Blog

Livable City has taken a position on 12 of the 42 local, regional, and state ballot measures on this November’s ballot. Livable City recommends the following measures:

Yes on Proposition RR – BART Safety, Reliability, and Traffic Relief

If you live anywhere near the Bay Area, ride transit, or read the news, you know the BART system is aging and breaking down. The system was designed to carry 100,000 weekly riders. Now, BART serves 430,000 riders. BART estimates that it will need $9.6 billion to cover its capital needs for the next decade. This measure bridges $3.5 billion of that gap, and BART has identified approximately $4.8 billion from other sources.

Livable City consistently supports investments in transit that make San Francisco more livable, sustainable, and equitable. Improving BART’s reliability, safety, and capacity will help San Franciscans, Bay Area residents, and visitors access home, work, and play via a sustainable mode of transportation. Livable City recommends voting yes on Proposition RR.

Yes on Proposition C – Loans to Finance Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing

Proposition C will provide loans for the acquisition, improvement and rehabilitation of “at-risk” multi-unit residential properties, to convert such properties to permanent affordable housing, and to finance the cost of needed seismic, fire, health and safety upgrades or other major rehabilitation for habitability on such structures. It does so by amending an existing bond program which provides loans for the seismic strengthening of unreinforced masonry buildings. The majority of funds available for the masonry building program weren’t ever used, leaving almost $150 million in bond capacity available for new purposes.

This measure will further San Francisco’s (and Livable City’s) goal of preserving and expanding the city’s stock of affordable housing. The availability of funding for acquisition and rehabilitation will bolster the City’s efforts, championed by Supervisor Peskin, to step up code enforcement on Residential Hotels, protect them from conversion to other uses, rehabilitate them, and make them permanently affordable. Livable City recommends voting yes on Proposition C.

Yes on Proposition E – Responsibility for Maintaining Street Tress and Surrounding Sidewalks

Today, maintenance of certain street trees, and the sidewalks around those street trees, is the duty of the adjacent property owner. Owners are liable for injuries or property damage resulting from improperly maintained trees or sidewalks. Prior to 2009, the City had planted and maintained many street trees at City expense – on Market Street, for example. However the city’s commitment to both street tree planting and maintenance has waxed and waned.

Proposition E will ensure the city is responsible for street tree planting and maintenance, including repair of sidewalks damaged by tree roots, starting July 1, 2017. The measure sets aside $19 million annually for street tree maintenance, adjusted up or down each year based on the percentage increase or decrease in the City’s discretionary revenues.

Street trees are essential ingredients for urban livability. Street trees benefit our health, happiness, ecology and economy. As parts of the City grow denser, sustaining a healthy urban forest is even more vital to sustaining heath, happiness, and livability. Trees are also important components of complete streets projects and can be effective at traffic calming. It’s time for us to consider trees as an essential part of the City. Livable City recommends voting yes on Proposition E.

Yes on Proposition J – Funding for Homelessness and Transportation

As San Francisco grows, the City faces shortfalls in transportation operating and capital funding, and also needs to comprehensively address homeless housing and social services. Enter Proposition J and companion Proposition K.

Both transportation and housing are policy priorities for Livable City. Proposition J is funded by the companion sales tax (Proposition K). Sales taxes are regressive, which Livable City generally does not support. However, most of the new funding will go to projects and programs which benefit low-income San Franciscans – transit, including subsidized transit fares for low-income households, seniors, youth, and the disabled; walking and cycling; and homeless services.

While most of the funding from measure will go to transit, walking, and cycling, Livable City does not agree that nearly a third of the Transportation Fund should go toward road maintenance. User fees on automobiles ought to pay for more of the direct costs of auto infrastructure, including maintenance of streets and parking and traffic safety. Prop. J meets some, but not all, of the projected shortfall in street capital needs. We support an increase in the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) in San Francisco to provide further funding for street maintenance and repair and traffic safety. The Mayor’s office has twice refused to bring the VLF measure to a public vote (2014, and earlier this year), so we’ll be advocating for a VLF measure in 2018. Livable City recommends voting yes on Propositions J and K.

Yes on Proposition K – General Sales Tax

Proposition J, this measure’s companion Charter Amendment will, if approved by the voters, dedicate new revenues to Transportation (.5%) and homeless services (.25%) for the next 25 years. If it does not, and Proposition K does, the money will be placed in the General Fund and allocated through the City budget process. The current combined sales tax in San Francisco County (state, regional, and county) will drop to 8.5% in December when a .25% temporary state sales tax expires. This measure will increase the combined tax to 9.25% starting in April 2017.

Although regressive, this sales tax will benefit low-income San Franciscans – transit, including subsidized transit fares for low-income households, seniors, youth, and the disabled; walking and cycling; and homeless services. Livable City recommends voting yes on Propositions J and K.

No on Proposition O: Office Development in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point

In the 1986, San Francisco voters approved Proposition M. Among other things, Prop. M established an annual limit on office square footage of about 1 million square feet per year. Applications for office space in San Francisco have never exceeded the annual limit. Prop. M gave office square footage in redevelopment areas priority, but did not exempt it from the annual limit. This measure would exempt office square footage in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point redevelopment from the Prop. M limits.

Our 1980s office limits may be due for a re-think, but developer-written ballot-box planning is the wrong way to do it. Prop. O was placed on the ballot with no public dialogue or analysis. It prioritizes office development in only two areas of the city which are ill-served by transit. Office developments in these less transit-rich areas are more auto-dependent, and will generate more traffic congestion and pollution than office development Downtown. The “yes” campaign claims Prop. O is about affordable housing, but it’s about offices, not housing. Livable City recommends voting no on Proposition O.

No on Prop. P: Competitive Bidding for Affordable Housing Projects on City-Owned Property

Currently, the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) administers a developer selection process, using requests for proposal (RFPs). Prop. P would require MOHCD to use a bidding process specified in the measure. Prop. P requires that the city receive at least three bids; if not, all bids must be rejected.

Prop. P will likely slow down the production of affordable housing, without improving the process or outcomes. If MOHCD’s procedures need improvement or transparency, they ought to be fixed administratively or legislatively, not at the ballot box. Livable City recommends voting no on Proposition P.

No on Proposition Q: Prohibiting Tents on Public Sidewalks

Virtually everyone agrees that the solution to homelessness is housing. Prop. Q is an unproductive measure opposed by the City’s homeless service providers and housing advocates. We agree Prop. Q shouldn’t be on the ballot, and will do nothing to move homeless San Franciscans living in tents into shelter or housing.

Fortunately, there are measures on the ballot which will build and preserve housing for homeless San Franciscans – Prop. C will allow for the acquisition and rehabilitation of permanently affordable housing, and Propositions J and K will provide $50 million per year to build housing and provide services to homeless San Franciscans. Livable City recommends voting no on Proposition Q.

No on Proposition U: Affordable Housing Requirements for Market-Rate Development Projects

Prop. U, placed on the ballot by the San Francisco Association of Realtors, would weaken the City’s requirements for inclusionary affordable housing (affordable housing in market-rate projects), and shift eligibility for affordable housing from low- and moderate-income households towards wealthier households earning 100% or more of median household income.

Inclusionary housing is an important part of the City’s affordable housing strategy, and an important public benefit from market-rate development in the City. Inclusionary requirements should be set high enough to maximize affordable housing, but not so high as to discourage housing construction. Income eligibility standards should address households with the greatest need. Inclusionary requirements should not be arbitrarily set at the ballot box.

In June, San Francisco voters removed a charter cap on inclusionary requirements, and restored the Board of Supervisors’ ability to adjust them legislatively. The Board established a technical advisory committee of nonprofit and for-profit housing providers to determine the right approach to inclusionary requirements, and that committee is finalizing its recommendations. Livable City recommends voting no on Proposition U.

Yes on Proposition V: Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

Prop. V taxes companies that distribute sugary drinks one cent per ounce on sugary soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks. This Proposition has wide-spread support, as it did the last time it was on the ballot in 2014 when it received 55% of the vote (short of the necessary 2/3 for an earmarked tax). Livable City endorses Proposition V because evidence points to these types of beverages being the leading factor toward major health issues. One-third of all children and nearly half of African-American and Latino children, are predicted to develop diabetes in their lifetimes. They are also linked to increased risk of obesity and diseases such as heart and liver disease, and the most common chronic disease among children, tooth decay.

Since its inception in 2008, our Sunday Streets program has been a strong proponent of these types of health measures, partnering with Shape Up San Francisco and the SF Department of Public Health in Soda Free Summer, and we do not allow the sampling of sugary beverages or junk food at Sunday Streets. Moreover, Sunday Streets does not accept funds from these companies, whether as sponsors or donors.

This tax will help increase awareness and educate the public about the link between sugary drinks and chronic illnesses, and how the beverage industry targets its marketing towards youth and communities of color. It will reduce sugary drink consumption, as proven in similar measures in Berkeley and Mexico (both passed in 2014). These revenues can also be used to support community programs that combat the impact of sugary drink marketing, and the negative health consequences of sugary drink consumption. Livable City recommends voting yes on Proposition V.

Yes on Proposition W: Real Estate Transfer Tax on Properties Over $5 Million

Proposition W would increase the City’s existing real estate transfer tax on properties over $5 million – to 2.25 percent from 2 percent on properties worth $5 million to $10 million, to 2.75 from 2.5 percent on properties worth $10 million to $25 million; and to 3 percent from 2.5 percent on properties worth $25 million and up. Over 80% of the tax will be levied on non-residential properties, and most of that on large office buildings worth more than $25 million. The measure will raise an estimated $45 million annually for City services, including reducing City college tuition fees. Livable City recommends voting yes on Proposition W.

No on Proposition X: Preserving Space for Neighborhood Arts, Small Businesses and Community Services in Certain Neighborhoods

After a decade-long planning process, The city adopted the Eastern Neighborhoods plans in SoMa and the Mission. These plans established a complex system of zoning districts for the area. These zoning districts include production, distribution, and repair (PDR) districts and Mixed-Use Districts.

PDR districts were intended to protect clusters of PDR uses, a category which includes various industrial, automotive, and some retail uses. PDR districts prohibit housing and limit non-PDR uses, chiefly retail and office) in size and building area.

Proposition X would require that in certain Mixed Use Districts, any current square footage of PDR uses, Arts Activities, and Institutional Community Uses proposed for demolition or conversion to another use be replaced in kind. In-kind replacement is defined on a square footage basis of 1:1 or less, depending on the zoning district and the use.

Zoning in Mixed-Use districts should preserve, or provide for, a diversity of uses, including arts, light manufacturing, and neighborhood-serving institutions. However these uses should be balanced with other important uses, particularly housing and neighborhood-serving retail. Our planning and legislative process, including the ongoing Central SoMa plan effort, is the right forum for establishing such complex zoning controls, and revising them as needed. Prop. X is ballot-box planning, concocted with no analysis of its effects and overly broad in its reach. All of its provisions could be enacted legislatively, yet none of the sponsoring supervisors tried to legislate it before placing it on the ballot.

Despite its good intentions, Prop X has some major flaws. Mixed use districts are generally dense and transit-oriented, yet Prop X privileges automotive uses (car washes and gas stations, for example) over housing or neighborhood-serving retail. Mixed-use districts were purposely zoned for dense housing, yet the replacement requirements will make new housing, including affordable housing, less feasible on many sites. These are the sorts of flaws that could have been fixed through a rigorous planning and legislative process – exactly the process that Prop. X tries to end-run. Prop. X is opposed by SFMade, the trade association representing the City’s makers and manufacturers.

For its serious flaws and inflexibility, Prop. X ought to be rejected. But some of the problems Prop. X attempts to solve – making space for arts, production, and community institutions in Mixed-Use neighborhoods – deserve the City’s careful attention, and effective solutions. Livable City recommends voting no on Prop. X.

San Francisco’s housing affordability crisis has been painful for renters. Two-thirds of San Francisco households rent, and a small percentage of renters live in permanently affordable housing. Many renters feel heightened insecurity about getting displaced from housing they can afford, and all but the most affluent feel squeezed by rising housing costs. The goal of decent and affordable housing for all seems remote.

However every crisis is an opportunity for fresh thinking and new ways forward. In the past few years, San Francisco has made some smart moves towards preserving the City’s rental housing – protecting housing from earthquakes and other disasters, discouraging demolition, conversion, and merger of affordable units, and supporting acquisition and rehabilitation of housing.

San Francisco needs to add new housing, especially affordable units. Preservation and new construction complement each other. The Urban Institute’s recent report emphasized the importance of preserving affordable housing as part of an overall housing affordability strategy:

While new construction is part of the puzzle, the complex and costly process of development means these efforts have not kept up with demand. Preserving existing affordable housing is an important supplement to new developments, and it prevents displacement, is generally cheaper than building new housing, and conforms to existing land-use patterns

San Francisco still has room to add housing without losing any existing housing. The City’s General Plan Housing Element estimated that there’s room for nearly 70,000 new housing units on vacant land, underutilized sites, and in three large development areas (Mission Bay, Treasure Island, and Hunters Point-Candlestick Point). Modest zoning changes could create room for even more housing on available land, and legalizing accessory units can add more units in existing buildings.

San Francisco had 382,551 housing units at end of 2015. About 172,000 are rent-stabilized, while 6,300 are public affordable housing and 16,000 are permanently affordable, mostly in nonprofit ownership.

In 2015, San Francisco started tracking its housing balance – the number of permanently affordable units built, acquired, or rehabilitated, against the number of rent-stabilized and affordable units lost to demolition, conversion, merger, and long-term removal from the rental market. In the decade 2005-2014, 5,759 units were added, while 4,104 lost their protected status. These figures highlight our need to do more to protect affordable rental housing even as we redouble our efforts to create new housing.

Earthquake safety

In 2013, the city required that soft-story buildings – multi-unit wood frame buildings built over a structurally weak basement, parking, or storefront level – must undergo mandatory earthquake safety retrofit work. The Mandatory Soft Story Retrofit Program includes about 5000 buildings citywide. Retrofit work must be completed between 2017 and 2020, depending on the specific building type. Retrofit costs may be passed through to tenants.

In 2015, Livable City worked with the Board of Supervisors to permit buildings to add units as they undergo safety retrofit. New units can strengthen vulnerable buildings by adding interior walls, and can help owners defray the cost of retrofit work by providing an additional source of rental income. The program was enacted in April 2015, and there were 72 applications for 130 units as of June this year.

The City offers a low-interest Public Financing Option for mandatory and voluntary earthquake retrofit work, including adding units. The City is currently exploring whether to require retrofits for other vulnerable building types, including certain concrete and steel buildings.

Preventing demolition, conversion, and merger

In 2008, the city strengthened its provisions for the demolition, conversion, and merger of units, to discourage the loss of units, and encourage their in-kind replacement when units are lost. In recent years, the city closed two loopholes in the law to protect more units. Prior to 2014, the Planning Code forbade building owners from improving or expanding dwelling units which exceed current density limits, and the Code’s merger criteria encouraged the removal of these units. Density limits were imposed citywide from the 1950s through the 1970s, and are often arbitrary and a poor fit with the diversity of buildings in established neighborhoods. Over 50,000 units, mostly older and rent-controlled, are lawfully existing but exceed current density limits, and were vulnerable to loss under the old law. Livable City helped draft changes to the law to permit the improvement and enlargement of nonconforming units, and to discourage demolition, conversion, or merger regardless of current density limits.

San Francisco has an estimated 20,000-30,000 unauthorized rental units. Most of these units are in rent-stabilized buildings. In 2014 the city created a path to legalization for these units. However building owners could still remove unauthorized units at will. 2015 saw a fourfold increase in the removal of unauthorized units, and unauthorized units account for most of the units lost since 2014. Livable City worked with Supervisor Avalos to close this loophole, and in April of this year the City amended the law to require that all unit removals, whether unauthorized or not, be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.

Supporting acquisition and rehabilitation

San Francisco hasn’t always been thoughtful about the loss of affordable housing. Prior to 1976, 14,207 units of low- and moderate-income housing were demolished by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. which were replaced with only 7,498 units, a net loss of 6,709 units. Much of the housing lost was in residential hotels.

During the 1970s, the Redevelopment Agency reversed course, and began to fund more acquisition and rehabilitation of rental housing, along with new affordable housing. After the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, redevelopment funds were used to preserve, rehabilitate, and replace affordable housing in South of Market and elsewhere. In 1990 the City adopted the Residential Hotel Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance.

In 2011 the state dissolved redevelopment agencies, and redevelopment funds are no longer available for acquisition and rehabilitation outside the three remaining redevelopment project areas. However the city has made other funds available, including through the new Small Sites Acquisition Program. Last year the San Francisco Community Land Trust used Small Sites and other funds to acquire and protect the Pigeon Palace on Folsom Street, where long-term tenants were facing displacement.

The City’s efforts to preserve and rehabilitate residential hotels has been a success. The number of nonprofit residential hotel rooms grew from 3,314 units in 61 buildings in 2000 to 5,479 rooms in 87 buildings in 2013. In 2013 there were still 13,903 for-profit residential hotel rooms in 414 buildings. About 2500 units are master leased by nonprofits. Many of the for-profit residential hotels are in poor repair, and residents also face high rents and threats of displacement.

To expand acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing, Livable City supports Proposition C on the November ballot. Prop C would make up to $250 million in bond funding available as loans for the acquisition, improvement and rehabilitation of “at-risk” multi-unit residential properties. Funds could be used to convert properties to permanent affordable housing, and to finance the cost of needed seismic, fire, health and safety upgrades, and other rehabiltation needs.

Adding accessory units existing buildings

Accessory units are new units located within existing buildings. In 2014, the City adopted legislation to permit unauthorized accessory units – units built without permits – to be legalized, by providing for exceptions from the Planning Code’s density limits, parking requirements, and other requirements. This month, the City permitted new accessory units in existing buildings citywide.

Unauthorized units or new units in rent-stabilized buildings are also rent-stabilized, and legalizing accessory units will increase the city’s rent-stabilized housing supply after decades of declines.

Livable City is advocating for low-cost financing, similar to the city’s earthquake safety retrofit financing programs, to add accessory units, bring units up to current code, or improve comfort, environmental performance, and accessibility.

Resources

2015 San Francisco Housing Inventory [pdf] (SF Planning Department)
San Francisco Housing Balance Report (SF Planning Department)
Public Financing for Earthquake Safety retrofits (SF Office of Resilience and Recovery)

On Tuesday July 19, the Board of Supervisors voted to 10-1 to legalize new accessory units in buildings citywide.

In May, two separate ordinances were introduced to legalize accessory units citywide. One was sponsored by Supervisor Peskin, and the other is by Supervisors Wiener and Farrell. The supervisors merged their ordinances into a compromise version, which won the support of 10 of the 11 Supervisors, with Supervisor Norman Yee as the sole ‘no’ vote.

This ordinance is the boldest move yet in the campaign to legalize accessory units in San Francisco. Livable City has long advocated for accessory units, and has authored and advocated for several legislative changes that protect existing units and permit new ones. Accessory units, also known as in-law units, add rent-controlled housing in existing buildings. They expand and diversify neighborhood housing options while preserving existing residential buildings. To permit accessory units, the City must allow exceptions from residential density limits and from parking and private open space requirements. New units must still meet all building and housing code requirements. This allows for more living spaces without changing the look and feel of the building or neighborhood.

The new ordinance would allow new units in existing buildings across the city. It allows one new unit in buildings of of four or fewer units, and no limit on the number of units that can be added to larger buildings. It allows accessory units some minor expansion of the building envelope into ground-floor light wells and under projecting upper stories for accessory units. Buildings undergoing earthquake safety retrofits can be lifted up to 3 feet to create habitable ground-floor spaces. To reduce speculative pressure on rental buildings, units added under this ordinance can generally not be converted to condominums in the future. However buildings that are currently condominiums can add new condominium units.

The ordinance requires one more reading at the Board of Supervisors, and then will go to the Mayor for his signature. The ordinance will go into effect 30 days after the Mayor signs it. The Planning Department announced it will start outreach and marketing this summer to encourage eligible building owners to add accessory units.

Starting in the 1950s, San Francisco’s zoning began to restrict adding new units to existing buildngs by imposing density limits and off-street parking requirements. Many property owners added units without permission, and these unauthorized units may number in the tens of thousands. Supervisor Peskin had introduced a citywide ordinance in 2004. The measure wasn’t approved then, but has been the template for smaller-scale ordinances over the past two years. In 2013 Supervisor Chiu’s ordinance allowed unauthorized one unit per lot to be legalized. Last year, the Board of Supervisors legalized new accessory units in buildings undergoing earthquake safety retrofits, which was first proposed by Livable City. Supervisors Wiener and Christensen championed legaliztion of new units in districts 3 (Chinatown, North Beach, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, and the Northeast Waterfront) and 8 (Castro, Noe Valley, Mission Dolores, Glen Park, and Diamond Heights). The earthquake safety program allowed buildings to be lifted up to three feet to create habitable rooms, and didn’t limit the number of units per building. The programs in Districts 3 and 8 didn’t allow any increase in building height, and limited the number of units that can be added to a building. As of last month, 72 applications for 130 units were filed under the earthquake safety program, and 10 applications in Districts 3 and 8.

New benches on the first block of Ridge Lane

On Saturday June 18, neighbors and city officials dedicated the first block of a new street park on Ridge Lane in the City’s Ocean View neighborhood. The project transformed a dirt path on a narrow public right-of-way into a linear park, with an accessible path, new lighting, benches, and landscaping. It was designed by Nahal Sohbati and Eric Arneson, landscape design students at Academy of Art.

Ridge Lane Neighbors have been working for over four years to improve Ridge Lane, and intend for this to be the first block of four, extending from Howth Street to San Jose Avenue. At the dedication, Mohammed Nuru, director of the Department of Public Works, committed to completing a second block in the coming year. When complete, the street park will provide a green connection to the Balboa Park Station, allowing neighbors and visitors to enjoy public gardens, places to sit, and vista spots with expansive views on the way to the station.

Ridge Lane is the newest of over 130 street parks in San Francisco. Street parks are public open spaces located in street rights-of-way. Many street parks are on rights-of-way too narrow or too steep for autos, and include San Francisco’s famous public stairways. The street parks program, a joint effort of San Francisco’s Department of Public Works and the Parks Alliance, assisted the Ridge Lane Neighbors, and Supervisor John Avalos secured funding in the City budget.

Street rights-of-way cover a quarter of San Francisco’s land area, and have huge potential to become public open spaces. Transforming just one-tenth of San Francisco’s street right-of-way could create a square mile of open space.

Ridge Lane is also an example of San Franciscan’s growing interest in walkability. The area around Balboa Park Station is slowly becoming more walkable, as projects by the City and BART improve pedestrian connections to the surrounding neighborhoods, and new transit-oriented mixed-use buildings on Ocean Avenue have extended the commercial district closer to the Station. In March, the City completed the Ocean and Geneva Corridor Design, a plan for transforming Ocean and Geneva Avenues into better streets for walking and cycling. This fall, the City and BART will conduct a public workshop to plan affordable housing, retail, and street and transit station improvements at San Jose and Geneva avenues.

Map of Ridge Lane. The block in green is now a street park; future street park blocks are in blue.

Ridge Lane at Howth Street before improvements

Ridge Lane dedication ceremony, June 18 2016

First block of Ridge Lane street park on opening day

Three ordinances to legalize accessory units (also known as in-law units) citywide were approved by the Planning Commission this week. Two would allow new housing units in existing buildings citywide. The third would facilitate the legalization of existing units originally built without permits.

On Thursday June 16, the Planning Commission recommended two ordinances that would permit new in-law units in existing buildings citywide. These ordinances are the City’s biggest step forward yet in permitting new accessory units. One is sponsored by Supervisor Peskin, and the other is from Supervisors Wiener and Farrell. Both would permit new units in existing buildings across the city, and provide necessary exceptions from density limits and from parking and private open space requirements. The Farrell/Wiener ordinance is generally more permissive, and requires less red tape than the Peskin ordinance. Planning Department staff had recommended a more permissive approach (their analysis and recommendations can be found here). The Planning Commission recommended a blend of the two ordinances, along with some of the staff-recommended changes. Both ordinances will move to the Board of Supervisors, and Planning Commission also urged the sponsors of the two ordinances to combine them into one.

Adding new accessory units to existing buildings was legalized last year in Supervisorial Districts 3 and 8, and citywide in buildings undergoing seismic retrofit. Since then, applications for about 140 units have been filed. The Planning Department announced it will start outreach and marketing for the accessory unit program this summer, with a goal of encouraging more eligible property owners to add new units to their buildings.

On June 9, the Planning Commission recommended amending the Planning Code to allow legalization of more than one existing unpermitted unit per building (the recommendation can be found here). Current City law allows only one unpermitted unit per lot to be legalized. Livable City has been advocating for this change since last year, and we are pleased to see the Planning Commission endorse it. We are encouraging the Board of Supervisors to enact the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

Livable City has long advocated legalizing accessory units, and has authored or endorsed several major legislative changes that protect existing units and permit new ones. Accessory units add rent-controlled housing in existing buildings, and expands and diversifies neighborhood housing options while preserving existing residential buildings.

For the June 7, 2016 election, Livable City recommends:

Yes on A: Public Health and Safety Bond
Measure A is a $350,000 general obligation bond that funds earthquake safety and fire safety retrofits at San Francisco General Hospital and the City’s neighborhood health centers, safety and resliiency upgrades to the city’s ambulance facilities and firehouses, and new and renovated homeless health facilities. These investments will foster the health and wellness of San Franciscans, and improve the City’s resilience in natural disasters.

Election Results: Yes 78.65% | No 21.35%

Yes on B: Charter Amendment to increase the Park, Recreation and Open Space Fund
Measure B will extend the city’s current budget set-aside for parks, recreation and open space, and will expand the fund by $3 million/year for the next decade, except in bad economic years. As San Francisco grows denser, we should also grow greener. Prop B will help maintain parks and open spaces in good repair, and expand parks and open spaces in under-served areas of the city.

Election Results: Yes 60.39% | No 39.61%

Yes on C: Affordable housing requirements
Measure C will require that new development projects of 25 units or more set aside 25% of units as permanently affordable. It removes the current 12% cap on affordability requirements from the City Charter, allowing future affordable housing requirements to be adjusted through the legislative process. The San Francisco City Economist’s analysis of the measure concluded that zoning controls, were a greater factor in housing feasibilty than housing prices, and that “the City may well be able to expand its affordable housing resources in ways that improve housing affordability for low- and middle-income households.” With the right mix of policies, San Francisco can both increase its share of permanently affordable housing and increase the overall amount of well-designed, well-located housing. Prop C complements the pro-housing policy changes that Livable City has long championed, including relaxing minimum parking requirements, housing density limits, and unnecessary conditional use requirements.

Election Results: Yes 67.19% | No 32.81%

Yes on AA: San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Program
Measure AA authorizes a $12 per year parcel tax across the nine Bay Area counties, which will raise an estimated $25 million annually to restore, acquire, construct, or maintain wetlands, wildlife habitat, public access, and flood protection around San Francisco Bay. Eligible projects in San Francisco include completing the San Francisco portion of the Bay Trail, creek and wetland restoration from the Presidio to Candlestick point, and construction and improvement of waterfront public parks.

Election Results: Yes 77.01% | No 22.99%

Thank you San Francisco voters.

The Board of Supervisors advances several important pro-housing measures in the first few months of 2016. The Board approved two ordinances that will protect tens of thousands of units of housing built without permits. They also approved a measure to streamline affordable projects, and placed a measure on the June ballot to increase the number of affordable units in new developments. Supervisor Peskin introduced a measure to permit new accessory units in existing buildings citywide.

Protecting Unauthorized Units
San Francisco has tens of thousands of unauthorized units. Unauthorized units were built in existing buildings without over the past 55 years without planning permission. Estimates of the number of units are vague, but the Planning Code suggests 20-30,000 such units may exist. Most of these units are rent-controlled, but residents of these units lack housing security, since they can be removed at any time. Residents often don’t know their units are unauthorized, but unlike other tenants, they have no recourse against displacement.

In February the Board of Supervisors advanced two ordinances that would require Planning Commission approval before unauthorized units can be demolished, merged into another unit, or converted to another use. The Board of Supervisors agreed to explore financial assistance to bring such units up to current building codes in instances where tenants and landlords are of limited income. Livable City has long advocated for preserving unauthorized units, and supported the Supervisors’s action preserve affordable rental housing in San Francisco. We also recommended that the City make it easier to legalize such units by permitting legalization of more than one unit per lot.

Streamlining Affordable Housing Projects
The board approved an ordinance, authored by Supervisor Scott Wiener, that waived conditional use requirements for 100% affordable projects. Conditonal Use authorization can add several months, and many thousands of dollars, to project approval. The exception does not apply to excess parking or to non-residential uses or features that require Conditional Use approval. This measure should increase the speed at which affordable projects can be approved and built, and reduce risk and cost.

Increasing Inclusionary Housing
The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to place Proposition C on the June 2016 ballot. Proposition C increases the required percentage of affordable units from 12% to 25% for projects of 25 units or more. The measure also permits the Board of Supervisors to adjust inclusionary requirements legislatively, undoing a 2013 measure which locked inclusionary requirements into the city Charter. The City Economist’s analysis of the economic impact of the measure found that:

Raising the cost of development would normally result in the market producing less housing, as marginal projects become financially infeasible. However, this analysis suggests this is unlikely to happen in San Francisco to a great degree as a result of the proposed increase, and the reasons why are worth exploring.

A main reason is that, as a result of the city’s zoning policies, there are relatively few marginally-feasible housing projects to begin with. Housing prices are less important than land use controls in explaining whether a parcel will develop new housing over the next twenty years.

As a consequence, this analysis suggests that the City may well be able to expand its affordable housing resources in ways that improve housing affordability for low- and middle-income households, despite some loss of market-rate housing construction.

The Board of Supervisors have introduced companion legislation to update the feasibility study, and create a technical advisory committee on affordable housing finance.

Livable City supports Proposition C. Complex questions like affordability requirements are best settled by legislative action, rather than fixed at the ballot box, and Prop C will restore the City’s ability to legislate necessary changes . We will continue our work to eliminate unnecessary barriers to housing, including those in our Action Plan for Housing. to achieve a better balance between affordability, financial feasibility, and character, quality, and livability.

New Dwelling Units in Existing Buildings

Example corner Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as shown in the SF Planning Department’s ADU Handbook, a guide for homeowners and contractors when adding a unit to an existing residential building. It helps define the various physical forms for ADUs; multiple City Codes which regulate adding ADUs

On March 15, Supervisor Aaron Peskin introduced an ordiance to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in buildings citywide. Qualifying units are exempt from zoning density limits, minimum parking requirements, and other requirements that can make it difficult or impossible to add housing within existing buildings. The measure expands on ordinances approved last year which permit accessory units in Supervisorial Districts 3 (Chinatown, North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and Russian Hill) and 8 (Duboce Triangle, Castro, Mission Dolores, Noe Valley, and Glen Park), and in buildings undergoing earthquake-safety retrofits.

We have long advocated the benefits of accessory units – adding rent-controlled housing in existing buildings expands and diversifies neighborhood housing options, while conserving existing buildings. We’re keen to see this ordinance, which Supervisor Peskin estimates could create 33,000 new rent-controlled homes, move forward. It moves next to the Planning Commission for review and approval, and we’ll keep you posted on its progress.

On Thursday March 3, San Francisco’s Planning Commission unanimously approved an essential, and long overdue, change to the way it reviews projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Commission replaced automobile level of service (LOS), a measure of automobile delay at intersections, with vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as their chief transportation measure for analyzing projects.

This change was proposed in San Francisco over a decade ago. In 2014 the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) proposed replacing LOS with VMT statewide. OPR has been slow to finalize its guidelines, so Planning Department staff have proposed that the City replace LOS with VMT sooner rather than later, and use OPR’s draft guidelines until OPR finalizes them. Acting now rather than later is smart. VMT is a better measure of environmental impact, since increases in VMT correlate directly to increased greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. The Planning Commission’s action will facilitate projects that improve walking, cycling, transit, and street safety – wider sidewalks, traffic calming, crosswalk improvements, bicycle lanes, cycle paths, transit lanes and other transit-priority measures.

This U.S. PIRG map illustrates the change in VMT from 2005 to 2011 and suggests that Americans are driving less

Walking, cycling, and public transit are more space-efficient than private autos. Reallocating road space from autos to sustainable, and space efficient, modes of transportation may decrease auto LOS, but can more people overall, and reduce the environmental impact of transportation by enabling a mode shift from private autos to more sustainable transportation modes. LOS analysis can delay environmentally beneficial projects like bus and bicycle lanes, and measures to maintain auto LOS can compromise these projects’ effectiveness. Using VMT as a transportation measure better accounts for the environmental benefits of such projects, and will allow them to proceed without additional cost and delay.

This change is important, and is part of a larger update of the Planning Department’s environmental review standards for transportation. Livable City is advocating for better pedestrian and bicycle safety mitigations for projects, and stronger standards for auto trip reduction and sustainable transportation in new developments.

Patricia’s Green Park in Hayes Valley.

A livable San Francisco is a network of Livable Neighborhoods. Each neighborhood should have a distinct character, but each should be complete, supporting living, working, commerce, and culture. A Livable Neighborhood is:

Compact	Sustainable
Livable neighborhoods conserve land, and are of sufficiently density to support frequent transit service and neighborhood-serving businesses.	Livable neighborhoods provide a mix of housing, workplaces, and neighborhood-serving shops and services.
Diverse	Healthy
Livable neighborhoods use natural resources and energy sparingly and efficiently, and generate little waste.	Livable neighborhoods support the physical and mental health of residents, are clean and safe, and promote social inclusion and sociability.
Green	Accessible
Livable neighborhoods are well served by parks, playgrounds, plazas, and greenways. Trees and plantings are integrated into street designs. Buildings are designed to provide compact gardens, courtyards, terraces, and green roofs.	Livable neighborhoods support car-free living by being well-connected to citywide and regional destinations by sustainable transportation modes (walking, cycling, public transit, paratransit and taxi). Streets and public transit are designed for universal accessibility.
Diverse	More…
Livable neighborhoods offer housing choices suited to all types of households and household incomes, provide a range of jobs, shops, and services, support diverse local businesses.	Livable Neighborhoods

Livable City is the 2025 recipient of the Community Alliance Award!

Livable City’s 2016 General Election Recommendations

Preserving Rental Housing in San Francisco

Earthquake safety

Preventing demolition, conversion, and merger

Supporting acquisition and rehabilitation

Adding accessory units existing buildings

Resources

Supervisors Vote to Legalize New Accessory Units Citywide

Ridge Lane, SF’s Newest Street Park

Planning Commission Endorses Citywide Accessory Unit Legalization

Livability Awards Photo Contest Photos

Livable City Recommendations for the June 7 Election

SF Supervisors Advance Pro-Housing Measures

Planning Commission Approves Better Environmental Review Standards

What Makes a Livable Neighborhood?

Quick Links

Join Us

Subscribe

Livable City is the 2025 recipient of the Community Alliance Award!

Earthquake safety

Preventing demolition, conversion, and merger

Supporting acquisition and rehabilitation

Adding accessory units existing buildings

Resources

Quick Links

Join Us

Subscribe

Get in Touch