional housing should be encouraged in neighborhood commercial districts, including floors above ground-level commercial uses, and in areas well served by transit. There is a reduced need for automobile use in these areas due to their proximity to transit, services, employment, and entertainment. Parking and traffic problems can be further addressed by community parking facilities and car-sharing programs, and other creative transportation programs. Moderate to high densities presently exist in many established residential areas adjacent to downtown. These levels should be maintained. These neighborhoods provide housing close to urban employment centers, homes for newcomers, and serve as centers for culture and the arts. They are among the traditional neighborhoods that give San Francisco its flavor and character. New neighborhoods close to downtown should be built emulating these urban densities to foster urban values. IMPLEMENTATION 1.1
POLICY 1.2 The City's neighborhood commercial districts offer the potential for new additional housing over ground floor retail uses. In many cases, additional floors can be constructed to make full and efficient use of appropriately scaled height limits. If necessary, private open space requirements could also be modified, with alternative access to the outdoors considered. New housing represents not only an expanded market to support neighborhood retail, but its residents will serve as the eyes and ears of the streets. In the long term, neighborhood commercial district controls and standards should be revised to recognize and enhance the supporting role and centrality of these districts to the surrounding residential districts. IMPLEMENTATION 1.2
POLICY 1.3 Opportunities exist for new residential development
in downtown areas. New housing can also be developed in some underused
industrial and commercial districts in parts of the city without significant
displacement of existing residential units or viable commercial and industrial
activities. Housing should also be encouraged in former industrial areas
where newer residential neighborhoods have already become established.
Certain sites, because of their location or existing use, may not be appropriate
for new residential development. IMPLEMENTATION 1.3 Downtown areas and areas subject to a Better Neighborhoods type planning process will be expected to absorb major office and residential developments over the next decade. Planning and zoning code changes should include floor-to-area ratio exemptions. These development bonuses would be conferred only in cases where in return the development will provide major public benefits to the community.
POLICY 1.4 In established residential neighborhoods, new in-fill housing construction should be located: on vacant sites that are not designated for open space; where buildings cannot feasibly be rehabilitated or brought to acceptable levels of seismic safety; and where non-conforming uses have been terminated. IMPLEMENTATION 1.4
POLICY 1.5 Opportunities for housing development, particularly permanently affordable housing, on surplus vacant or underused public property should be aggressively pursued. The Planning Department should work with the Department of Real Estate, which manages the disposition of surplus public lands, to maintain a comprehensive and updated inventory of publicly held lands. City agencies should continue to identify and make available underutilized sites within their jurisdiction. In some cases the air rights of these sites may be made available for housing without interfering with their current public use. Housing over public parking, transit facilities or water storage facilities are examples of such joint use. City property no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired or for some other public purpose, such as open space and recreation land, should be considered for rezoning, sale, or lease for development of permanently affordable housing. The City also owns several significant land holdings outside the City and County borders. Revenues generated from sale of surplus lands should be channeled into the City's Affordable Housing Fund. Similarly, federal or state lands acquired by the City should be considered directly as affordable housing resources. Development of publicly owned or controlled sites in redevelopment areas designated for housing should be expedited. IMPLEMENTATION 1.5
POLICY 1.6 Mixed commercial/residential building development in downtown areas provides needed housing and adds 24-hour vitality. Existing incentives should be maintained and new ones created to encourage housing and mixed-use projects in and near the downtown area. Housing in excess of the base floor-to-area ratio should continue to be encouraged in the Downtown General (C-3-G) and Downtown Support (C-3-S) Districts. Removing maximum dwelling unit density within a building envelope also offers the possibility of a variety of residential unit types and densities. IMPLEMENTATION 1.6
POLICY 1.7 Children and families are very much part of the City's vitality and diversity. They bring life and transform even the City's least child-friendly downtown neighborhoods. But San Francisco's families with children are leaving as family-sized housing become scarce or prohibitive, outbid by more affluent and flexible non-family households that form as a response to the City's high rents and housing costs. The changing demographics of the City also hint at larger, extended families. Families with children and elderly members have few options as only 25% of the City's housing stock has three or more bedrooms. Much of the housing constructed in the last decade were of studios, and one- or two-bedroom units — too small to accommodate larger families. Single-family residential builders and contractors should be encouraged to develop the almost one thousand vacant lots in residential neighborhoods that can accommodate new single-family housing or duplexes. New family housing, particularly affordable housing, need not be confined to the suburban residential neighborhoods. Children thrive in and can benefit from urban living. The compact nature of urban living can offer children proximity and access to various activities, especially those that appeal to their recreational and cultural interests. New residential development opportunities, including affordable family housing, have been identified in neighborhoods near downtown. Developments that include various unit sizes that can accommodate families with children should be supported and encouraged. IMPLEMENTATION 1.7
POLICY 1.8 Secondary units (in-law" or "granny units") are smaller dwelling units within a structure containing another much larger unit, frequently in basements, using space that is surplus to the primary dwelling. Secondary units represent a simple and cost-effective method of expanding the housing supply. Such units could be developed to meet the needs of seniors and others who, because of modest incomes or lifestyles, prefer or need small units at relatively low rents. Neighborhood acceptance of secondary units should be encouraged in areas where off-street parking can be provided (it could be tandem parking) and where the secondary unit can be installed without adversely affecting the exterior appearance of the building, or in the case of new construction, can be accommodated within the permitted building envelope. Secondary units should be limited in size to control their impact. IMPLEMENTATION 1.8
POLICY 1.9 New and expanding commercial activities increase the City's employment base. These new jobs are important to the residents of the City and the Bay Area and contribute to the continued economic vitality of the region. The workers filling these jobs also increase the City's need for housing. The City's Jobs-Housing Linkage Program, which exacts fees for affordable housing production from commercial developments, should be enforced and monitored. The fee structure should also be reviewed regularly to ensure fair burden on developers. Similarly, institutions of higher education provide needed services and contribute to the intellectual and cultural life of the City. At the same time, their non-resident student body presents a housing need. Higher educational institutions should assist in meaningful ways in the provision of additional housing to meet this demand. IMPLEMENTATION 1.9
OBJECTIVE 2 The existing housing stock is the City's major source of relatively affordable housing. It is very difficult to replace given the cost of new construction and the size of public budgets to support housing construction. Priority should be given to the retention of existing units as a primary means to provide affordable housing. POLICY 2.1
Demolition of existing housing often results in the loss of lower-cost rental housing units. Even if the existing housing is replaced, the new units are generally more costly. Demolition often results in displacement of residents, causing personal hardship and relocation problems. In 1994, the Planning Commission adopted guidelines regarding housing demolition, for situations when such projects require conditional use approval. In addition to the criteria for demolition approval, the guidelines require replacement housing or in-lieu fees to the City's affordable housing fund as full or partial mitigation for each unit lost. The City should continue to discourage the demolition of existing housing that is sound or can be rehabilitated, particularly where those units provide an affordable housing resource. IMPLEMENTATION 2.1
POLICY 2.2 The Planning Commission has adopted policies that require Discretionary Review for all dwelling unit merger applications. The Housing Element, General Plan Priority Policies (Planning Code Section 101.1), and other Planning Commission directives are used to consider merger proposals on a case-by-case basis. Specifically, these criteria state that when reviewing applications for the removal of a legal dwelling unit, the Planning Commission must consider the detrimental effects to the housing supply, landmark designations, and planned owner occupancy. The Planning Commission must also work to minimize displacement, and ensure code compliance and structural safety. IMPLEMENTATION 2.2
POLICY 2.3 Conversion of existing rental apartment buildings to condominiums, stock cooperatives or tenants-in-common ownership, depletes the supply of the City's more affordable housing stock. It also brings into conflict two desirable goals — expansion of homeownership opportunities and preservation of the existing rental housing stock. While conversions to condos, co-ops, and tenancy-in-common expand the number of units available for purchase, they do so by reducing the number of units available for rent. As a result, existing and future tenants who cannot buy at that time can be displaced. Similarly, the use of large, older apartment buildings for time-sharing or corporate suites can cause displacement of existing residents. In general, conversions should not shift the balance between ownership and rental housing, and should protect potentially displaced tenants to the maximum extent possible. Closely evaluating proposed conversions and limiting the number of conversions annually, should achieve a reasonable balance between ownership and rental housing. Conversion of rental housing to time share or corporate suite use should be prohibited. IMPLEMENTATION 2.3
POLICY 2.4 Many parts of San Francisco were developed before there were zoning regulations that separated various types of land uses. As a result, thousands of housing units were built in areas that also contain industrial and commercial uses and have since been zoned industrial or commercial. Many of these housing units are sound or could be rehabilitated. They represent a significant portion of the City's affordable housing supply and would be very difficult to replace. Yet, in many of the areas that such housing is located, it could be profitable to convert to a non-residential use. In many neighborhood shopping areas, conversions of upper floor housing units to non-residential use are subject to conditional use review. Under such review, the desirability of retaining the housing can be weighed against the public benefits to be gained by the alternative use. As a general rule, conversion should be considered only for needed neighborhood serving commercial activities that cannot reasonably locate elsewhere in the commercial district. Similarly, in downtown commercial districts, conversion to non-residential use should be subject to conditional use review. Housing enclaves in industrial areas should be protected by residential or special use district zoning, so that conversion to non-residential uses cannot take place. However, the continuation of residential uses on scattered and isolated lots within developed industrial areas can cause conflict with legitimate industrial needs. Here, conversion should be a conditional use so that the specific industrial need can be weighed against the need to conserve housing. IMPLEMENTATION 2.4 The Planning Department will continue to support existing housing in commercial and industrial areas by regulating conversions as provided in the Planning Code. As part of the Planning Department's current citywide action plan, planning efforts in the eastern neighborhoods of the City, where housing exists in commercial and industrially zoned districts, should address housing retention as new policies and zoning are established. Mixed use should be encouraged where appropriate. POLICY 2.5 Residential or single-room occupancy hotels (SROs) represent a unique and often irreplaceable resource for thousands of lower income elderly, disabled, and single-person households. Most of these hotels are close to downtown and have been subject to strong economic pressures that led to conversion or demolition. As San Francisco grew as a tourist center, many of these hotels have been converted to permanent or seasonal tourist uses. Others have been demolished and replaced with other uses. Some of these SROs are being used as family housing. In the City's tight housing market, some downtown SROs have also become dormitories and efficiency apartments for nearby educational institutions. In the last five years, fires and other safety code violations have displaced hundreds of low-income residents. The retention of remaining units housing permanent residents should be supported. Residential hotels located in predominantly residential areas should be protected by zoning that does not permit commercial or tourist use. In non-residential areas, conversion of units to other uses should not be permitted or be permitted only where a residential unit will be, or has been, replaced with a comparable unit elsewhere. For those hotels that are operated as mixed tourist/permanent resident hotels, strict enforcement is needed to ensure that the availability of the hotel for permanent residential occupancy is not diminished. The Residential Hotel Ordinance currently regulates and protects the existing stock of residential hotels. This ordinance requires permits for conversion of residential hotel rooms, has a strong replacement provision, and requires 80% of cost of replacement to be provided to the City in the case of conversion or demolition. The City should facilitate the purchase and master lease of residential hotels by non-profit entities for the purpose of improving the quality of the housing and achieving long-term affordability. IMPLEMENTATION 2.5
POLICY 2.6 It is estimated that over 20,000 housing units in the City were built without a building permit. These units may exceed allowable densities, may not provide for current parking requirements, or may not meet minimum standards set forth in the San Francisco Building Code. However, these units constitute a major source of affordable housing in the City and their loss would dramatically increase pressure on the housing market. Proposals to allow legalization of secondary units under certain conditions have been made over the years but have not been adopted because of neighborhood opposition. Some units have been eliminated through abatement proceedings, largely originated by complaints, while additional units continue to be created without permits. The City should develop procedures to legalize existing illegal secondary units and bring them into code compliance. IMPLEMENTATION 2.6
OBJECTIVE 3 Over one-half of San Francisco housing is more than 60 years old. As the City's housing stock ages, maintenance becomes increasingly important. Considerable private investment into the renovation of some of the City's older housing units has lessened the need for some types of direct public intervention used in the past. There is, however, a continuing housing rehabilitation need. The City should monitor those areas of the city particularly susceptible to a decline in housing quality, and take appropriate remedial steps where necessary. POLICY 3.1 The City should ensure that residential units meet building code standards by periodic inspection of apartments and hotels and prompt response to complaints. Code compliance activities should be designed to minimize any financial hardship for lower income households brought on by required rehabilitation. Low interest and deferred payment loan programs should be targeted to low and moderate-income tenants. IMPLEMENTATION 3.1
POLICY 3.2 Privately owned and operated assisted housing is under continuing pressure to convert to market rate housing. Existing funding levels for some developments have either failed to keep pace with actual costs or have less than favorable returns, causing owners to convert units to market rate or sell their properties outright, and thereby removing units from the stock of assisted housing. Policies are needed to encourage the retention of the existing assisted housing stock wherever possible. IMPLEMENTATION 3.2
POLICY 3.3 The San Francisco Housing Authority is the largest landlord in San Francisco with over 6,200 units, and is one of the most important sources of permanently affordable housing for low-income households. Operating subsidies and modernization funds provided by the Federal government have not been adequate to keep this conventional public housing in sound condition. Increased Federal support, innovative local financing techniques, energy efficiency measures, and creative property management and customer service are all required to maintain and improve this valuable supply of affordable housing. Additionally, inter-agency collaboration and long-range plans for public housing are being developed, including identifying opportunities for potential mixed income in-fill development in underused lands and where consistent with overall social goals. IMPLEMENTATION 3.3
POLICY 3.4 Code enforcement on hardship cases can present particular housing challenges. In some cases, compliance with full requirements should be deferred to the extent legally permissible if all life safety hazards are abated. In particular, the City should extend the period allowed for code compliance to avoid displacement of low- or moderate-income households until replacement housing can be found. Where there is a refusal to correct serious but remediable violations, the City should exercise its ability to make the repairs and recover the costs by putting a lien on the property. In aggravated cases, the buildings can be placed in City receivership. Public assistance should then be provided to maintain affordability levels. IMPLEMENTATION 3.4
POLICY 3.5 Despite substantial retrofitting efforts in the last decade following the Loma Prieta earthquake, there are about 8,590 residential units in unreinforced masonry buildings in San Francisco that require structural strengthening. Because these buildings are not sufficiently reinforced and the floors are not adequately tied to the walls, they are vulnerable to damage or collapse in an earthquake. Residential hotels, which are predominantly occupied by persons of relatively low incomes, make up much of these buildings at risk. These remaining buildings are located in the South of Market, the Tenderloin, Chinatown, and along the Bush Street and Van Ness Avenue corridors. Retrofitting programs should safeguard affordability and minimize displacement of low-income residents. In addition to unreinforced masonry buildings, there are other residential buildings that are also vulnerable to damage in an earthquake. In many cases, property owners can undertake relatively inexpensive measures such as bolting frames to foundations and installing shear walls where needed. The Office of Emergency Services has updated and improved the City's Emergency Preparedness Plans. The City should continue its building seismic safety informational programs and also pursue technical assistance programs targeting earthquake safety precautions. These issues are also addressed in the Community Safety Element of the General Plan. IMPLEMENTATION 3.5 The Seismic Safety Bond Program will continue to fund the seismic rehabilitation of unreinforced masonry buildings to the extent that demand for funds continues to exist.
POLICY 3.6 The preservation of landmarks and historic buildings is a priority policy of the City's General Plan. Landmarks and historic buildings are important to the character and quality of the City's neighborhoods and are also important housing resources. A number of these structures contain housing units particularly suitable for larger households and families with children. More specific policies for these buildings will be contained in the Preservation Element, currently being prepared. IMPLEMENTATION 3.6
OBJECTIVE 4 POLICY 4.1 Publicly owned land represents one potential source of sites for affordable housing. Government agencies should actively maintain an inventory of land within their jurisdiction and, with the Planning Department, identify sites with the potential to support housing development. This evaluation could include options for joint development or relocation of current facilities to other sites. Such appropriate and available public land, along with other financial subsidies, should then be considered for the development of housing. Priority should be given to immediate development of those public sites where 100% permanently affordable housing is achievable. Large and privately held land parcels should also be identified and actively promoted for affordable housing. New programs should be established to acquire land and appropriate buildings for land and building "banking" in advance of specific project proposals. While housing development can be incompatible with certain industrial uses and threaten viable activities, housing opportunity areas may exist in the primarily non-residential areas on the eastern side of the City. Land use analyses should continue and identify housing opportunity areas in the five Eastern Neighborhoods of South of Market, the Mission, Potrero/Showplace Square, South Bayshore, and Visitacion Valley. Any rezoning of industrial land to residential use should include requirements, incentives and bonuses to encourage the development of attractive and affordable housing. Program Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) should be developed for those areas with sufficient detail to eliminate need for subsequent project EIRs on residential projects. IMPLEMENTATION 4.1
POLICY 4.2 Inclusion of affordable housing is currently required of new housing projects containing 10 or more units. Although preference is given to on-site inclusionary housing to ensure economic integration in housing development, off-site construction should be considered if this results in significant numbers of new affordable housing. The City's inclusionary affordable housing program should be monitored and reviewed regularly to ensure fair burden and not constrain new housing production. IMPLEMENTATION 4.2
POLICY 4.3 San Francisco has a relatively large stock of older residential hotels. The 1995 Single Room Occupancy Guidelines and accompanying Planning Code changes affecting densities, provision of kitchen facilities and parking now regulate the creation of these types of units. The Yerba Buena Commons, completed in 1995, demonstrated that it is possible to provide small but good quality units for single persons. Appropriate sites and sponsors for both market rate and affordable residential hotels should be developed. IMPLEMENTATION 4.3
POLICY 4.4 Current state law calls for adoption of an ordinance permitting a 25% density bonus for projects which provide 20% of the units for lower-income households, 10% of the units for very-low-income households, or 50% of the units for senior citizens. The City should allow higher density bonuses where such housing will not disrupt neighborhood character or scale. The current code allows a density bonus for units designed for seniors and/or disabled occupants in R and NC districts. The current Planning Code provision of establishing special use district overlays for projects that are 100% affordable should be reconsidered; density bonus standards and other requirements uniformly applied citywide. Density bonuses should be conferred only when public benefits are provided. IMPLEMENTATION 4.4
POLICY 4.5 In San Francisco, housing density standards have traditionally been set in terms of numbers of dwelling units in proportion to the size of the building lot. For example, in an RM-1 district, one dwelling unit is permitted for each 800 square feet of lot area. This limitation generally applies regardless of the size of the unit and the number of people likely to occupy it. Thus a small studio and a large four-bedroom apartment both count as a single unit. Setting density standards encourages larger units and is particularly tailored for lower density neighborhoods consisting primarily of one- or two-family dwellings. However, in some areas which consist mostly of taller apartments and which are well served by transit, the volume of the building rather than number of units might more appropriately control the density. Here the building envelope, as established by height, bulk, set back, parking and other Code requirements, would set the maximum residential square footage which could be sub-divided into a greater number of smaller units or a smaller number of larger units. IMPLEMENTATION 4.5
POLICY 4.6 Prefabricated or manufactured homes can be a valuable source of low cost housing. At its best, manufactured housing uses high technology and mass production techniques to reduce costs without sacrificing quality of design. Industrialized wood construction techniques used in lower density housing and light-weight prefabricated, pre-stressed concrete construction in moderate and high density housing also have the potential of producing great savings in construction time and cost. The use of these and similar techniques should be encouraged. Their use as temporary, emergency or transitional shelter on otherwise unutilized sites should be explored. IMPLEMENTATION 4.6
OBJECTIVE
5 POLICY 5.1 The Planning Department's review and approval of affordable housing projects should be improved to reduce costly and significant delays. Without diminishing public participation, the administrative processing and approval of affordable housing should be expedited through administrative action, local and State legislation. IMPLEMENTATION 5.1
POLICY 5.2 Non-profit housing development corporations have proven to be effective vehicles for the development of affordable housing. The City should continue to provide them with the technical and financial assistance to increase their production capacity and encourage and invite for-profit developers to build equivalent housing. IMPLEMENTATION 5.2
POLICY 5.3 Affordable housing projects are frequently delayed or withdrawn because of community opposition. Greater public awareness of affordable housing challenges and potential solutions is needed to gain broader, long-term support for housing strategies. IMPLEMENTATION 5.3
POLICY 5.4 The City is required by federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to prepare a five year Consolidated Plan to guide community development and housing assistance programs. The Consolidated Plan is the compilation of a coordinated effort between federal, state and local agencies that contribute to the production of housing and related services in San Francisco. This Plan was recently submitted to HUD in 2000. IMPLEMENTATION 5.4
OBJECTIVE
6 POLICY 6.1
A number of subsidized housing developments were created with federally supported mortgages and project-based rental assistance. Many of these projects have reached the 20-year mark and the owners of the developments have an option to prepay existing mortgages and terminate the project-based rental assistance contracts. IMPLEMENTATION 6.1
POLICY 6.2 Affordable housing units that are created by various City actions should be required to remain affordable for as long a period as is legally permissible and financially practicable. The necessity of such requirement is underscored by the magnitude of the potential loss of existing HUD-financed affordable rental units that had a 20-year period for continuance of below market rents. In the past, locally assisted units have been required to remain at affordable rental rates or sales prices for periods as short as ten years. As the experience with expiring HUD contracts indicates, expiration dates arrive all too soon and a problem thought to be solved becomes a problem again. Most recently, the City has imposed 50- to 75-year terms. If legally permissible and financially practicable, an even longer term should be required. Sufficient evidence should be required from applicants to prevent affordable housing units from being occupied by unqualified parties. IMPLEMENTATION 6.2
POLICY 6.3 In recent years the demand for the limited housing supply has resulted in substantial rent increases. Sometimes this has caused displacement or economic hardship. The regulatory process that stabilizes rent levels protects tenants from excessive rent increases and arbitrary eviction while at the same time allowing the landlord a fair rent and sufficient incentives to maintain housing quality should be maintained. IMPLEMENTATION 6.3
POLICY 6.4 The American dream of homeownership is beyond the reach of many San Francisco households. First-time homebuyer programs sponsored by the City and private lending institutions should be encouraged and broadened to include second mortgage loan pools or other appropriate mechanisms to help buyers meet down-payment requirements. To stem speculation, such housing programs should include affordability restrictions. Conversion of buildings by their tenants to limited equity cooperatives and condominiums can stabilize prices and, as general home sales prices increase over time, can lower housing costs. The City should encourage these forms of ownership. IMPLEMENTATION 6.4
POLICY 6.5 Over the years, the city has in certain instances required the provision of affordable housing units as a condition of approval of a project. Monitoring and enforcement are needed to ensure the continued availability of these units. Stiff penalties for non-compliance should be created to provide strong economic disincentives against loss of required affordable housing units. Sufficient evidence should be required from applicants to prevent affordable housing units from being occupied by unqualified parties. IMPLEMENTATION 6.5
OBJECTIVE
7 POLICY 7.1 Existing financial programs, including Federal and State low-income tax credits and various HUD programs, should be maintained at maximum levels. Extensive lobbying efforts at State and Federal levels need to be carried out to protect the existing programs and create new ones. Joint metropolitan and statewide efforts to develop more creative revenue resources should be supported. Incremental tax revenues in Redevelopment project areas can be used for affordable housing. The Redevelopment Agency has a policy of allocating at least 50% of its increment funds for low and moderate income housing construction or renovation. IMPLEMENTATION 7.1
POLICY 7.2 New revenue sources are needed if the City is to make a significant dent in the need for affordable housing. A major source of new revenue to the City that could be allocated to affordable housing is the real estate transfer tax. Increasing the current tax rate and devoting much of the increased revenue to preservation of affordable housing (see Objective 5) and to new affordable housing development should be given high priority. IMPLEMENTATION 7.2
POLICY 7.3 Greater corporate investment in and support for affordable housing should be encouraged. Churches are an untapped source of funding and land, as are dozens of local foundations and trade unions. The City should seek to better coordinate these efforts. IMPLEMENTATION 7.3
OBJECTIVE 8 Population diversity is one of San Francisco's most important assets. To retain this diversity, a variety of housing opportunities should be available. Households should be able to choose the form of tenure most suitable to their needs, from either a rental or an ownership housing stock. A variety of unit sizes is also important, so that both larger and smaller households can be accommodated in adequate numbers. Units of varied costs are necessary to provide opportunities for households of different income levels. Finally, there should be units with special features and services suitable for households with special needs. Social and economic factors can discriminate against certain population groups and limit their housing opportunities, leading to patterns of economic and racial segregation. Families with children are constrained by the types, sizes, and cost of units available to them. Access to units suitable for larger households tends to be limited by erosion of the older housing stock and discriminatory rental practices. Standard housing units with special features for elderly and handicapped persons are also in short supply. Housing that meets the needs and is affordable for artists is also lacking. If San Francisco is to retain its economic, racial, and cultural diversity, opportunities should be expanded for population groups for whom affordability and accessibility are crucial. POLICY 8.1 Since approximately two-thirds of San Francisco's residents are renters, the availability of sound and affordable rental housing is of major importance, especially for the young and elderly populations and low and moderate income families who tend to rent their residence. Low vacancy rates and high rents are indicators of a continuing demand for rental housing. The City should make a concerted effort to do what is within its control to encourage the development of permanently affordable rental housing. IMPLEMENTATION 8.1 The Mayor's Office of Housing will continue to implement affordable rental housing programs for families, seniors, and households with special needs.
POLICY 8.2 Median income figures are reported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the three county area comprised of San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo counties, referred to as the Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA). Because average incomes are higher in Marin and San Mateo than they are in San Francisco, there is an upward bias to the numbers. For example, in 2000, the PMSA median family income was $74,900. The 2000 Census, however showed that the median family income for the City and County of San Francisco was $63,545 — about 85% of the area median income for the three county area covered by the PMSA.
In order to ensure that households at lower income levels are adequately served, the city's programming for affordable housing should target households at incomes lower than 85% of median. This has been done, for example, in rental projects in which the city is providing subsidy (land or financing or both) where the affordable rental units are required to be equal to or less than 60% of the PSMA median. IMPLEMENTATION 8.2
POLICY 8.3 Periodic reporting on the composition of resident populations in various publicly supported housing projects and affordable units required as a condition of permit approval should be required to facilitate compliance monitoring. Counseling and education to maintain housing rights should be promoted. The State and Federal Housing requirements regarding displacement prohibitions, and other restrictions where affordable housing rehabilitation or construction might impact the community, should be adopted as City policy. Available affordable housing should be advertised in multi-lingual media to ensure fair marketing practice. The City should monitor and strictly enforce these requirements. The City's Human Rights Commission protects persons from housing discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, place of birth, HIV/AIDS status, weight or height, families with minor children, source of income, and economic discrimination. Community forums including the Human Rights Commission should be provided in order to diffuse unwarranted opposition to affordable housing. IMPLEMENTATION 8.3
POLICY 8.4 Patterns of economic segregation are evident in San Francisco. Although housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households are available in many areas of the city, these tend to be concentrated in a few areas. Special efforts should be made to expand housing opportunities for households of lower-income levels in other areas of the city. The affordability of housing is a citywide problem. All neighborhoods of the city should be expected to accept their fair share of affordable housing. This can be effected through inclusionary affordable housing policies and consideration of secondary units in conformance with Policy 1.8. Private reinvestment in many areas of the city, in a process of economic gentrification, can result in the displacement of low- and moderate-income households by higher income groups. Special efforts should be made to maintain the economic diversity of these areas. IMPLEMENTATION 8.4
POLICY 8.5 To ensure housing opportunities for all people, the City should assist in the implementation of fair housing and anti-discrimination laws. The Human Rights Commission enforces the City's Fair Housing Law and handles complaints of housing discrimination. Residential apartment owners should also be prohibited from using arbitrary income and restrictive occupancy requirements that unnecessarily exclude lower income families. IMPLEMENTATION 8.5
POLICY 8.6 The City should support efforts by potential sponsors to identify and develop sites for special users and work cooperatively with social service agencies and housing providers. The City should also seek to reduce institutional barriers to development of innovative forms of housing. In addition to the disabled, other households with special needs have difficulty finding suitable housing in San Francisco. Many large families, especially those newly immigrated to the United States, are crowded into units designed for much smaller households. New housing construction, especially those including units to accommodate large families, should be encouraged. Many of the City's elderly citizens occupy housing that is not designed to meet their special needs. Shelters and transitional housing facilities are not available in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the city's homeless population. The mentally disabled also need housing with additional support services. The City should take an active role to encourage the expansion of the availability of housing units suited to needs of these groups including physical design features and ancillary social and medical service facilities. When units are constructed or rehabilitated to meet the needs of special user groups and have received City support or waivers, there should be monitoring to ensure that such units continue to be occupied by the intended group. IMPLEMENTATION 8.6
POLICY 8.7 Households with children often have difficulty finding suitable housing because many landlords do not want children as tenants. The City should prohibit discrimination against children and encourage the construction of units suitable for families with children. In assisted housing, households with dependent children should have preference in rental or resale of multiple bedroom units. The City should continue enforcement of the 1987 ordinance prohibiting residential apartment owners from discriminating against families based on household size unless the Building Code does not permit occupancy of the dwelling by a family of that size. IMPLEMENTATION 8.7
POLICY 8.8 Disabled and elderly San Franciscans are less able to compete for scarce housing units, in part because they often have lower than average incomes. Most housing units are also not physically accessible. The City should take an active role in expanding the availability of units suited to households with special needs. Congregate housing with central eating facilities is an appropriate form of housing for some elderly households. In accordance with local policy and applicable law, new housing should be made accessible or adaptable to the disabled or elderly. "Accessible" means that the housing presents no physical barriers to handicapped or elderly people. "Adaptable" means housing whose entry and circulation are designed and constructed so that making relatively minor adjustments and additions rather than structural changes can make the unit fully accessible. Federally assisted housing currently requires that at least 5% of all new units are made fully accessible. IMPLEMENTATION 8.8
POLICY 8.9 Since the demand for rental housing continues to significantly exceed supply and less than 8% of San Francisco residents can afford the median home cost, the development of new home ownership opportunities should rely primarily on new construction and not the conversion of rental housing to home ownership. IMPLEMENTATION 8.9
POLICY 8.10 Older, larger buildings, and vacant commercial spaces, may be suitable for conversion to group housing. Because of the availability of certain types of residential buildings and services in certain parts of the City, board and care and adult day care facilities have tended to become concentrated in those areas. Applications for new facilities may continue to reinforce these concentrations unless they are carefully reviewed. It is desirable that group housing and board and care homes be distributed throughout the City so that people are offered a choice of locations and over-concentration of facilities in particular neighborhoods is avoided. However, the Federal fair housing laws prohibit limitations on board and care facilities and group homes to the extent that these limitations diminish housing opportunities for disabled persons and families with children. Adult day care facilities that allow disabled or elderly persons to live at home but receive daily support should be located close to their clients. In reviewing applications for board and care homes and adult day care facilities, the following factors should be among those evaluated:
IMPLEMENTATION 8.10
OBJECTIVE
9 POLICY 9.1 Because of the economic and social hardships involved when a household is forced to move, and the difficulty of funding replacement housing at comparable rents, every effort should be made to minimize displacement. Private demolition of housing can cause particular hardships because of the absence of relocation assistance programs for displaced households. Property owners should provide assistance in finding suitable relocation housing if any lower-income households are to be displaced. Property owners should inform tenants at the earliest possible date of any proposed demolition plans and should arrange for counseling assistance for the displaced households. Owners should not be permitted to demolish existing housing units until efforts have been made to assist tenants in obtaining relocation housing. When displacement does occur as a result of public actions, uniform relocation services including counseling, locating replacement housing, and moving expenses, should be provided regardless of whether the displacement is caused by federal, state, or locally funded activities. In the case of privately funded developments where displacement occurs, the developer should be requested to provide such services. IMPLEMENTATION 9.1
POLICY 9.2
Persons in private or publicly owned housing displaced by fire and other acts should be restored to their previous residential position to the maximum extent feasible. Where existing units are converted to condominium or cooperative ownership, existing tenants should be given opportunities to purchase converted units. IMPLEMENTATION 9.2
OBJECTIVE 10 Homelessness has grown to a scale unprecedented in the United States since the 1930s. The legacy of the 1980s that has regarded temporary shelter as an adequate response to homelessness should be overcome. Shelters are not an acceptable alternative to decent, affordable housing. While the City should not relax its commitment to offering shelter to anyone who would otherwise be forced to live in streets, parks and doorways, the vision and the overall direction should remain fixed on the goal of creating and preserving low-cost housing, jobs and job training programs, and the necessary health and social support services that enable people to live with the greatest degree of independence possible. Such services for the homeless should be provided in a multi-lingual and multicultural context where needed. It is critical that San Francisco and other cities begin to develop a regional approach to homelessness in the Bay Area. Increased state and federal support is needed for regional efforts to succeed. POLICY 10.1 For a permanent solution to homelessness, permanent affordable housing must be developed. Although shelters can provide an alternative to sleeping on the streets, these do little to address the underlying problem. The development of new housing connected to services will best address this need. IMPLEMENTATION 10.1
POLICY 10.2 Measures that go beyond shelter are needed to address the root causes of homelessness. These include stable sources of income and health and social support services for short or long periods of time to assist people with special needs to live with the greatest degree of independence possible. IMPLEMENTATION 10.2
POLICY 10.3 While the emphasis should be on provision of permanent housing, the City should provide an emergency shelter program that provides temporary shelter and links homeless people to more comprehensive services. The City should also continue to support the Department of Public Health's Direct Access to Housing Program, which has helped households transition from shelters into permanent homes. Homeless people often have difficulty gaining access to the health care system, whether it is because the multiplicity of problems they experience overwhelms health care providers, their behavior or appearance makes them unwelcome, or they themselves regard health care as low on the survival priority list. There is need for outreach services and multi-service centers that provide health care and other services to the homeless, in a manner that gains their trust and with a goal of integrating them into the larger health care and services systems. IMPLEMENTATION 10.3
POLICY 10.4 Homeless families, just like other families, require a broad variety of childcare programs to meet their particular needs. For some, the need is for developmentally appropriate, well-equipped spaces that offer privacy, enabling families an opportunity to interact and play with their children. For other parents, who may need time to participate in job training, or to look for work or run errands, the need is for convenient drop-in childcare program. In other instances, the need may be for licensed childcare programs that serve the special needs of these children. IMPLEMENTATION 10.4
OBJECTIVE 11 Housing quality involves not only the physical condition of the housing structure itself but also the condition of the surrounding neighborhood and the adequacy of its amenities, facilities, and services. Quality urban housing can exist only in full service neighborhoods. New housing development must address these issues. POLICY 11.1 New in-fill housing development should be compact, mixed-use, mixed income, and have a mix of unit sizes. Major multi-family housing projects that accommodate non-residential uses such as neighborhood serving retail, childcare or after school facilities, or even institutional uses such as a public library, should be encouraged and supported. Minimum density requirements and maximum parking standards should be used to encourage a mix of unit sizes in areas well served by transit and neighborhood retail. IMPLEMENTATION 11.1
POLICY 11.2 Many factors add to neighborhood livability, including the quality of schools, the availability of quality childcare at affordable prices, the effectiveness of police and fire services, access to open space and recreational opportunities, and access to transit. The large number of single parent and two working parent households makes the provision of childcare facilities an important component of family housing developments. Regular maintenance of streets and sidewalks, provision of street trees, and protection of residential areas from excessive traffic, are also important to neighborhood life. To provide its residents with a quality living environment, the City should address all of these factors. IMPLEMENTATION 11.2
POLICY 11.3 Certain non-residential uses are desirable and appropriate in residential areas. For example, small pedestrian-oriented grocery stores and other convenience shops can meet frequent and recurring needs of residents without disrupting the residential character of the area. On the other hand, other non-residential uses are noisy, unattractive, or generate excessive traffic and therefore would be undesirable in residential areas. Commercial uses should be allowed in residential areas only if they meet the following criteria:
Community services such as childcare centers are also particularly appropriate in residential areas, even though they may draw from a larger area and may not be primarily pedestrian-oriented. Non-residential uses, if essential to the preservation of a landmark building, could also be permitted if the specific use is compatible with the surrounding environment. IMPLEMENTATION 11.3
POLICY 11.4 The expansion needs of institutions often conflict with efforts to preserve and protect the scale and character of residential neighborhoods. Large educational, religious, and medical institutions attract people from outside a neighborhood, aggravating traffic and parking problems. Institutional buildings also tend to be larger in scale and more intensely used than surrounding residential buildings. In addition, institutional expansion often requires removal of housing and displacement of residents. To minimize the disruption caused by expansion of large institutions, the City should carefully review expansion plans. The needs of adjacent residential areas for housing, on-street parking and safe, quiet streets should be considered, in addition to the needs of the institution. Educational and medical institutions should be required to develop and submit master plans to the City, before the City reviews any specific expansion requests. Such a master plan should define long-term and short-range development plans of the institution. Early review of institutional development plans will permit exploration of alternate ways to address the needs of the institution in order to minimize potential conflicts with the residential area. IMPLEMENTATION 11.4
POLICY 11.5 Residents of San Francisco should be able to live in well-designed housing suited to their specific needs. To ensure that housing provides quality living environments and complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood, the following general design and amenity guidelines should be applied in evaluating new residential developments and alteration of existing buildings: Exterior Appearance
Recreation/Open Space
Facilities
Security
Art Work
Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments
IMPLEMENTATION 11.5
POLICY 11.6 Increased allowable densities should not detract from established neighborhood characteristics. In many cases, design and efficient site uses can make use of maximum housing densities while keeping resulting units affordable and compatible with neighboring structures. IMPLEMENTATION 11.6
POLICY 11.7 San Francisco first imposed residential parking requirements in the 1950s, when prevailing notions assumed that cars were becoming the primary way of getting around and automobile parking should be provided accordingly. This 1:1 parking requirement generated traffic and took up valuable space, but created a distinct neighborhood character in the western part of the City. One parking space reduces the amount of housing a parcel can accommodate by as much as 25%. Building parking space also adds $20,000 to $50,000 per parking space to the cost of housing construction. Enforcing one off-street parking space for each new dwelling unit is essentially a suburban practice and diverges from the City's tradition of compact, urban, walkable places in the older neighborhoods. Much of San Francisco was built before the advent of the automobile and most places are easily accessible by foot or public transit. IMPLEMENTATION 11.7
POLICY 11.8 The Planning Department, with housing project sponsors, should explore and encourage project configurations that take full advantage of allowable building densities. Department support should go beyond technical assistance and include coordinated and timely neighborhood outreach and accelerated processing. The Department should strongly support projects that creatively address residential parking and open space requirements, resulting in higher densities with a full range of unit sizes. IMPLEMENTATION 11.8
POLICY 11.9 In setting allowable residential densities in established neighborhoods, consideration should be given to the prevailing building type in the surrounding area so that new development does not detract from existing character. Established architectural characteristics should be respected. Design and efficient site uses can make use of maximum allowable densities while keeping resulting units affordable and compatible with neighboring structures. In areas where an urban scale and character is yet not established, densities should be set at levels that support transit and neighborhood amenities that are enjoyed by the City's more established neighborhoods. IMPLEMENTATION 11.9
POLICY 11.10 Simple energy saving features such as site orientation and window placement can optimize passive solar heating and natural daylight at little or no additional cost. Often, features that add to the initial cost of a structure are highly cost-effective in terms of the life cycle or operating costs. For example, weatherization of existing housing can usually pay for itself in a short time, resulting in lower utility bills and housing costs. These approaches should be pursued. IMPLEMENTATION 11.10
OBJECTIVE 12 Housing is a regional and state concern. Problems such as the inability of large numbers of people to afford decent housing, inequities and discrimination in the housing market, and the inadequacy of public resources cross the boundaries of local jurisdictions and cannot be addressed solely on a local level. Region-wide strategies are needed. Investment decisions made by the private sector are rarely confined to the limits of single governmental jurisdictions — broader housing market areas are considered. A strategy dealing with housing problems in the Bay Area must therefore involve a regional approach. Effective solutions to housing problems in the Bay Area can be developed only if all local jurisdictions' agencies and organizations dealing with housing in the Bay Area coordinate their activities. Although San Francisco will always maintain an overall jobs/housing imbalance because it has historically developed as an employment center, the City must undertake efforts to balance future employment growth and the supply of housing. In particular, City agencies should coordinate strategies to meet the housing goals set forth by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and adopted as part of this Element, as well as to address housing needs already present even without job growth. To meet these goals, San Francisco will have to absorb a greater percentage of new workers and increase the housing opportunities for workers currently commuting to the City. POLICY 12.1 San Francisco is part of the larger regional economy of the Bay Area and economic decisions made by one community often affect other communities in the region. Thus decisions made by some cities to limit commercial or residential growth impact other cities in the region. Efforts should be made to balance employment and housing growth within the region. Aggregated together, current local government development policies will not house the labor supply needed for jobs currently projected for the region. If these policies remain unchanged, housing must be provided outside the region. This would extend commutes, or regional job growth will be curtailed, or both. The Association of Bay Area Governments has established a regional goal to house within the region up to 50% of the difference between the projected growth in Bay Area jobs and the growth in the region's labor supply. To reduce the jobs-housing imbalance in the region by that amount by 2006, almost 231,000 additional housing units are needed within the region. IMPLEMENTATION 12.1
POLICY 12.2 New residential development and rehabilitation of existing housing should be planned to conserve open space and to take advantage of the availability of employment opportunities, efficient transportation systems, and community services. San Francisco should take an active role in promoting quality new housing development in the Bay Area in areas where adverse impacts on the environment will not be generated and the use of public transit will be enhanced. The City should also play a greater role in ensuring local and regional growth management strategies are coordinated and complementary. IMPLEMENTATION 12.2
POLICY 12.3 Local communities throughout the Bay Area should accept responsibility for housing families of all income levels. At the present time, most of the region's subsidized housing for low- and moderate-income households is concentrated in the central cities, including San Francisco. Housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households should be available throughout the region, and all localities in the Bay Area should provide their fair share of such housing. The public and the private sector should share responsibility. State law allows joint exercise of powers between jurisdictions that enable entrepreneurial action at a larger-than-local scale. Cooperative efforts among localities, as well as joint efforts with state agencies, extend resources available for affordable housing. IMPLEMENTATION 12.3
POLICY 12.4 The City should help develop and conduct region wide public awareness programs to generate greater public support for affordable housing production. Workshop modules could also be crafted to explain regional land use patterns and its impacts on livability and help demystify urban densities. IMPLEMENTATION 12.4
POLICY 12.5 With the decreasing level of Federal support for housing programs, the administrative and financial powers of the State become especially critical. The state legislature has placed an affordable housing bond proposal on the statewide ballot in 2002, but there also needs to be a long-range plan for affordable housing and a clearer articulation of the State's role in funding and facilitation of affordable housing programs. IMPLEMENTATION 12.5
|
||||||||||||||||||
© 2009 City & County of San Francisco. All rights reserved. |
