District 5 Housing Opportunities Report Acknowledgments

DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CITY PROJECT TEAM Work on the District 5 Housing Opportunities Report began in 2016. The Report is a Board of Supervisors District 5 Office collaboration between Supervisor Vallie Brown’s Vallie Brown, District 5 Supervisor Office, the San Francisco Planning Department, Juan Carlos Cancino, Legislative Aide Office of Economic Workforce Development, and Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development. Office of Economic & Workforce Development Joaquin Torres, Director Ken Rich, Director of Development Anne Taupier Former Staff: Thomas Li

Planning Department John Rahaim, Director AnMarie Rodgers, Director of Citywide Planning Joshua Switzky, Land Use & Planning Manager Miriam Chion, Housing and Equity Manager James Pappas, Project Manager Audrey Harris Andrea Nelson Michael Webster Amiel Leano Atanacio Former Staff: Pedro Peterson Adrienne Hyder Danielle Deruiter-Williams Marlo Sandler

Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development Dan Adams, Acting Director Mara Blitzer, Director of Housing Development Teresa Yanga, Director of Housing Research Amy Chan, Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs Joan McNamara Former Staff: Sophie Hayward Cover photo courtesy of The San Francisco Chronicle. ii DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT DISTRICT 5 NEIGHBORHOOD MAP

LOWER PACIFIC HEIGHTS

JAPANTOWN

FILLMORE/ WESTERN ADDITION

ALAMO NORTH OF THE SQUARE PANHANDLE HAYES VALLEY HAIGHT- LOWER HAIGHT ASHBURY

COLE INNER VALLEY SUNSET

iii LETTER FROM DISTRICT 5 SUPERVISOR VALLIE BROWN

Dear District 5 residents and San Franciscans, rent-controlled buildings in District 5, to boost development of new affordable housing and Building housing for all San Franciscans, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by waiving fees, and especially residents of District 5 has been my highest to increase non-profit and legal services to promote priority. We need affordable housing choices that housing stability and protection. I’ve also pushed match our needs at every stage in life, whether hard to build new affordable housing and to identify you’re a student, trying to get back on your feet, and fast track affordable housing projects on publicly starting a new family, or retired and looking to owned land all across District 5. downsize. For our community to be stable and grow, we have to preserve existing affordable housing as On November 5, 2019, San Franciscans voted to well as build new housing. approve a $600 million affordable housing bond that I cosponsored, Proposition A, which provides We also have to think carefully about what housing critical funding to build more affordable housing now we preserve and build and for whom. Who’s here and in the future. Beyond funding, we also need to now and how are they housed? What are current come together as a community to find new pathways housing needs and opportunities? How has the to accommodate growth beyond what’s currently district grown and changed and how do we expect it possible. We cannot end this housing crisis without to change in the future? What kind of district and City community interest and support. do we want? Our housing must reflect this. As someone who has experienced housing I want to keep residents of District 5 housed here insecurity, I’m deeply committed to continuing to where they’ve built community and established lead on this issue and to collaborating to set us on support systems. At the same time, I don’t want the road to ending this housing crisis. I have worked anyone trapped in housing that doesn’t meet their hard to be a leader that opens forums for us to have needs. I also want this to be a District and a City that the hard discussions together, who has been at the continues to be welcoming, open and diverse. table and who has always sought to find the common As your Supervisor, I have worked hard on many ground among us, but above all, to preserve and to housing policy fronts: to enact the highest possible build more housing in District 5. affordable housing requirements, to protect tenants Thank you for your interest in this Report. I look individually and as a class, to expand the small forward to working with you to build a more sites acquisition program and acquire tenanted, affordable and inclusive District 5.

Your neighbor, Vallie

iv DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii DISTRICT 5 NEIGHBORHOODS MAP iii LETTER FROM DISTRICT 5 SUPERVISOR VALLIE BROWN IV

INTRODUCTION 2

KEY FINDINGS 3

DISTRICT 5 PROFILE 5 People 5

Housing and Housing Costs 9

Land Use 10

DISTRICT 5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION 16 Citywide Planning Efforts 16

Rent Controlled Housing Preservation and Resident Stabilization and Protection 17

Affordable Housing Preservation 20

DISTRICT 5 HOUSING PRODUCTION 24 The Housing Pipeline 25

Development Opportunity Sites 28

CONCLUSION 33

1 INTRODUCTION

Located in the north-central part of San Francisco, Supervisorial District 5 income inequality. This Report offers a deeper analysis of the District’s is made up of some of San Francisco’s most distinctive neighborhoods: housing issues and identifies some future housing policy opportunities Alamo Square, Cole Valley, Fillmore/Western Addition, Haight-Ashbury, that can be used to develop solutions with the community. Hayes Valley, Inner Sunset, Japantown, Lower Haight, Lower Pacific Heights and North of the Panhandle (NoPa). These neighborhoods are This Report is a collaboration between Supervisor Vallie Brown and the home to diverse communities, including historic centers of the city’s San Francisco Planning Department (Planning) along with the Office of Japanese and African American communities, and world-famous archi- Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) and the Mayor’s Office tecture, such as the “Painted Ladies” of Alamo Square. The District has of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD). The report pro- been the home of important social and cultural movements that changed vides key information related to housing affordability and stability in the the city and the nation including the “Freeway Revolt” that halted free- District, presenting this information in four sections: way construction in San Francisco and the “Summer of Love,” a sym- y The Key Findings provide a summary of the data and analysis from bolic event of 1960s counterculture. The district and its people have the report. also experienced great dislocation and loss, particularly with Japanese internment during World War II, and later urban renewal of the 1950s y The District Profile provides demographic information on District and 1960s that displaced thousands of African American residents and 5’s residents, along with information on the District’s existing hous- demolished thousands of homes. ing stock and the District’s zoning, which regulates land use and the development of housing. Housing is central to any community but the past and present of District 5 makes housing production, preservation, and protection particularly y The Affordable Housing Preservation and Protection section focuses important. District 5’s central location between the dense eastern neigh- on the District’s rent-controlled housing and subsidized affordable borhoods and low-density west side of the City, as well as its higher con- housing. It focuses on policies and programs to preserve these hous- centration of renter households and of rent controlled and income-tar- ing types, including protections and services for residents. geted affordable units, also magnify the importance of housing policy in the district. y The Housing Production section provides information on housing development to meet housing needs across all income levels. This This District 5 Housing Opportunities Report is meant to provide a basis information includes completed housing in the District from 2010-2018, for housing policy discussions, highlighting key characteristics and the current pipeline of development, privately and publicly owned trends in the District relative to the city as a whole along with potential opportunity sites for housing development, and policy ideas and con- policies, both existing and new, that may help to address the challenges text on housing development. of the District and the city. District 5 has a distinctive housing landscape relative to the city as a whole, with higher concentrations of subsidized With this shared information, the community and policymakers can better affordable housing for low- and moderate- income people, more housing understand the needs as well as policy challenges and opportunities in subject to rent control, and a higher percentage of renters and multi-unit the District and can work together to address the distinct housing issues buildings. The District has been a microcosm of economic changes in the of the District as well as those shared with the city and the region. city and region, with growth in higher income households and growing

2 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT KEY FINDINGS

Demographics of these over 4,700 are severely cost burdened, spending more than 50% of income on rent. About 2,600 or 29% of all homeowners in the y In 1980 the District had a lower median income than either the city or district are cost burdened, of whom 1,000 are severely cost burdened. the state but by 2017 the District’s median income was higher than The District’s cost burden is slightly less than the percentage in the both due to increases in higher income households. city, possibly reflecting the concentration of rent controlled and affordable housing in the District. y Income inequality is dramatic in the District as in the city as a whole. 34% of District households earn more than $150,000 while another y The District’s existing housing stock is overwhelmingly multi-unit build- 30% earn less than $50,000 per year. Since 2010 the number of ings of three or more units (79%) and a majority of the housing was households earning over $150,000 has increased by over 5,000 while built before 1940. households earning less than $100,000 declined by 3,200. y Just 3.4% of residential land in the District is zoned for single-family y Long-term loss of the District’s Black population began in the 1970s homes (RH-1) compared to 41.4% for the rest of the city. While the in the wake of urban renewal but has continued in recent decades as District’s zoning often allows multi-unit housing, the number of units is income inequality has increased. usually restricted either to a specific number of units or based on the square footage of the parcel (for example one unit allowed per 800 y Black and Asian households in District 5 have lower educational square feet of parcel). attainment and significantly lower incomes than white households in the District. y Most of the District’s housing was built before current zoning and height regulations were adopted and over 43% of the District’s exist- y The District has more single person households and people from 18- ing housing units are in buildings that exceed the number of units 39 years old and fewer families with children than the city in general. permitted by current zoning.

Housing and Land Use Affordable Housing Preservation and Protection y The District has higher concentrations of renters and multifamily y There are an estimated 22,500 rent controlled units in District 5, just apartments and a higher concentration of rent controlled housing and over half of all housing units in the District. subsidized affordable housing than the city. y Eviction notices in the District were at a 20-year low in 2018, and less y Median rents are slightly lower than citywide rents, likely due to the than one-third of levels in the 1990s. Of the 106 eviction notices filed presence of rent controlled and subsidized affordable housing. in 2018, 30 were no fault evictions. The most recent peak in eviction y Home values are higher than the city as a whole in contrast to rents. notices was in 2015 when over 200 eviction notices were filed that Median homeowner income is over $150,000 while renters in the year. District have a median income below $85,000. y There are over 5,000 subsidized units affordable to low and moderate y Over 10,600 renters are estimated to be cost burdened spending 30% income people. About 680 of these units have affordability restrictions or more of income on rent (34% of all renters are cost burdened) and that could expire in the next five years.

KEY FINDINGS 3 y In addition, there are over 700 units in buildings with affordability Broadly, the City’s approach to improving housing affordability and stabi- restrictions that have expired but where rents have not been con- lizing communities includes the following strategies: verted to market. y Strengthen protections and provide services for residents to keep low- and moderate- income tenants and homeowners in their homes Housing Production and communities. y From 2011-2018 there were 1,137 new housing units built in District 5, a y Expand nonprofit capacity for affordable housing preservation, pro- 2.7% increase, lower than the city’s overall housing stock increase of tection and production to achieve greater housing affordability and about 5.8% but better than seven other supervisorial districts. community stabilization. y The housing produced in the District was 5% of all housing built in the y Increase funding to buy and maintain affordable rental housing to city and 10% of the affordable housing built citywide. 46% of housing preserve affordable rental housing for low- and moderate- income produced in the District was affordable at low or moderate incomes. people. y As of the 4th quarter of 2018, there were 2,176 net new housing units y Increase funding for affordable housing development and services in development (submitted, approved, permitted, under construction) to create new homes for low- and moderate- income people and to in the District. provide services to residents. y Most of the District’s housing recently completed or under develop- y Increase housing production for all income levels and household ment is located on parcels in area plans such as the Van Ness Avenue types, subject to the highest possible affordability requirements, Area Plan and Market and Octavia Area Plan, the result of planning to provide additional housing options, reduce pressure on existing with the community to allow additional housing development.1 housing, and provide additional affordable units through inclusionary y Most housing development is also in form-based density areas, where housing. building size and number of units are controlled by design regulations Specific actions already taken to implement these strategies are dis- including height, bulk, open space, and percentage of multi-bedroom cussed throughout this Report. MOHCD has provided some additional, units rather than limits on number of units. specific but not yet implemented strategies to preservesubsidized y There are at least 24 privately owned and 12 publicly owned “soft affordable housing in the District which are described in more detail sites” in the District that are currently underutilized compared to exist- in the section on affordable housing, including: (1) Invoking Right to ing zoning and that could yield significant amounts of housing, includ- Purchase; (2) Creating Incentives for Long-Term Preservation; and (3) ing affordable housing. Providing Technical Assistance to Coop Boards. This Report and the specific information and strategies it discusses are Strategies narrowly focused on housing, but it is important to acknowledge that housing affordability in District 5 and throughout the city is linked to a One of the primary goals of this Report is to spur greater discussion and wide array of macro- and micro- economic, environmental and social development of new, specific strategies to address housing affordability changes including income inequality and the growing popularity of cities. and community stabilization. Supervisor Brown is committed to working Thus, to achieve housing affordability and community stabilization, we with the community and colleagues on the Board, the Mayor, and City must also address a host of other critical challenges including educa- staff to develop and implement these strategies. tional and employment gaps for low- and moderate- income people. 1 Note: for updated housing completes and pipeline data see data available on the DataSF webpage under housing data: https://datasf.org/opendata/

4 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT DISTRICT 5 PROFILE

To address District 5’s housing needs we need to understand who of population growth. The median age of District 5 residents is 36 years, lives in the district, trends affecting the population, and the character- similar to the citywide median of 38. However, District 5 has a much istics of the housing residents live in. This section provides information higher concentration of 18-39 year-olds at 48% compared to 39% for the on the District’s people and housing along with additional context for city. housing planning, including the land use regulations that currently control what can be built in the District and what can be done with existing The District has a smaller percentage of children under 18 than the city property. (10% compared to 13% ) and a slightly smaller percentage of residents aged 60 and older, though this population is growing in both the District and the city. The District has a higher percentage of single person People households (41% compared to 37%) and smaller household size than the city as a whole. It also has a lower vacancy rate than the city overall and District 5 is home to 84,973 residents, compared to a 2017 citywide pop- significantly fewer crowded households (3.6% compared to 6.1%). ulation of 864,263. While the overall population in San Francisco grew 27% between 1980 and 2017, District 5 grew at a slower rate of 22%. The District 5 has historically had a larger concentration of Black residents housing stock in the district increased by 19%, somewhat below the rate than the City overall. As of 2017, Black residents comprised 8% of District

TABLE 1. General Demographics of San Francisco and District 5

% Households % Family / Non- Average % Households with someone % Single Person Population Total Households Family Households Household Size with Children 60 Years or older Households San Francisco 864,263 358,772 47% / 53% 2.35 18.5% 34.4 % 36.7 % D5 84,973 40,547 36% / 64% 2.1 12.3% 29.4 % 41.3 %

19% 4% 6% 6% 56% 22% 12% 21% 4% 5% 41% 10% 21% 11% 9% 15% 18% 19% RACE & SF MEDIAN D5 MEDIAN AGE AGE RACE & ETHNICITY INCOME INCOME SF District 5 ETHNICITY SF District 5 11% $96,265 12% $99,049 21% 20% 27% 17% 39% 34% 5% 16% 23% 8% 48% 20%

Under 5 18–39 60 or Over White Asian Two or More or Less than $15K $50K–$99,999 $150K–$199,999 Other Race 5–17 Years 40–59 Black Latino $15K–$49,999 $100K–$149,999 $200K or More

Source: American Community Survey 2017 5-Year data

DISTRICT 5 PROFILE 5 BLACK POPULATION District 5 CHANGE IN MEDIAN INCOME California, San Francisco, District 5

$100K California

San Francisco $80K District 5

$60K 30,265 42% 23,359 $40K 34% 17,465 24% 11,854 $20K 15% 7,223 8% $0K 1970 1980 1990 2000 2017 1980 1990 2000 2010 2017 Source: Census and American Community Survey data in part aggregated using Social Explorer

5, compared to 5% of the city. Significant, however, is the disturbing loss Household incomes climb in the predominantly White census tracts in of the Black population from the District since 1970 when Black residents Cole Valley, Haight-Ashbury, and Lower Haight and are highest around made up 42% of the population. Over this time period, the White pop- Buena Vista Park. Median household income drops to $24,000 in the ulation increased by about a third and the Asian population more than Western Addition where affordable housing developments are con- doubled but remains below the citywide percentage. The loss of the centrated and the population is more racially diverse. White house- Black population began in the 1970s in the aftermath of urban renewal, holders’ median income is $119,335. Asian householders’ median income but declines since then have coincided with large increases in house- is just 65% of White householders’ and Black householders’ median hold income in the district and a population that is highly educated and income is less than 25% of White householders. “Householders” are the more likely to work in professional careers. primary persons who answered Census questions about the household.

Median household income in the District has soared since 1980 by Educational attainment among District 5 residents is higher than it is an estimated 189%, from $34,269 to $99,049, accounting for infla- citywide, with 67% of District 5’s adult residents having earned either a tion. Median income in San Francisco has also dramatically increased 4-year college degree or a graduate/professional degree compared to over this period by 114% from $45,043 to $96,265. In contrast, median 53% in the city. Differences in income by race and ethnicity likely reflect income in California has only increased by 17% since 1980 from $57,568 differences in educational attainment in District 5: 79% of White adults to $67,169, accounting for inflation. District 5 went from being relatively have a 4 year college degree or graduate degree compared to just 22% poor compared to the rest of the state to being considerably higher of Black adults, 53% of Latino adults, and 62% of Asian adults. As of 2017, income, a dramatic example of citywide trends. The District also demon- the unemployment rate for District 5 was 4%, compared to 5% for the strates the extremes of income present in the city. Thirty-four percent City overall. (34%) of the District’s households earn more than $150,000 while another 30% of households earn less than $50,000. From 2010 to 2017 The Black population in the District and citywide has a significantly the number of households earning over $150,000 increased by more higher unemployment rate estimated at 14%. The distribution of working than 5,000 with the majority of these earning more than $200,000. Over residents in the District by field of work is similar to the city; however, the the same period households earning less than $100,000 declined by District has more residents that work in management and professional 3,200. fields and fewer residents working in service occupations or fields focusing on production, transportation, construction, and maintenance.

6 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT MAP 1. District 5 Median Household Income and Race/Ethnicity per Census Tract

JACKSON ST WALNUT ST VAN NESS AVE

LARKIN ST PIERCE ST WASHINGTON ST

CHERRY ST CLAY ST MAPLE ST

LAUREL ST PINE ST Majority White SACRAMENTO ST

BRODERICK ST

PRESIDIO AVE BAKER ST Asian

LYON ST BUCHANAN ST Majority14TH AVE Non-White 25% 12TH AVE $87,969 LAKE ST BUSH ST

Note:For Census For Census tracts where tracts the where percentage the SUTTER ST of particular communities of color is 25% POST ST percentage of particular communities MASONIC AVE ofor colormore, istheCALIFORNIA 25% population or ST more, percentage the population is $65,536

Asian WEBSTER ST

displayed in thePARK PRESIDIO BLVD tract. percentage is displayed11TH AVE in the tract.

10TH AVE 34% GEARY BLVD POLK ST ARGUELLO BLVD Asian CLEMENT ST SPRUCE ST Asian 15TH AVE Black $62,731 41%ELLIS ST

GOUGH ST 34% 32% ELLIS ST EDDY ST LAGUNA ST PIERCE ST $63,808

17TH AVE 16TH AVE 4TH AVE 18TH AVE

2ND AVE 6TH AVE OFARRELL ST Asian

8TH AVE SHRADER ST DIVISADERO ST $66,603 STEINER ST TURK ST 30% $24,041 ANZA ST 5TH AVE Black FRANKLIN ST

9TH AVE

MCALLISTER ST 35% TURK BLVD Asian GOLDEN GATE AVE $100,509 25%

19TH AVE BALBOA ST GROVE ST FULTON ST FILLMORE ST

FUNSTON AVE

3RD AVE

BRODERICK ST OCTAVIA ST 7TH AVE GOLDEN GATE AVE $88,611 GROVE ST CABRILLO ST MCALLISTER ST CENTRAL AVE LYON ST $132,742 BAKER ST HAYES ST CLAYTON ST $119,321 FELL ST COLE ST $117,156 12TH ST OAK ST PIERCE ST $83,672 GOUGH ST

LYON ST SCOTT ST CENTRAL AVE PAGE ST

ASHBURY ST

COLE ST HAIGHT ST $103,730 SHRADER ST WALLER ST $134,395 $159,634 MISSION ST

CLAYTON ST WALLER ST DUBOCE AVE SANCHEZ ST

COLE ST

14TH ST BEULAH$129,792 ST FREDERICK ST LINCOLN WAY MARKET ST CAPP ST

19TH AVE 15TH ST

SHRADER ST

GUERRERO ST

16TH AVE

$155,278 VALENCIA ST

Asian Asian CARL ST 2ND AVE 2ND

$117,668AVE 3RD BLVD 37% 29% ARGUELLO

IRVING ST AVE 9TH CASTRO ST

4TH AVE 4TH GRATTAN ST 16TH ST

$97,039 $114,535 ALMA ST

5TH AVE 5TH 12TH AVE 12TH

FUNSTON AVE FUNSTON PARNASSUS AVE

14TH AVE 14TH 6TH AVE 6TH

CHURCH ST 17TH ST 7TH AVE 7TH RIVOLI ST JUDAH ST

DOLORES ST

DOUGLASS ST 8TH AVE 8TH

NOE ST

CAPP ST

10TH AVE 10TH 18TH ST 15TH AVE 15TH KIRKHAM ST

DIAMOND ST

18TH AVE 18TH 19TH ST

17TH AVE 17TH 11TH AVE 11TH LAWTON ST

20TH ST

Source: US Census American Community Survey 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates 0.5 Miles

Source: US Census American Community Survey 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates DISTRICT 5 PROFILE 7 TABLE 2. Housing Demographics of San Francisco and District 5 3% 63% Total Estimated Crowded 15% Housing Renter Owner Rent Affordable (> 1 person 4% 57% Not rent Units Occupied Occupied Vacancy Controlled* Units* per room) 19% burdened (< 30%) RENT Rent burdened SF 389,574 63% 37% 8.1% 40% 999999% 6.1% 30–50% RENT BURDEN D5 43,779 77% 23% 7.6% 52% 14% 3.6% BURDEN District 5 Severely rent SF burdened > 50% 19% *The majority of District 5’s affordable housing would be subject to rent control should affordability Not able to requirements lapse. With these units included the total rent controlled stock is estimated at nearly 63% 20% calculate of all housing in District 5.

Source: American Community Survey 2017 5-Year data, San Francisco Parcel Data, State and federal data provided by California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC). Local funding data provided by MOHCD. Public Housing data provided by HUD eGIS.

31% 11% Zillow Median List Rent and Home Value by Zip Code as of TABLE 3. 27% 32% 1 unit – detached January 2019 10% or unattached 1-Bedroom 2- Bedroom 2 units UNITS BY Zip Code Median List Rent Median List Rent Home Value UNITS BY 3–4 units BUILDING SIZE BUILDING SIZE 94115 $ 3,295 $ 4,400 $ 1,549,800 SF District 5 5–9 units 10% 17% 94117 $ 3,200 $ 3,995 $ 1,620,300 10–19 units 10% 10% 94122 $ 2,850 $ 3,350 $ 1,428,200 11% 14% 20 or more units San Francisco $ 3,500 $ 4,500 $ 1,353,500 17%

Source: Zillow

EVICTION NOTICES District 5 7% 16% 500 Other 10% 14% Studio (no separate No Fault 400 19% 14% bedroom) 26% For Cause UNITS BY 1 bedroom UNITS BY 300 NUMBER OF NUMBER OF 2 bedrooms BEDROOMS BEDROOMS SF 3 bedrooms 200 District 5 4 or more bedrooms 100 31%

28% 35% 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Source: SF Open Data Source: American Community Survey 2017 5-Year data

8 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT 7% 52% Housing and Housing Costs 8% 48% 12% Based on a 2017 count, there were 43,779 residential units in District 5. 10% 1939 or earlier While 63% of San Francisco households are renters, the percentage is 34% YEAR 29% YEAR 1940–1979 even higher in District 5 at 77% of households. Just 11% of the District’s BUILT BUILT housing is single-family homes compared to 31% citywide. The District SF 1980–1999 District 5 has more multifamily housing of all sizes than the city, from 3-4 unit 2000 or later buildings to buildings of 20 units or more, and a higher percentage of 1-bedroom units and fewer multi-bedroom units than the city. Most of the residential density is concentrated in the Fillmore, Western Addition, and Hayes Valley neighborhoods. The age of housing in the District is very similar to housing throughout the city, with just over 80% built before 1980. However, more than half of the District’s housing was built before 1939 compared to slightly less than half in the city. 11% 6%

16% 4% 26% The District has a higher percentage of units estimated to be rent con- 20% 1979 or earlier 10% trolled than the city (52% compared to 40%) and a higher percentage 1980–1989 of units subsidized to be affordable at low and moderate incomes (14% 12% OWNER MOVE OWNER MOVE 1990–1999 compared to 9%). IN YEAR 16% IN YEAR 28% SF District 5 2000–2009 19% in The District reflects trends similar to the rest of the 2010–2014 Length of tenure city: owners tend to have been in their homes longer while renters have 30% 2015 or later been in their homes for less time. However, District 5 shows more recent turnover among owners than in the city as a whole. While renters tend to have moved into their units more recently than owners, over 44% of renters in both the District and the city have been in their homes 8 years or more. In addition, renter households in the District as well as 5% 2% the city are more numerous than owners, so residents who have lived in 4% 3% the District for decades are actually more likely to be renters than own- 12% 12% 1979 or earlier ers. Of households who moved into the District in 1999 or before, about 10% 12% 43% 43% 1980–1989 3,500 are owners while over 5,800 are renters.

RENTER MOVE RENTER MOVE 1990–1999 IN YEAR IN YEAR According to Zillow, median list rents in zip codes covering the District SF District 5 2000–2009 were $2,850-$3,295 for 1-bedroom units compared to $3,500 citywide. 2010–2014 The list rent is the rent asked by property owners with units available for 26% 2015 or later rent who provided data to Zillow. 2-bedroom unit rents ranged from 26% $3,350-$4,400 compared to $4,500 citywide. Census data shows that rents of current residents are significantly below the Zillow asking rents, Source: American Community Survey 2017 5-Year data likely reflecting that many renters live in rent controlled units or subsidized affordable housing with rents below market rate. District 5 has

DISTRICT 5 PROFILE 9 higher home values than the city, in contrast to the slightly less expen- facilities, such as schools, makes up 4% of land in the District. Most sive rental stock. Along the same lines, incomes of renters and owners of the remainder of the district is zoned for residential use or mixed- are also drastically different: the estimated median income of owner use areas that allow neighborhood commercial businesses along with households in the District is over $150,000 while the median income of residential on upper stories. Overall, zoning in District 5 allows more renter households is estimated at $84,834. multifamily housing than the city in general, reflecting the longstanding concentration of multifamily housing in the District. More than one-third of renters are considered rent burdened, spending more than 30% of income on rent, but the district’s rate of rent burden Just 3.4% of residential land in District 5 is zoned RH-1, limiting a parcel is below the rate in the city likely due to the District’s concentration of to a single family home. In contrast, over 41% of the city’s residential affordable and rent controlled housing. This figure means that over land is RH-1. Another 18% of residential land in District 5 is RH-2, about 5,800 renters are cost burdened and another 4,700 are severely cost the same as the city as a whole. RH-2 allows two units per parcel. Over burdened, spending more than 50% of income on rent. About 29% of 33% of the residential land in the District is zoned RH-3 or RM-1, typically owners are cost burdened or about 2,600 owners of whom 1,000 are allowing 3 units per parcel. Only about 11% of the city’s residential land is severely cost burdened. The District’s rate of owner cost burden is lower RH-3 or RM-1. Another 45% of the District is zoned for multifamily resi- than the city as a whole. dential buildings with more than three units on a typical parcel; however, more than three-quarters of this is in districts with zoning that restricts Eviction notices have exceeded 100 per year for over 20 years, how- the number of homes that can be built using a ratio of units to the square ever, eviction notices of all types reached a low in 2017 and 2018. Since footage of the parcel. RM districts (Residential Mixed) offer useful exam- the 1990s, no-fault eviction notices including owner move-in and Ellis ples with RM-1 districts limiting housing to one unit per 800 square feet act evictions have declined significantly as a percentage of evictions. of parcel area while in RM-3 the limit is one unit for every 400 square Eviction notices in District 5 were 8-9% of all eviction notices filed feet of parcel area. In contrast, other multifamily housing zoning instead Citywide in 2017 and 2018, substantially lower than the late 1990s and defines the form and number of housing units through “form-based” con- early 2000s when eviction notices in the District ranged between 12-15% trols including height, bulk, open space, and unit mix requirements that of all eviction notices citywide. call for a certain percentage of multi-bedroom units. Form-based density districts cover about 10% of District 5 or roughly a quarter of all land in the district that is zoned for multifamily residential. Land Use For comparison, the city as a whole has about 12% of its residential land Zoning controls how the city’s land and buildings can be used, and area zoned using a formula based on units per square foot of parcel affects new buildings and alterations, expansions, and changes of use areas for density controls and a slightly larger percentage of the city to existing buildings. Map 2 shows zoning in District 5. The District is uses form-based controls, though in the city as a whole this zoning overwhelmingly residential but includes diverse building types, from includes commercial and mixed-use districts where office, hotels, and single-family homes and small neighborhood-serving businesses to other commercial uses are also allowed. high-density apartment buildings in busy neighborhood commercial districts along well-traveled transit corridors. Most buildings in the District Most form-based areas in District 5 are located in neighborhoods or cor- predate current zoning. ridors where there have been area plans developed with the community including the Van Ness Avenue Area Plan, Market and Octavia Area Plan, Land zoned for open space accounts for nearly 23% of all the land in and forthcoming Market Octavia Plan Amendment (formerly the Hub). District 5, almost the same as the city. Open space includes the portion Area plans offer a future vision of a neighborhood including housing, of Golden Gate Park within the District, the Panhandle, and all or por- jobs, services, public facilities, parks, streets, and transportation among tions of other significant parks and playgrounds. Land zoned forpublic

10 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT other elements. Area plans can take years to develop working with the While zoning regulates what property can be used for, height and bulk community and elected officials and typically include legislative updates are also regulated to determine how large a building can be. Excluding to zoning and other policies. open space that has no height district, nearly 69% of District 5 has height controls of 40 feet or less, or about 4 stories. About 76% of the city has Housing development in the city and the District, including affordable a height limit up to 4 stories. About 15% of District 5 allows height of 5 housing development, occurs mostly in form-based areas due at least in stories (50-55 feet) and over 5% of the District allows up to 6 stories (60 - part to the fact that buildings with more units are more often allowed in 65 feet), mostly on major streets on the District’s east side. Just 3% of the these areas. Affordable housing development is more common in form- city’s land is zoned for heights up to 5 stories and another 7.6% for 6 sto- based districts for two reasons: (1) large multi-family developments that ries. Four percent of District 5 allows 8-10 story buildings (80-105 feet). A would be subject to the city’s inclusionary program (buildings of 10 or similar percentage of the city allows these heights. Over 6% of District 5 more units and a higher rate for buildings of 25 units or more) are more allows more than 10 stories, mostly on Van Ness, Geary, and Fillmore. A common in form-based areas. In addition, when area plans have imple- few parcels at Geary and Gough and Market and Van Ness allow more mented form-based zoning to allow more housing, special inclusionary than 20 stories. Only about 4% of the city allows buildings taller than 10 rates have often been adopted to capture more affordable housing from stories. the increase in housing permitted. (2) Developers of 100% affordable San Francisco and the State of California both have adopted affordable housing typically prefer sites where they can build 50-100 units or more housing bonus programs meant to encourage more affordable hous- because these buildings are more efficient to finance, construct, and ing for low and moderate income households. San Francisco’s local manage than smaller buildings, and form-based districts have been more programs include the Affordable Housing Bonus Program for 100% likely to permit these larger housing developments. affordable projects andHOME-SF for projects that exceed inclusionary affordable housing requirements.Both programs only apply in districts where at least three units are allowed on a parcel so RH-1 and RH-2 TABLE 4. Zoning of Residential Land in District 5 and San Francisco are excluded from both. The 100% affordable housing bonus offers up Zoning District D5 SF to three additional floors and a shift to form-based density if applicable. In exchange for an increased percentage of affordable units, HOME-SF RH-1 (one unit) 3.4% 41.4% allows more housing units by applying form-based zoning. HOME-SF RH-2 (two units) 18.0% 18.0% allows one to two stories of additional height also in exchange for addi- RH-3/ RM-1 (typically three units) 33.7% 11.2% tional affordability. The State Density Bonus law offers increased density up to a maximum of 35% as well as incentives, concessions, and waivers Multi unit limited by parcel area ratio 34.7% 10.4% from the Planning Code in exchange for specified amounts of affordable Multi unit “Form-based” 9.5% 8.3% housing. Because the State bonus is only available for projects provid- Commercial* 0.7% 5.2% ing affordable units on site it is most likely to be used by developers of Redevelopment Plan Area* 5.40% buildings of 10 units or more that are required to provide affordable units under San Francisco’s Inclusionary Housing regulations. Smaller projects Total 100.0% 100.0% that are not required to provide affordable units are highly unlikely to * Parcels with Commercial zoning may be used for housing, however, can also be used for office, add the affordable housing required to use this bonus. The State bonus hotels, and other commercial uses so housing may not always be likely. Redevelopment Plan can take the form of additional height or units though the exact request areas for Mission Bay and Candlestick Point have their own zoning, which allows significant from a developer depends on the size and shape of the “base project” amounts of housing, however, the plan areas also include open space and public and commercial uses. allowed by the existing zoning and the amount of affordable housing included. Source: SF Planning Land Use Database

DISTRICT 5 PROFILE 11 MAP 2. District 5 Zoning Use Districts

ST JACKSON T HINGTON S AVE WAS PACIFIC

CLAY ST

PRESIDIO AVE ST JACKSON

T T CLAY ST NTO S BR ME HINGTON S SACRA LOCU W AS ST ST W RNIA ODE FILL JACKSON A CALIFO LN

S MO GOUGH Public UT RI D T V UR CK S BA L S RE

B T EL T S OCT SP K ST A ST

P Public T TO S RNI D

K TE V N O R ON S T E I ME GT Y S T A CALIFO D ST CLA CR I SHIN S R RU SA CHE A R S T S W DI

A FRA L

A E B T ST P R V NE MA V PI CE P T IA I R SA NK

P R S T A ST ST BUSH S LE NI Y R T Residential, House Character Districts DER CALIFO LI T ST ST Y S TO CLA S AMEN N S PI CR V SA POL T A ER BU O T

RH-1(D) One Unit Per Lot, Detached N

O L L E U G R A ST ST K A CE NI CH ST R SH N S 05TH AVE 05TH CALIFO BU T ESS S S NTO AN T CRAME T LAKE ST SA PINE S T RH-1 One Unit Per Lot A N S T A LAKE ST SUTTER S VE

E V E SC T

A S

RH-2 Two UnitsV Per Lot POST

H R OTT Y L

E V A E V YFAIR D

MA Y W A

A M STE N

O E

T 2

1 ON

E T ES K

A S

H T

V S R I ST H N SH RH-3 Three Units Per Lot A R BU O RNI A T E Z I IN Y IS ST CALIFO DIO

A A

T 4 1

T 7 1 T ST R E

T D

V N

R E E

ST A POS T S N U F WALL CORN H R S VE I E

T T P E R S

L B A SUTTE

A ST R

NI E S

K R CALIFOR A V T BA A A T

P R

V E A VD R V

I BL M Y V A EAR K E G K

Residential, Mixed (HousesD & Apartments) Districts E I

A N

E V

D E E

V G

E V A AVE S A E R S

A PIN W

E V

H LU A

H Y

R 3

0 EUCLID AVE

H RM-1 Low Density (1 Unit per 800 sf) N T

E T

H S

I T

T 6

0 C POS

T 4 0

E BLVD

T 6

1 Y A

V GEAR RY CT A

T 8

0 CLEA CO A

S E R P K R

N V

SPR BLAKE

A E LLINS S RM-2 Moderate Density (1 Unit per 600 sf) WOO

C H T

A D

UC E

L A

R O

E D S J ST

E ST E A K

W ELLIS ST

V T VD

S T

M BL Y LA RM-3 Medium Density (1 Unit per 400 sf) A EAR L ST

T L G

OFARREL

A GUN

N O M P

N 2 0 E V VD Y BL A T

RM-4 A High Density (1 Unit per 200 sf) GEAR EDDY S

M O

C ELL ST S

H RR FA T GOUGH O POL

LIS ST PI T 5 1 AV EL TERRA VISTA E ER DI GEARY BLVD F K O FILL T W S V E CE B DY S V R ST ED S N I EB T Residential-Commercial Combined Districts A T T A MASONIC AVE SA S C R T U J S TURK MO N A C N T OS S STER

N T

E V ZA DER AN E A N

T A G

N L RE

E V I W E EPH E A RC-4 High Density (1 Unit per 200 sf) O ESS

E V A

A A

E V S

P O V A S

A E

A V

T A T ST

E TE

T 9 0 ST A GA A

1 EN

R A

H V GOLD VE 1 N K VE

BEAU E

T 5 0 I SC

E D

T 8 1 ST VE O A R TA ANZA ST ANZAVIS ST OTT Residential Transit Oriented Districts A TURK

A A

E V M V ST RO

ZA V AN A N

ON E

H SS S

AN T LVD B T RTO Residential Transit Oriented I

E A TURK T

A R S

T 7

0 B

E VE V E

V STE V LI

STE MCAL

A A

V E

E V

E V V

H BR

A T S D E

D ARD AV N

O W

H ED GATE

H EN T CE T

ODE E

T 4 1 BLVD GOLD ST FULTON S

TURK R R S

R 3

0 STE

T 6 1 LI

Neighborhood Commercial Districts NTR AL

T 4

0 MC

S N U F

D V

M CK E V AL T

ST A E L B BALBOA AV NC-1 Cluster (1 Commercial Story) AS TON S E TE FUL GA S T OCT

EN A S

H R

LBOA ST V

BA O GOLD LISTE V AL

I T

A MC O

E T

E S LA D

NIC T 6 0

I GROV A

GUN T E V YES S

NC-2 Small-Scale (2 Commercial Stories) IA HA

N 2 0

WILLARD

E V A

H ST

A V A FRA

E S

H T

T 2 1 TON S E FUL T

S E R P K NC-3 Moderate-ScaleR (3+ Commercial Stories)

T 7 1 ARGUELLO BLVD ARGUELLO S

A ST

T L

P LO ST CABRIL ST LI Y E E N GROV T T S N S T AS S L CABRILLO S ON HAYES R FEL ORTH CLA NC-S Shopping Center (2 Commercial Stories) BA S T HB TON S T FUL ST T COLE

K U Y

E E V T R

R S A ON

Y E V ST SOU

ES T

NCD Individual (Named, Controls Vary) H Y T A S S S HA L ST FEL OAK T

T E

V S

A T

T 0 1 T TH

ULTON S

H F

T 5 1

T 9 1 Neighborhood Commercial Transit DistrictsFULTON ST L ST OAK ST O N FEL NE T CT PAGE S MARKET ST ST A S NCT Individual (Named, Controls Vary) HAYES VI S PASS BY DR A L ST A FEL V ST OAK BL E

OTT ST JO FILL HAIGHT HN Commercial Districts F K ENN ST S LA T ED PAGE MO Y PI DR T S T GUN S ER

VALENCIA ST ST RE C-2 Community Business OAK OTIS N

BU CE O

S A I IN ST S S MCCOPP CE T T CH S STE ER S S MASONIC AVE LL I ST WA T T M ST NTR IGHT C-3-G Downtown General HA AN

A E N AL PLUM ST AS N S SH R S Y ST AN GE PA A HB

RA T V ST T MANN S HER E U DE

T R

Y R

S S T AVE R T R S DUBOCE T LLE D WA MARKET ST T E WOODWARD ST S V A A E T VE STEVENSON ST A CHU E CLA S DUBOCE L E D CLINTON PARK W NOE ST ID BE Y BU ROSEMONT PL A M R ST A RC E T L LL L WA T DO V EN P BROSNAN ST ON S ED I I H S N

V A E LORES

COLE V E DR S

A T R RE T

IST T ZA E ST

E 4TH N 1

KE R V MIS E J S

A CA A

U ST T U

AH E T

UL L BE ST LIAN B ER

V L ST I S H ST A RAMONA AVE R 14T ST DELMAR

D H ION R ING R LANDERS ST J K JR D T RO S G R K IN E S A K H T DOW R UT RICK S R V E L DE M A A S TH E U IN FRE E P L T A IN R T T T A A R NEY S MA M ST T T O IS CK S N DERI ST V LINCOLN WAY FRE I STANYAN ST C A Y 15TH ST A N A

Y GUE LINCOLN WA V E W E U T 1 E B 5TH

PARNASSUS AVE EL ST 15TH ST E

V A EV

V RR SH

A OS

D E V HUGO ST

RO ER

W RA

E V E V N O T

S I

H L

V A A

N 2

0 R A L O S

T C

E V

A L

A A

ARGUELLO BLVD ARGUELLO

T 8 1 R R

S L

T 4 1 T 6 1

S N U F E 16TH ST ST T

IRVING V ST

H T 9

1 M V

T 5 0 S A A U ALBION ST

T S A E

V N T ES

E E

U L WO T IRVING ST A T CLI ST M 16TH ST

V F TTAN S FOR EN

A D S W

E V GR T HOFF ST

A ER

H T A T Y 16TH ST

A S ODL

D Y

E V T 4 0 R A E V CAMP ST

A V U A S

A T

R 3

0 S AN B

E V

T 0

1 SU S

H S T

D H A RNA A ST Y A D ALM S LOW

P O A ER TER

BEL A KET

T 7

0 W A

ORD ST

VE E V T AR

W L T 8 0 VED

DEARBORN ST A ER E M

E T V SATURN ST 7TH ST

H 1 G R E S CAP ST ER

JUDAH D PE O E

V LI ST O E

T 6 0 RIVO

E ST UP R A SYCAMORE ST 17TH ST P

E V

H A A ST DORLAND ST

17TH SA

H C

T 9

0 C

H T O L RB T 17TH ST A ETT S NC 1 AVE ET A Y K

1 R

T 5 1 A T

N M

E V ST HE 8TH O 1

A N

SAN CARLOS ST AN

Z S

H S

OAKWOOD ST LAPIDGE ST ST LEXINGTON ST CARMEL T S

ST T

T 7 1 18TH NOE T T KIRKHAM S DIA 18TH ST T S S M

E V

DOUGL

OND A

VE KET

H A T T AR LI AVE ST SEL 19TH MIS VE CA S BELGRAVE A E M

T 2 1

T R LINDA ST A 19TH ST O S

S C CHU E ION V S NDON A 19TH ST ARE T CL ST W

LOCK S

CA TON ST R I RC LAW D E N CL CUMBERLAND ST E V AY T T ST A P N O H S O E N S T R ST AVE A RO S L S H RING SP T E MOUNTAIN K EY S N B ST H B 20TH L E T A O V V TH ST V J A D 20 K AVE E ST GERMAIN OO R B 20TH ST EU

GLEN M RE N 0 0.25 0.5 Mile PALO ALTO AVE A MORAGA ST R K K A E S T S T T

12 Source: SF Planning Land Use Database DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT MAP 3. District 5 Residential Zoning

ST JACKSON T HINGTON S AVE WAS PACIFIC

CLAY ST

PRESIDIO AVE ST JACKSON

T T CLAY ST NTO S BR ME HINGTON S SACRA LOCU W AS ST ST W RNIA ODE FILL JACKSON A CALIFO LN

S MO GOUGH UT RI D T V UR CK S BA L S RE

B T EL T S OCT SP K ST A ST

T TO S RNI D

K TE V N O R ON S T E I ME Public GT Y S T A CALIFO D ST CLA CR I SHIN S R RU SA CHE A R S T S W DI

A FRA L

A E B T ST P R V NE MA V PI CE P T IA I R SA NK

P R S T A ST ST BUSH S LE NI Y R T DER CALIFO LI P Public T ST ST Y S TO CLA S AMEN N S PI CR V SA POL T A ER BU O T

O L L E U G R A ST ST K A CE NI CH ST R SH N S 05TH AVE 05TH CALIFO BU T ESS S S NTO AN T CRAME T LAKE ST SA PINE S T A N S T A LAKE ST SUTTER S VE

Residential Zoning T

E V E SC T

A S

V POST

H R OTT Y L

E V A E V YFAIR D

MA Y W A

A M STE N

O E

T 2

1 ON

E T ES K

A S

H T

V S R I ST H N SH A R BU O RH-1 One Unit Per Lot RNI A T E Z I IN Y IS ST CALIFO DIO

A A

T 4 1

T 7 1 T ST R E

T D

V N

R E E

ST A POS T S N U F WALL CORN H R S VE I E

T T P E R S

L B A SUTTE

A ST R

NI E S

K R CALIFOR A V T BA A A T

P R

V E A VD R V

I BL M Y V A EAR K E G K

D E I

A N

E V

D E E

V G

E V A AVE S A E R S

A RH-2 Two Units Per Lot PIN W

E V

H LU A

H Y

R 3

0 EUCLID AVE

H N T

E T

H S

I T

T 6

0 C POS

T 4 0

E BLVD

T 6

1 Y A

V GEAR RY CT A

T 8

0 CLEA CO A

S E R P K R

N V

SPR BLAKE

A E LLINS S WOO

C H T

A D

UC E L RH-3/RM-1 Three Units Per Lot* A

R O

E D S J ST

E ST E A K

W ELLIS ST

V T VD

S T

M BL Y LA A EAR L ST

T L G

OFARREL

A GUN

N O M P

N 2 0 E V VD Y BL A T

A GEAR EDDY S

M O HIGHER DENSITY C S

ELL ST

H RR FA T GOUGH O POL

LIS ST PI T 5 1 AV EL TERRA VISTA E ER DI GEARY BLVD F K O FILL T W S V E CE B DY S V R ST ED S N I EB T A T T A MASONIC AVE SA S C R U J S TURK T MO N A C N T OS S STER

N T

E V ZA * RM-1 allows one unit for every 800 square DER AN E A N

T A G

N L RE

E V I W E EPH E A O ESS

E V A

A A

E V S

P O V A feet of lot area. On a typical San Francisco S

A E

A V

T A T ST

E TE

T 9 0 ST A GA A

1 EN

R A

H V GOLD VE 1 N K VE

BEAU E

T 5 0 I SC

parcel of 25 feet by 100 feet (2500 square E D

T 8 1 ST VE O A R TA ANZA ST ANZAVIS ST OTT A TURK

A A

E V M V ST RO

ZA V AN A N

ON E

feet), three units would be allowed much E

H SS S

AN T LVD B T

I E A TURK T

A R S

T 7

0 B

E VE V E

V STE V LI

like RH-3. STE MCAL

A A

V E

E V

E V V

H BR

A T S D E

D ARD AV N

O W

H ED GATE

H EN T CE T

ODE E

T 4 1 BLVD GOLD ST FULTON S

TURK R R S

R 3

0 STE

T 6 1 LI

NTR AL

T 4

0 MC

S N U F

D V

M CK E V AL T

ST A E L B BALBOA AV AS TON S E TE FUL GA S T OCT

EN A S

H R

LBOA ST V

BA O GOLD LISTE V AL

I T

A MC O

E T

E S LA D

NIC T 6 0

I GROV A

GUN T E V YES S

IA HA

N 2 0

WILLARD

E V A

H ST

A V A FRA

E S

H T

T 2 1 TON S E FUL T

S E R P K

R NK

T 7 1 ARGUELLO BLVD ARGUELLO S

A ST

T L

P LO ST CABRIL ST LI Y E E N GROV T T S N S T AS S L CABRILLO S ON HAYES R FEL ORTH CLA BA S T HB TON S T FUL ST T COLE

K U Y

E E V T R

R S A ON

Y E V ST SOU

ES T

H Y T

A S S S HA L ST FEL OAK T

T E

V S

A T

T 0 1 T TH

ULTON S

H F

T 5 1

T 9 1 FULTON ST L ST OAK ST O N FEL NE T CT PAGE S MARKET ST ST A S HAYES VI S PASS BY DR A L ST A FEL V ST OAK BL E

OTT ST JO FILL HAIGHT HN F K ENN ST S LA T ED PAGE MO Y PI DR T S T GUN S ER

VALENCIA ST ST RE OAK OTIS N

BU CE O

S A I IN ST S S MCCOPP CE T T CH S STE ER S S MASONIC AVE LL I ST WA T T M ST NTR IGHT HA AN

A E N AL PLUM ST AS N S SH R S Y ST AN GE PA A HB

RA T V ST T MANN S HER E U DE

T R

Y R

V A E LORES

COLE V E DR S

A T R RE T

IST T ZA E ST

E 4TH N 1

KE R V MIS E J S

A CA A

U ST T U

AH E T

UL L BE ST LIAN B ER

V L ST I S H ST A RAMONA AVE R 14T ST DELMAR

Y GUE LINCOLN WA V E W E U T 1 E B 5TH

PARNASSUS AVE EL ST 15TH ST E

V A EV

V RR SH

A OS

D E V HUGO ST

RO ER

W RA

E V E V N O T

S I

H L V A A

N 2

0 R A L O S

T C

E V

A L

A A

ARGUELLO BLVD ARGUELLO

T 8 1 R R

S L

T 4 1 T 6 1

S N U F E 16TH ST ST T

IRVING V ST

H T 9

1 M V

T 5 0 S A A U ALBION ST

T S A E

V N T ES

E E

U L WO T IRVING ST A T CLI ST M 16TH ST

V F TTAN S FOR EN

A D S W

E V GR T HOFF ST

A ER

H T A T Y 16TH ST

A S ODL

D Y

E V T 4 0 R A E V CAMP ST

A V U A S

A T

R 3

0 S AN B

E V

T 0

1 SU S

H S T

D H A RNA A ST Y A D ALM S LOW

P O A ER TER

BEL A KET

T 7

0 W A

ORD ST

VE E V T AR

W L T 8 0 VED

DEARBORN ST A ER E M

E T V SATURN ST 7TH ST

H 1 G R E S CAP ST ER

JUDAH D PE O E

V LI ST O E

T 6 0 RIVO

E ST UP R A SYCAMORE ST 17TH ST P

E V

H A A ST DORLAND ST

17TH SA

H C

T 9

0 C

H T O L RB T 17TH ST A ETT S NC 1 AVE ET A Y K

1 R

T 5 1 A T

N M

E V ST HE 8TH O 1

A N

SAN CARLOS ST AN

Z S

H S

OAKWOOD ST LAPIDGE ST ST LEXINGTON ST CARMEL T S

ST T

T 7 1 18TH NOE T T KIRKHAM S DIA 18TH ST T S S M

E V

DOUGL

OND A

VE KET

H A T T AR LI AVE ST SEL 19TH MIS VE CA S BELGRAVE A E M

T 2 1

T R LINDA ST A 19TH ST O S

S C CHU E ION V S DON A 19TH ST AREN T CL ST W

LOCK S

GLEN M RE N 0 0.25 0.5 Mile PALO ALTO AVE A MORAGA ST R K K A E S T S T T

DISTRICT 5 PROFILE Source: SF Planning Land Use Database 13 MAP 4. District 5 Building Height Allowed

JACKSON ST WALNUT ST VAN NESS AVE

LARKIN ST PIERCE ST WASHINGTON ST

CHERRY ST CLAY ST LOCUST ST MAPLE ST 40 LAUREL ST PINE ST SACRAMENTO ST 40

BRODERICK ST

PRESIDIO AVE 40 BUCHANAN ST BAKER ST 40 40 LYON ST 50

14TH AVE

15TH AVE

12TH AVE 40 50 20’ 40’ LAKE ST 65’ 96’ 160’ 320’ 40 BUSH ST 40 40 50 25’ 45’ 68’ 105’ 200’ 400’ SUTTER ST 50 POLK ST 50 50 230 MASONIC AVE 50 240 50 50 POST ST 50 130 28’CALIFORNIA ST 50’ 70’ 120’ 220’ OS 105 65 240 40 50 WEBSTER ST 240 PARK PRESIDIO BLVD 40 11TH AVE OS 160

10TH AVE 130 30’ 55’ 80’ 125’ 240’ 65 GEARY BLVD

ARGUELLO BLVD

SPRUCE ST 80 FRANKLIN ST CLEMENT ST 130 50 50 OS 130 35’ 58’ 85’ 130’ 250’ 50 160 ELLIS ST 105 GOUGH ST 160 130 80 65 65 65 130 40 80 ELLIS ST EDDY ST LAGUNA ST OS PIERCE ST 65

17TH AVE 16TH AVE 4TH AVE 18TH AVE

2ND AVE 6TH AVE OFARRELL ST 65

8TH AVE 65 SHRADER ST 50 130 40 STEINER ST 130 65 130 TURK ST OS 40 40 50 40 65 50 50 40 40 40

5TH AVE 3RD AVE 40 ANZA ST 7TH AVE 50 9TH AVE 96 65 50 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 TURK BLVD 40 40 50 MCALLISTER ST FILLMORE ST 50 65 96 GOLDEN GATE AVE 40 BRODERICK ST 40 40 40 40 40

19TH AVE 40 40 BALBOA ST 40 40 50 GROVE ST 40 40 40 50 130 40 FULTON ST FUNSTON AVE CENTRAL AVE 40 55 GOLDEN GATE AVE 40 LYON ST 65 40 OS 50 160 40 40 40 50 40 40 GROVE ST CABRILLO ST MCALLISTER ST 40 40 ASHBURY ST 40 BAKER ST 40 50 120 CLAYTON ST 40 40 HAYES ST 40 FELL ST OCTAVIA ST 40 50 40 40 DIVISADERO ST 40 40 40 40 160 40 40 40 50 120 130 COLE ST 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 40 80 40 40 40 40 40 40 12TH ST 80 40 40 40

40 65 PIERCE ST 40 40 40 OAK ST 40 40 40 40 65 40 OS 40 40 40 40 40 GOUGH ST 40 40 LYON ST 40 SCOTT ST 40 CENTRAL AVE 40 PAGE ST 40 40 40 40 ASHBURY ST 40 40 40 40 40 COLE ST 40 40 40 40 40 50 40 40 HAIGHT ST 40 WALLER ST 40 40 40 SHRADER ST 40 40 40 40 MISSION ST 40 OS 50 40 40 40

40 40 40 40 40 CLAYTON ST

50 COLE ST WALLER ST 40 DUBOCE AVE

SANCHEZ ST

40 40 40 40 50 40

40 40 40

BEULAH ST40 14TH ST

50 40 FREDERICK ST

LINCOLN WAY MARKET ST CAPP ST 40 40 40

40 40

19TH AVE 40 CHURCH ST

40 40 15TH ST 40 40

CARL ST 40 VALENCIA ST

40 40

40 40 40 2ND AVE 2ND 40

ARGUELLO BLVD ARGUELLO 40

130 40

3RD AVE 3RD 130 16TH ST 16TH AVE IRVING ST

40 CASTRO ST 4TH AVE 4TH 80 SHRADER ST GRATTAN ST 16TH ST

40 65 40 40

40 40

40 40 40

40 40

40 PARNASSUS AVE ALMA ST

9TH AVE 9TH

5TH AVE 5TH

FUNSTON AVE FUNSTON 40 12TH AVE 12TH

220 40 40 14TH AVE 14TH 6TH AVE 6TH 130 OS 17TH ST 65 RIVOLI ST JUDAH ST 40 130 40 40 40

DOLORES ST

DOUGLASS ST

40 GUERRERO ST

40 8TH AVE 8TH 7TH AVE 7TH 40 NOE ST 40 25 40 40

CAPP ST

DIAMOND ST 10TH AVE 10TH 40 18TH ST

15TH AVE 15TH KIRKHAM ST 40

11TH AVE 11TH OS

18TH AVE 18TH 19TH ST 17TH AVE 17TH 40 LAWTON ST LAWTON ST 20TH ST

Source: San Francisco Planning Department 0.5 Miles

Source: San Francisco Planning Department 14 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT Because most of the District was built before adoption of the current zoning, height, and bulk controls, many existing residential buildings would not be allowed under current zoning and height or bulk controls (for example the white apartment building next to the “Painted Ladies” in the cover image for this Report). In fact, according to a recent Planning Department analysis, over 43% of the District’s units (more than 19,000 units) are in buildings that have more units than would be allowed by the current zoning for the site. These non-conforming buildings are not only a large percentage of the District’s housing stock; they are often fixtures in the neighborhood that help to define its look and feel.

Recent area plans in the District like the Market and Octavia Area Plan and Market Octavia Plan Amendment and re-zonings like the Divisadero Neighborhood Commercial Transit district have shifted to “form-based” zoning controls that allow buildings more similar to those that were historically built in the District. Form-based controls use regulations on height, bulk, open space, and number of multi-bedroom units to determine the form of a building and the number of units in the building rather than flat restrictions on the number of units based on parcel size that are found in density controlled areas.

DISTRICT 5 PROFILE 15 DISTRICT 5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION

This section discusses current affordable housing preservation and Nevertheless, SFRA targeted the Western Addition for redevelopment protection efforts citywide and in District 5. District 5’s higher concentra- following the rise of the African American population, pointing to over- tion of renter households and a higher concentration of rent controlled crowded housing conditions as “blight.” Urban renewal resulted in thou- and income-targeted affordable units make preservation and protection sands of housing units being demolished in the Western Addition during of existing affordable housing especially important in the district. District the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the destruction of thriving community 5 is home to over 43,700 residential units, of which more than half, or businesses and institutions, and began the displacement of the African over 22,500 units in 4,100 buildings, are estimated to be subject to American community. Community activism in the 1960s and 1970s rent control based on building age, size, and ownership type. Another stemmed mass demolition in the District and shifted the SFRA’s focus to 5,031 units are subsidized, income-targeted units affordable to low- and production of housing. However, by that point, thousands of people had moderate- income households. The majority of income-targeted units been uprooted and thousands of buildings destroyed, forever harming are also subject to rent control due to building age and size. District 5 the African American community and neighborhood. has a higher percentage of units estimated to be rent controlled than the city (more than 52% compared to 40%) and a higher percentage of units subsidized to be affordable at low and moderate incomes than the city Citywide Planning Efforts (14% compared to 9%). Housing that is estimated to be rent controlled is found in nearly every part of the District (as shown in Map 5) while Appropriate public policies, regulations, and investments can help to income-targeted affordable housing is almost exclusively located in keep existing residents in place and preserve housing that is affordable the eastern part of the District in the Fillmore/ Western Addition, east at low and moderate incomes. Efforts to preserve housing and improve of Broderick. affordability in District 5 build upon citywide efforts that include two current projects. Housing preservation takes on even greater significance in light of the District’s disastrous history with urban renewal. California passed the The Planning Department’s Community Stabilization Strategy (CSS), Community Redevelopment Act in 1945 allowing cities and counties focuses on keeping residents, especially people with low and moderate to create redevelopment agencies to address physical and economic incomes and people of color, in their homes and communities. The CSS blight. The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) was created to inventories and analyzes current preservation and protection strategies carry out urban renewal here in San Francisco, with the power to assem- and affordable housing programs with the goal of promoting opportuni- ble and sell property, including use of eminent domain, and the ability to ties to expand or improve these programs. issue bonds funded by property tax increment. The Planning Department’s Housing Affordability Strategies (HAS) Before urban renewal, redlining and other exclusionary housing project, to be completed in early 2020, will focus on how to improve practices including widespread single-family zoning, had left African affordability in San Francisco, especially for low- and moderate- income Americans with few choices of where to live and work, resulting in people. The HAS will provide analysis of housing production, specifically de-facto segregation. Despite these challenges, the Western Addition affordable housing funding, preservation, and production and will build grew into a thriving African American neighborhood, dubbed the Harlem upon the preservation and protection analysis prepared in the CSS. of the West.

16 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT Broadly, the approach to improving affordability and stability includes the The city’s Rent Control Ordinance applies to buildings that have two or following actions: more units and were certified for occupancy prior to June 13th, 1979. Rent control provides stability for current tenants by limiting how much y Strengthen protections and provide services for residents to keep rent can rise annually to a percentage of inflation, with additional allow- low- and moderate- income tenants and homeowners in their homes ances for maintenance and capital improvements. Some tenant and and communities. tenant advocates have noted that rent increases for capital improvements can create hardship and may even result in displacement. In y Expand nonprofit capacity for affordable housing preservation, protection and production to achieve greater housing affordability and response, the City has developed a hardship waiver program and the community stabilization. District 5 Office has advocated strongly for greater protections in this area. San Francisco also has a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance that limits y Increase funding to buy and maintain affordable rental housing to evictions to specified causes and applies to all tenants, providing addi- preserve such housing for low- and moderate- income people. tional protection. y Increase funding for affordable housing development and services San Francisco’s rent control rules are heavily dictated by Costa-Hawkins, to create new homes for low- and moderate- income people and to a state law that prohibits rent control on newly constructed buildings. provide services to residents. Costa Hawkins also requires vacancy decontrol of rent when a unit becomes vacant and is rented to a new tenant, though subsequent y Increase housing production for all income levels and household increases in rent for the new tenant are limited if the building is subject types, subject to the highest possible affordability requirements, to rent control. Costa-Hawkins also exempts single-family homes and to provide additional housing options, reduce pressure on existing condominiums from rent control unless a tenant has occupied the home housing, and maximize additional affordable units through inclusionary since before 1996. housing. District 5’s higher concentrations of rent controlled housing and renter The Planning Department’s CSS and HAS projects will provide broadly households make preservation and protection strategies all the more applicable strategies for the city. In the sections below, some of these important in the District because they are an important resource for low strategies are reviewed as well as specific efforts in D5. and moderate income tenants. In addition to rent control and just cause eviction ordinances, San Francisco has a number of policies in place to preserve rent controlled housing and protect current residents. Some of Rent Controlled Housing Preservation and Resident the housing preservation programs reviewed in more detail in the CSS Stabilization and Protection include:

The majority of rental housing in San Francisco is subject to rent control, y Demolition controls: Any proposal to remove, demolish, or merge providing relative affordability and rent stability to a large share of the a unit requires a Conditional Use Authorization (CUA) from the San city’s low and moderate income households according to the Planning Francisco Planning Commission that must be approved at a public Department’s 2018 Housing Needs and Trends Report. However, rent hearing. The City’s general plan includes the priority policy “that the control does not depend on the income of the household and, over time, City’s supply of affordable housing be preserved and enhanced,” higher income households are occupying a greater share of rent con- which is generally not consistent with the demolition or removal of trolled units. rent controlled housing, and therefore approval of demolition of

District 5 Affordable Housing Preservation and Protection 17 MAP 5. District 5 Affordable and Estimated Rent Control Parcels

JACKSON ST WALNUT ST VAN NESS AVE

LARKIN ST PIERCE ST WASHINGTON ST

CHERRY ST CLAY ST MAPLE ST

LAUREL ST PINE ST 100% Affordable Parcel SACRAMENTO ST

BRODERICK ST

PRESIDIO AVE

BAKER ST

LYON ST BUCHANAN ST Inclusionary14TH AVE Units

12TH AVE LAKE ST BUSH ST Rent Control Parcel SUTTER ST POST ST

MASONIC AVE OtherCALIFORNIA D5 STParcel

WEBSTER ST

PARK PRESIDIO BLVD

11TH AVE

10TH AVE Open Space GEARY BLVD POLK ST ARGUELLO BLVD

CLEMENT ST SPRUCE ST 15TH AVE ELLIS ST

GOUGH ST

ELLIS ST EDDY ST LAGUNA ST PIERCE ST

17TH AVE 16TH AVE 4TH AVE 18TH AVE

2ND AVE 6TH AVE OFARRELL ST

8TH AVE SHRADER ST DIVISADERO ST STEINER ST TURK ST

ANZA ST 5TH AVE FRANKLIN ST

9TH AVE

MCALLISTER ST TURK BLVD GOLDEN GATE AVE

19TH AVE BALBOA ST GROVE ST FULTON ST FILLMORE ST

FUNSTON AVE

3RD AVE

BRODERICK ST OCTAVIA ST 7TH AVE GOLDEN GATE AVE GROVE ST CABRILLO ST MCALLISTER ST CENTRAL AVE LYON ST BAKER ST HAYES ST CLAYTON ST FELL ST

COLE ST

12TH ST

OAK ST PIERCE ST

GOUGH ST

LYON ST SCOTT ST CENTRAL AVE PAGE ST

ASHBURY ST

COLE ST HAIGHT ST

SHRADER ST WALLER ST

MISSION ST

CLAYTON ST WALLER ST DUBOCE AVE SANCHEZ ST

COLE ST

BEULAH ST 14TH ST

FREDERICK ST LINCOLN WAY MARKET ST CAPP ST

19TH AVE 15TH ST

SHRADER ST

GUERRERO ST

16TH AVE

CARL ST VALENCIA ST

2ND AVE 2ND

3RD AVE 3RD ARGUELLO BLVD ARGUELLO

IRVING ST AVE 9TH CASTRO ST

4TH AVE 4TH GRATTAN ST 16TH ST

ALMA ST

5TH AVE 5TH 12TH AVE 12TH

FUNSTON AVE FUNSTON PARNASSUS AVE

14TH AVE 14TH 6TH AVE 6TH

CHURCH ST 17TH ST 7TH AVE 7TH RIVOLI ST JUDAH ST

DOLORES ST

DOUGLASS ST 8TH AVE 8TH

NOE ST

CAPP ST

10TH AVE 10TH 18TH ST 15TH AVE 15TH KIRKHAM ST

DIAMOND ST

18TH AVE 18TH 19TH ST

17TH AVE 17TH 11TH AVE 11TH LAWTON ST

20TH ST

0.5 Miles Source: San Francisco Land Use data, Assessor data, State and federal data provided by California Housing Partnerhsip Corporation (CHPC). Local funding data provided by MOHCD. Public Housing data provided by HUD eGIS.

Source: San Francisco Land Use data, Assessor data, State and federal data provided by California Housing Partnerhsip Corporation (CHPC). Local funding data provided by MOHCD. Public Housing data provided by HUD eGIS. 18 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT rent-controlled units or affordable housing is very rare. The2018 help nonprofit organizations acquire rent-controlled buildings of 5-25 Housing Balance Report from the Planning Department found 16 units. Buildings are candidates for SSP if at least two thirds of renters demolished units in District 5 from 2008 to 2018 and 413 citywide. have income at 80% of the area median and the building does not need major renovation. y Condominium Conversion Controls: San Francisco limits condominium conversions of rental apartment buildings by prohibiting con- While tenants in rental housing enjoy just cause eviction protections version of buildings of more than 6 units. For rental buildings of 6 units and the majority of renters in District 5 are in rent-controlled housing or or fewer, 200 units per year are allowed to convert to condominiums subsidized affordable housing which helps to stabilize rents, tenants may through a lottery process; however, owner-occupied buildings of 2 still be vulnerable to “no-fault” eviction such as owner move-ins or “at- units may skip the lottery for conversion. fault” eviction due to failure to pay rent or violation of a lease, for example. The number of eviction notices filed in 2018 in District 5 was at a y Short-Term Rental Regulation and Enforcement: San Francisco 20-year low. However, there were still approximately 100 eviction notices requires registration of any homes used for short-term rentals with filed per year in 2017 and 2018. Of these, 46 were no fault in 2017, and the Office of Short-Term Rentals, which also enforces on illegal use 30 were no fault in 2018. Tenants may also receive a buy-out to leave of homes as short-term rentals. While permanent residents of a home a unit or experience problems with the quality of the unit or landlord can rent a room regularly as short-term rentals (in multi-unit buildings, harassment that drives them from their home. The Rent Board can help the landlord or homeowners association may also have their own, mediate such conflicts and tenant services are described more below. more restrictive rules), entire units without a permanent resident host present can only be used as a short-term rental up to 90 days per To address these challenges, San Francisco has developed a variety of year. resident stabilization and tenant protection programs, including: y SRO Protections: Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels in San y Affordable Housing Lottery Preference programs:San Francisco Francisco contain approximately 19,000 units that have historically currently has various lottery preferences for placement in afford- served low-income renters with few housing alternatives including able housing available to people who meet income qualifications for immigrants and seniors or people with disabilities. The City has a these developments. These preferences are meant to counteract Residential Hotel Conversion and Demolition Ordinance that prohib- historic and current displacement and address current needs of San its conversion of SRO rooms to tourist use, prohibits demolition, and Francisco residents and workers. Lottery preferences include people provides for monitoring of SROs. displaced as part of redevelopment who are holders of a Certificate of Preference, tenants displaced by a no-fault eviction or fire, neigh- y Unauthorized Dwelling Unit Preservation and Legalization Program: borhood residents around certain projects funded by the Mayor’s Census data indicates that thousands of people in San Francisco live Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD),residents in unauthorized dwelling units (UDUs) added to existing apartment of census tracts with high displacement pressure, and residents buildings and single-family homes without official permits. Recognizing who live or work in San Francisco. There are additional preferences that preserving these UDUs is important to the stability of residents covering rebuilding of public housing or specific affordable housing and affordability of rental housing, the City has made it possible to developments. Most recently, Supervisor Brown introduced success- legalize UDUs and has protected them from removal except where it ful legislation to expand the displaced tenant preference to include is financially infeasible to bring units in line with building codes. residents at-risk of displacement due to affordability restrictions that are expiring. y Small Sites Acquisition Program: Because many of San Francisco’s low- and moderate- income renters live in privately owned, rent-con- y Tenant Right to Counsel for Eviction: In 2018, San Francisco voters trolled housing, the City has created a Small Sites Program (SSP) to approved Proposition F, which created a right to legal counsel for

District 5 Affordable Housing Preservation and Protection 19 tenants facing an eviction. While this initiative had no funding mecha- y Deploying the SSP to preserve existing affordable housing in District nism attached, Mayor London Breed has since supported the measure 5, beginning with purchase of seven at-risk units at 520 Shrader in by allocating funding. May 2019.

y Tenant Counseling and Education: Through the MOHCD, San y Expanding nonprofit services available in District 5, including opening Francisco has funded a Community-Driven Public Information new offices for the following non-profits in the District: Campaign through advertising in multiple media and Know-Your-Rights Education and Tenant Counseling through local, community-based y San Francisco Housing Development Corporation (SFHDC) to nonprofits. provide free housing counseling assistance, financial empowerment training, and greater access to quality affordable housing and sup- y Tenant and Landlord mediation: Through the San Francisco Rent portive services. Board and the Bar Association of San Francisco, tenants, landlords, property managers, and roommates can receive free mediation ser- y Opendoor Legal opening its first new office outside of the Bayview vices for housing disputes. neighborhood, to provide universal legal access to residents of District 5, including legal services to support tenants facing eviction y Emergency Rental Assistance: San Francisco funds emergency rental and to ensure habitable housing conditions, as well as a new hous- assistance through various nonprofit service providers for families and ing advocate, “ombudsman” position to work with tenants and land- individuals experiencing financial difficulties to help keep residents lords to avoid evictions and litigation prior to any formal legal action. stably housed and prevent homelessness. Future efforts in the District will benefit from and be informed by the find- The CSS is taking an inventory of San Francisco’s existing preservation ings of the forthcoming CSS and HAS. and protection programs described briefly above and aims to identify additional opportunities to do more to stabilize existing residents and communities. Increased funding for affordable housing production and Affordable Housing Preservation preservation and to fund protection services like counseling, education and rental assistance will help to expand the impact of these programs As mentioned previously, District 5 has a large concentration of subsi- along with policy or program improvements. In addition, expanded non- dized affordable housing for low- and moderate- income households, profit capacity in the District will also support housing production and including more than 5,000 income-targeted affordable housing units. preservation and protection services for District 5 residents. These units are located in more than 70 buildings throughout the District, including eight buildings owned by private entities on land owned by the Since taking office in July 2018, Supervisor Brown has taken action to San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA), and the remainder on private implement these strategies to increase preservation of rent controlled land owned and managed by private entities. housing and to strengthen tenant protection services in District 5 and San Francisco, including: During the period of urban renewal in the Western Addition, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided public y Successfully advocating for an additional $40 million for the Small subsidies to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) and other Sites Program (SSP) to acquire rent-controlled buildings, and advanc- private owners to develop affordable rental and cooperative ownership ing use of available data to help identify potential preservation acqui- housing. In exchange for the subsidies, the owners signed regulatory sition opportunities. agreements that restricted rents or resale prices for the length of their contracts. The housing had to be affordable to households that were

20 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT extremely-low-income (at up to 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI)), MOHCD to figure out a long-term plan. In most cases, they have been very low-income (at up to 50% AMI), and low-income (at up to 80% AMI). able to increase the affordability term by entering into extensions or new The bulk of the redevelopment projects were completed by March 1973, agreements. The City is working to preserve long-term affordability and nearly two decades after the redevelopment areas were formed. HUD prevent displacement at these buildings as well as others scheduled to continues to fund project-based rental assistance on approximately expire by, for example, entering discussions with property owners to pro- 2,000 units in the Plan Areas. vide City funding for rehabilitation in exchange for affordability extension.

The affordable housing built with HUD subsidy as well as other federal, Additionally, in February 2019, Supervisor Brown authored and intro- state, and local subsidies represents a unique resource that provides duced successful legislation to expand the City’s Displaced Tenant deeper affordability to lower income households. The Western Addition, Preference in city Affordable Housing Programs to include tenants Fillmore, and Japantown, the areas of District 5 where the vast majority adversely impacted by situations like the above where affordability of this income-targeted affordable housing is located, also have higher covenants or other affordable housing restrictions are expiring. This new concentrations of people of color, indicating the importance of this hous- preference ensures impacted tenants will secure new affordable housing for retaining and supporting the diversity of the District. Many of the ing, and that, when used in conjunction with neighborhood preference, existing households have aged in place, and are now low- or extreme- such housing will be in the same neighborhoods where tenants live if the ly-low-income seniors relying on a fixed income. tenants so chose, mitigating displacement.

When this housing was created, long-term rent or resale restrictions Different buildings have different levels of risk for market-rate conver- were placed on the buildings to ensure they would be affordable for at sion. Buildings that still have affordability restrictions in place may still be least 20 years. As buildings in the District reach the end of these 20-plus at risk for market-rate conversion. The risk level is based on how soon year terms, if federal, state, or local subsidies are not renewed by a building’s affordability restrictions are set to expire and the type of building owners, affordable units are at risk of converting to market-rate entity that owns the building. Those that have contracts expiring sooner rents. The private building owners can choose to pay off their subsidized are obviously at higher risk. And those that are owned by a for-profit loans, not replace them with other public financing, and not renew rental entity, an entity whose mission does not include affordable housing, or a subsidy contracts. Or the regulatory agreements can simply expire with resident board without expertise in affordable housing are also at higher no other requirements put in place. risk.

Without intervention, market-rate conversion of these units and buildings The risk categories are defined as: will result in the loss of affordable housing and the potential displacement of existing low- and moderate-income residents since current y Expired = no affordability restrictions in place market-rate rents in the Western Addition are not affordable to low-in- y Very High = expiring affordability within the next 365 days, and owner come households. If a building ends its affordability restrictions and its is not mission-driven housing nonprofit project-based rental assistance contract ends, individual tenants may receive a rent assistance voucher based on their income eligibility, but y High = expiring affordability in the next 1-5 years, and owner does not the long-term resource of affordability for that building, the community, have affordable housing mission. and the city will end. y Moderate = expiring affordability in the next 5-10 years Fortunately, to date, the 382 units in buildings where affordability covenants have expired or been terminated remain affordable today because y Low = expiring affordability in 10 years or more building owners continue to keep them affordable as they work with y No = publicly-owned property or land

District 5 Affordable Housing Preservation and Protection 21 There are 163 units that are Very High Risk (including at Friendship HUD because of poor living conditions and property management, and Village Two and Ammel Park Coop) and 183 units that are High Risk receiving failing health and safety scores for 5 years. Then in 2007, (Friendship Village One and Thomas Paine Square) in District 5. HUD issued a formal notice of violation, which threatened to place the Affordability restrictions at these sites expired or are expiring at dates in building in default for failing to abide by the terms of its rental assistance 2019-2021. Owners of some of these buildings have shown interest in contract to provide safe, sanitary housing. With the threat of losing the converting the housing to market rate or selling to another entity for cap- building’s subsidy, the owner replaced the property management com- ital gain. There are 332 units that are Moderate Risk and 4,697 units that pany and came to an agreement with HUD to refinance the building and are Low Risk. These are lower risk buildings because they have been create a substantial rehabilitation plan. New 55-year affordability restric- newly constructed or refinanced with 55-year regulatory agreements tions were placed on the project and the rental subsidy endured. with MOHCD or SFHA owning the land and mission-driven nonprofits owning the buildings. District 5 is home to seven public housing developments that are located in Hayes Valley and the Western Addition. These buildings and townhouses total 1,035 homes for low-income residents, many of whom are seniors and disabled individuals, some of the City’s most vulnera- TABLE 5. Risk Status of District 5 Subsidized Affordable Housing ble residents. These homes, like other public housing in the City, were built over the past several decades with capital funding from the federal Risk Level for Market-Rate Conversion Number of Units in District 5 government. Westside Courts (1943) and Plaza East (1956) were built Expired 382 during the 1940s-1950s, as part of New Deal efforts to create jobs and Very High 163 housing and to house veterans returning from World War II. Joan San High Risk 183 Jules, Rosa Parks, Hayes Valley Housing, and 1750 McAllister were built in the 1960s-1970s, during the time of urban renewal and creation of the Moderate Risk 332 Department of Housing and Urban Development. Low or No Risk 4,697 By the 1970’s, the federal government stopped funding the develop- Source: 5 State and federal data provided by California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC). Local funding data provided by MOHCD. Public Housing data provided by HUD eGIS. ment of public housing and shifted to voucher based subsidies. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, HUD began focusing on ways to rebuild dilapidated public housing. In the early 1990s, Robert B. Pitts was built In addition to needing to preserve the affordability of these buildings, to replace Yerba Buena Plaza West. Next, HUD created the HOPE VI program to rebuild public housing as mixed income housing. In the late there is also a critical need to maintain and improve their physical con- 1990s and early 2000s, Hayes Valley Housing (now Hayes Valley North ditions. In almost all cases, the federally-funded buildings are nearing 50-60 years old, and have been minimally maintained. They are in seri- and South) and Plaza East were rebuilt as part of this program. Although ous and often urgent need of substantial capital improvements—if not HUD created the HOPE VI program to partially address challenges with complete rebuilds—to ensure life safety and habitability for the residents. federal disinvestment, starting in 2013, the City stepped in and embarked These substantial improvements require complete systems replacement on a process to rehabilitate public housing through the Rental Assistance including plumbing, electrical, roofs, accessibility upgrades, new win- Demonstration (RAD) program. By converting the properties to proj- dows, and extensive dry rot mitigation. ect-based subsides and transferring ownership to non-profit entities, the public housing buildings were able to get funds to rehabilitate and One example is Martin Luther King/Marcus Garvey (MLK/KG), a 211-unit preserve their affordability. All seven public housing developments in below market rate family cooperative with Section 8 rental subsidies District 5 have received funding through RAD, and the projects are now from HUD. In 1999, MLK/KG was identified as out of compliance by complete.

22 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT Preservation strategies that may be pursued on the local level include: the District. Similarly expanded nonprofit capacity to preserve and produce affordable housing in the District and the City would also support 1. Invoke Right to Purchase: There are two local laws that could be these efforts. used to preserve subsidized housing when it is being sold on the market. The Assisted Housing Preservation Ordinance, or Chapter 60 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, passed in 1990, requires property owners of publicly subsidized housing to notify the City of their intention to opt out of their affordability requirements and provides interested parties with a process to make an offer to purchase the building. The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA), which will be implemented September 2019, requires owners to notify Qualified Non-Profits of its intention to sell any building with three or more units, and provides those organizations with the right of first offer and right of first refusal. Either law may be invoked to negotiate a sale to preserve the long-term affordability of a building.

2. Create Incentives for Long-Term Preservation: There need to be incentives that make preservation an attractive and viable alternative to market-rate conversion. This includes making low-cost mortgages available for acquisition and major capital improvements in exchange for renewing affordability restrictions.

3. Provide Technical Assistance for Coop Boards: Cooperatives have board members that make key decisions for their developments, but most board members do not have a professional background in housing finance or development. Projects like MLK/KG have benefited from technical assistance from a trusted consultant team procured by board members that advised them on long-term financial and maintenance decisions for their homes. Currently, MOHCD is partnering with Enterprise Community Partners, a local nonprofit with experience providing technical assistance on all forms of affordable housing, to provide technical assistance to cooperatives. Technical assistance could include advising boards on financing resources, capital needs plans of action, board responsibilities and obligations and any matter that impacts operations and/or long-term feasibility of the development.

In addition, as is true for preservation and protection of rent controlled housing, increased funding for affordable housing production and preservation would provide resources to preserve existing income-targeted units and expand the number of income targeted buildings and units in

District 5 Housing Production 23 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING PRODUCTION

This section discusses recent housing production and potential for 2017 there are over 4,700 severely rent burdened households who are future housing production in District 5. Housing production is import- mostly low income. Housing produced in the District was not sufficient to ant because it creates new homes for people of all incomes and helps address either group’s needs. relieve pressure on existing housing. While housing preservation and protection are essential to help residents stay stably housed, many District 5 accounted for 5.2% of housing added in the city and 10% of people each year want to form a new household and find a home of affordable units added. District 5 added the fourth most units in the city their own. These people include young adults who want to move out of after District 6 (nearly 57% of all units added), District 10 (over 18%), and a family home, students moving to San Francisco for educational oppor- District 8 (6%) In contrast, at least three Districts each added less than 1% tunities, workers who have found a new job in the city, friends or couples of the city’s total housing and about the same percentage of affordable that want to move in together, families with young children looking for units. Most housing production that occurred in District 5 was in area more space, or older people looking to downsize or move into housing plans like the Van Ness Avenue Area Plan and Market and Octavia Area with more supportive services. Plan, where updated zoning included form-based density and allowed more multi-unit housing development. In this respect District 5 mirrors According to forecasts of population growth from regional agencies, trends in the city as a whole as new housing development has been San Francisco needs to accommodate 483,695 households in 2040, concentrated where Area Plans were completed in recent decades. This compared to 358,772 households in 2017. Where these 120,000 addi- Report does not broach further opportunities for greater housing devel- tional households will live mostly depends on where the city allows new opment which could be achieved by changes to zoning and allowable housing to be built. District 5 has had the 4th most housing development heights, including through further Area Planning efforts. compared to other Supervisorial Districts. The pipeline of development and potential for development in the District will allow the District to While the District has added housing at a slower rate than the city as a accommodate some of these future households, as well as determine whole since 2010, it has had a higher proportion of Accessory Dwelling how much competition there is for existing housing. Units (ADUs) added, representing 10% of the citywide total. ADUs, often called in-laws or “granny” flats, add units to existing residential structures From 2010-2018 housing production in District 5 was 1,137 units about and can be created from existing storage or other space within existing a 2.7% increase in housing in the District over the 8 years since 2010. buildings. Over the same period the city’s housing production was 21,893 units or about a 5.8% increase. Of the units added in District 5, 518 units or 46% In the sections that follow, we explore the potential to produce more were affordable to people with low and moderate incomes (compared to housing in the District including the “pipeline” of housing already pro- 24% for the City) while the remainder, 619 units, were market-rate. Four posed or under construction as well as so-called opportunity sites where hundred and forty two (442) of the affordable units added were in 100% development could occur in the future. For purposes of this Report, affordable housing developments funded by the City, many built on pub- opportunity sites are defined as both privately and publicly owned“soft licly owned parcels resulting from the removal of the Central Freeway. sites”—meaning sites that do not currently have housing on them and are developed to less than 30% of their zoned capacity—that are large Housing added in the District did not appear to keep pace with housing enough (at least 10,000 sq. feet) to support development of a significant needs. As described earlier in this report, since 2010 the District added number of new housing units. over 5,000 additional households earning over $150,000 and as of

24 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT TABLE 6. Housing Completed 2010–2018 in District 5 and San Francisco

D5 SF % of D5 Units % of SF Units D5 as % of SF Total Net Units 1,137 21,893 5.2% Total Affordable Units 518 5,206 46% 24% 10%

100% Affordable Units 442 3,270 39% 15% 14% Inclusionary Units 54 1,717 5% 8% 3% Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 22 219 2% 1% 10% Added 16 184 1.4% 0.8% 9% Legalized 6 35 0.5% 0.2% 17%

Source: Pipeline Data from SF Open Data

The Housing Pipeline approvals. There were also 23 previously unauthorized units in the process of legalization. The Planning Department estimates that projects The housing “pipeline” refers to housing development projects that are that are under construction are generally occupied within two years, in various stages of being permitted or built but not yet completed and entitled projects take two to five years to be ready for occupancy, ready for occupancy. It includes developments that are under construc- and non-entitled projects can take five to seven years, assuming they tion, those that have received approvals from city agencies (often called receive City approvals. “entitlements”) but have not yet broken ground, and projects that have Units in the pipeline in District 5 are overwhelmingly in larger devel- been proposed by developers and are seeking entitlements from the opments on major streets on the east side of the District on parcels Planning and/or Building Departments. The pipeline data provides a where density is “form-based,” meaning the number of units is deter- short- to medium-term picture of increases in the District’s housing mined based on zoning requirements for height and bulk, open space, supply. It shows the location and scale of current and proposed future and unit size (number of bedrooms) rather than a fixed limit on units. construction. A project is considered to be in the pipeline when an appli- Map 6 shows residential pipeline projects in District 5 as of the 4th cation has been formally submitted to the Planning Department or the quarter of 2018. As with recently completed units, most housing in the Department of Building Inspection (DBI). Projects vary in size from single pipeline is located in area plans like the Van Ness Avenue Area Plan and units to larger multi-year development programs that require an exten- Market and Octavia Area Plan, where updated zoning has removed den- sive environmental review process. Currently unauthorized dwelling sity controls and made development of more multi-unit housing possible. units that are being legalized are also counted in the pipeline total. The City provides local public funding for 100% affordable housing As of the 4th quarter of 2018 there were 2,176 net residential units in the projects in which all units are targeted to very low-, low-, and moder- housing development “pipeline”, 312 of which are under construction, ate-income households. These local funds generally are combined with 623 are in entitled projects that have received all required City approv- other State and Federal sources to construct the building. The City’s als, and 1,218 are in projects that have been proposed and are pursuing inclusionary housing ordinance also produces new affordable units by

District 5 Housing Production 25 MAP 6. District 5 Residential Pipeline Projects

JACKSON ST WALNUT ST VAN NESS AVE

LARKIN ST PIERCE ST WASHINGTON ST

CHERRY ST CLAY ST MAPLE ST

LAUREL ST PINE ST SACRAMENTO ST

BRODERICK ST

PRESIDIO AVE

BAKER ST

LYON ST BUCHANAN ST

14TH AVE

12TH AVE LAKE ST BUSH ST

SUTTER ST POST ST MASONIC AVE 1001 Van Ness CALIFORNIA ST

WEBSTER ST 1333 Gough/

PARK PRESIDIO BLVD

11TH AVE

10TH AVE 1481 Post

GEARY BLVD POLK ST

ARGUELLO BLVD

CLEMENT ST SPRUCE ST 15TH AVE 830 Eddy ELLIS ST 950 Gough

LAGUNA ST

BRODERICK ST ELLIS ST EDDY ST PIERCE ST

17TH AVE 16TH AVE 4TH AVE 18TH AVE

2ND AVE 6TH AVE OFARRELL ST 807 Franklin

8TH AVE SHRADER ST DIVISADERO ST TURK ST

FRANKLIN ST

GOUGH ST

ANZA ST 5TH AVE

9TH AVE

TURK BLVD MCALLISTER ST 555 Fulton GOLDEN GATE AVE

19TH AVE BALBOA ST FULTON ST

BAKER ST GROVE ST OCTAVIA ST 1355 Fulton FILLMORE ST 635 Fulton

FUNSTON AVE

3RD AVE

7TH AVE GOLDEN GATE AVE

CABRILLO ST MCALLISTER ST CENTRAL AVE LYON ST HAYES ST Parcel O 1546 CLAYTON ST 650 Divisadero FELL ST Market

STEINER ST 1540 COLE ST 300 Octavia 440 Divisadero 554 Fillmore 22 Market Parcel T Franklin OAK ST PIERCE ST Octavia 1700 Market

LYON ST SCOTT ST CENTRAL AVE PAGE ST ASHBURY ST 1740 COLE ST HAIGHT ST WALLER ST Market

SHRADER ST

MISSION ST

CLAYTON ST WALLER ST DUBOCE AVE SANCHEZ ST

COLE ST

BEULAH ST 14TH ST

FREDERICK ST

LINCOLN WAY MARKET ST CAPP ST

19TH AVE 15TH ST

SHRADER ST

GUERRERO ST

16TH AVE

CARL ST VALENCIA ST

2ND AVE 2ND

9TH AVE 9TH

3RD AVE 3RD ARGUELLO BLVD ARGUELLO IRVING ST CASTRO ST

4TH AVE 4TH GRATTAN ST 16TH ST

ALMA ST

5TH AVE 5TH 12TH AVE 12TH

FUNSTON AVE FUNSTON PARNASSUS AVE

14TH AVE 14TH 6TH AVE 6TH

CHURCH ST 17TH ST 7TH AVE 7TH RIVOLI ST JUDAH ST

DOLORES ST

DOUGLASS ST 8TH AVE 8TH

NOE ST

CAPP ST

10TH AVE 10TH 18TH ST 15TH AVE 15TH KIRKHAM ST

DIAMOND ST

18TH AVE 18TH 19TH ST

17TH AVE 17TH 11TH AVE 11TH LAWTON ST

20TH ST

Source:SAN FRANCISCO Pipeline from SF Open Data and parcel data from SF Planning’s Property Information map (PIM) 0.5 Miles Supervisorial District 5 Select Pipeline Parcels

26 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT requiring a portion of units to be affordable at different levels or requir- TABLE 8. D5 Pipeline Projects by Address Q4 2018 ing developers to pay a fee. Revenues from the Affordable Housing Fee are used to assist 100% affordable projects, which further contribute to Addresses Net Units Affordable Units expanding the supply of below market rate (BMR) units. This inclusionary 1540 MARKET ST 300 Fee percentage varies based on project size, date of application, and other 1001 VAN NESS AV 239 Fee factors and generally applies to projects of 10 or more units.2 28 or Fee Of all projects in the pipeline that have indicated intent to build afford- 1333 GOUGH ST / 1481 POST ST 231 (undecided) able units, 277 units or 22% are currently proposed as affordable to 440-444 DIVISADERO ST AND 1048–1064 183 37 very low-, low- and moderate-income households, including the 108-unit 555 FULTON ST 139 17 development by Mercy Housing in what is known as Parcel O. The 277 830 EDDY ST 126 18 affordable units in the pipeline likely underestimate the total number of affordable units that will be built. Project sponsors generally do not 1546–1564 MARKET ST 109 13 decide how they will meet their inclusionary housing obligations until PARCEL O 108 108 closer to project completion so the exact percentage of affordable units, 1740 MARKET ST 100 12 or the amount that will be paid as the Affordable Housing Fee, has not 950 GOUGH ST 95 11 been determined for most units in the pipeline though current estimates are provided in Table 8. 1355 FULTON ST 75 TBD 650 DIVISADERO ST 60 13 807 FRANKLIN ST 47 5 TABLE 7. D5 Pipeline by Development Stage 4th Quarter 2018 1700 MARKET ST 42 5 22 FRANKLIN ST 35 4 Status Number of Units PARCEL T - OCTAVIA BLVD 27 4 Under Construction 312 635 FULTON ST 15 Fee Building Permit Approved or Issued 623 554 FILLMORE ST 13 TBD Building Permit Filed 642 300 OCTAVIA ST 12 2 Planning Approval 60 OTHER BUILDINGS 228 TBD Planning Application Filed 516 UDU LEGALIZATION 23 TBD ADU Legalization 23 TOTAL 2,176 277 TOTAL 2,176 Source: Pipeline Data from SF Open Data Source: Pipeline Data from SF Open Data

2 For details on San Francisco’s Inclusionary Housing Program, please visit http://sfmohcd.org/ inclusionary-housing-program.

District 5 Housing Production 27 Development Opportunity Sites PRIVATE SOFT SITES District 5 contains 24 privately-owned opportunity sites, i.e. soft sites Many parcels in San Francisco are built to less than the maximum that are developed to less than 30% of their capacity and are larger than development capacity allowed by the underlying zoning district. Some of 10,000 square feet. Many of these parcels have density restrictions, these parcels contain important structures that contribute to the vitality which cap the number of housing units that can be built, typically based of our neighborhoods, such as housing, commercial, recreational, and on the parcel’s land area. In 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved institutional uses. However, some parcels are truly underutilized and, if citywide legislation that removes these density restrictions and allows up built to the full “buildable envelope” defined by zoning, could provide to an additional 3 stories of height for projects that are 100% affordable. much-needed homes and improve overall housing affordability. Large In 2017, the Board approved Home-SF, allowing a bonus of up to 2 addi- sites that are developed to less than 30% of their full capacity and do tional stories and removing density restrictions for projects with on-site not otherwise fulfill important functions are considered“soft sites” that inclusionary BMR housing in excess of the City’s inclusionary require- may provide such housing opportunities. Notably, many important soft ments. Furthermore, the State of California allows developers to build up sites feature automobile-oriented uses such as parking lots and gas to 35% more than local zoning limits in exchange for on-site affordable stations. housing. There are several large parcels in District 5 that could be suitable for As shown in Table 9, there is capacity for an additional 1,569 units in medium- to high-density residential development. Some of these sites, District 5 if all of the privately-owned opportunity sites are developed particularly those that are publicly-owned, could become either 100% to their full capacity under their existing zoning. Assuming develop- affordable projects or mixed-income developments with a substantial ers used the local density bonus for mixed-income projects, an even number of below market rate (BMR) units. The Planning Department has greater number of units could be built. If the local bonus program were identified two specific categories of suitable potential development sites, used on all these privately-owned parcels that currently have density and analyzed the housing potential of individual parcels within those restrictions and the State program on parcels that do not have such categories to get a rough estimate of the total number of units that could restrictions, the total potential new units across the District would be conceivably be built. The categories are: roughly 2,650. y privately-owned “soft sites” that are developed to less than 30% of These calculations assume the parcels would be built to their full capac- their allowable capacity under existing zoning, and ity under existing zoning and exercise the additional density bonus, with y publicly-owned “soft sites” that are similarly underutilized at 30% or ground floor space reserved for retail uses. Housing units are assumed less of their allowable capacity under existing zoning. to be 800 net square feet on average, with an additional 200 gross square feet per unit for building circulation, shared space, and storage. For the analysis in each of the categories, Planning selected only large The calculations assume 75% lot coverage, with the exception of the parcels (i.e. greater than 10,000 square feet), whose shape and location 3.75-acre Safeway site on Geary Boulevard and Webster Street. This make them appropriate for higher-density development. This does not site provides the greatest opportunity for housing, due to its size and imply that the City or private developers have identified any of these par- relatively taller existing height limit of up to 160 feet. A project on a site cels for specific projects. In fact, one of the criteria for their selection is of this size would need to incorporate new public streets/alleys and that they are not in the Planning Department’s “pipeline;” in other words, other spaces which would limit lot coverage to less than the 75% typical there are no active development applications that Planning is aware of of smaller sites, likely in the range of 50-60%. We have assumed the for these sites. (Note, sites with only a Preliminary Project Application site would otherwise be developed at a similar scale and intensity to (PPA) on file with Planning are not considered active pipeline projects.) its neighboring large parcels, specifically with two 15-story towers with

28 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT TABLE 9. Privately Owned Opportunity Sites for Housing Development In District 5

Lot Area Potential units Potential units with Parcel Name Address (sqft) without bonus bonus (state or local) Safeway & Parking Lot 1401 Fillmore St 163,942 515 515 Andronico’s & Parking Lot 1200 Irving St 72,167 90 271 Parking Lot (serving commercial) 2180 Geary Blvd 22,699 38 119 Car Dealership - Tesla 945 Van Ness Ave 21,420 107 225 Whole Foods 1878 Haight St 20,644 34 77 McDonald’s & Parking Lot 1100 Fillmore St 18,106 54 73 Parking Lot and small medical offices 1515 Scott St 17,252 43 78 Commercial Building & Parking Lot (next to Whole Foods) 1800 Haight St 15,352 26 58 Commercial Building Geary/Steiner 15,125 136 184 Car Dealership - Mini 811 Eddy Street 15,000 75 157 Offices of Salesian Provincial 1100 Franklin St 14,464 24 152 Gas Station - Shell (near Fell and Divisadero) 443 Divisadero St 14,399 32 44 Parking Lot (serving Whole Foods) 690 Stanyan Street 13,823 23 62 Hearing and Speech Center of Northern California 1234 Divisadero St 13,778 52 70 Parking Lot McAllister/Franklin 13,671 41 55 Gas Station - Chevron 1698 Fell St 12,903 22 48 Oasis Inn 900 Franklin St 12,600 63 132 Parking Lot (serving Walgreens) 2105 O’Farrell St 11,900 27 45 Gas Station - Arco (near Fell and Divisadero) 1175 Fell St 11,762 44 60 Gas Station - Shell 601 Lincoln Way 11,483 2 43 Larkin Street Youth Services 1020 Haight St 11,344 19 43 Gas Station - Shell (next to State-owned parking lot on Turk) 800 Turk St 11,000 55 74 Office Building 20 Haight St 10,500 24 32 Office Building & Parking lot and 1-story retail 2211 Bush St 10,387 23 32 TOTAL 24 555,721 1,569 2,649

(1) Assumes 1,000 gross square feet per unit and main constraints established by zoning (density control, height limit, setback) and ground floor retail. (2) Same assumptions as (1), but local density bonus program applied to districts with density limits and State bonus program applied to those without. (3) The housing unit capacity of the 3.75 acre Safeway site was calculated with the assumption that development scale and intensity would be similar to nearby parcels, so it does not fully maximize zoning allowance.

District 5 Housing Production 29 MAP 7. District 5 Select Private Parcels

JACKSON ST WALNUT ST VAN NESS AVE

LARKIN ST PIERCE ST WASHINGTON ST

CHERRY ST CLAY ST MAPLE ST

LAUREL ST PINE ST SACRAMENTO ST

BRODERICK ST

PRESIDIO AVE

BAKER ST

LYON ST BUCHANAN ST

14TH AVE

12TH AVE LAKE ST ParkingBUSH ST lot and 1-story retail SUTTER ST POST ST Owned by MASONIC AVE Small medical oces CALIFORNIA ST and surface lot Geary SalesianFRANKLIN ST society

WEBSTER ST

PARK PRESIDIO BLVD strip

11TH AVE

10TH AVE

Parking lot for GEARY BLVD Tesla dealership POLK ST

ARGUELLO BLVD mall

CLEMENT ST SPRUCE ST 15TH AVE medical buildings Safeway Motel/residential ELLIS ST Surface parking units for WalgreensELLIS ST EDDY ST Shell station next Mini PIERCE ST

17TH AVE 16TH AVE 4TH AVE 18TH AVE

2ND AVE 6TH AVE OFARRELL ST 8TH AVE SHRADER ST DIVISADERO ST to state-owned lot dealership Non-proﬁt (hearing McDonald'sTURK ST and speech center)

ANZA ST 5TH AVE 9TH AVE Parking lot

TURK BLVD MCALLISTER ST GOLDEN GATE AVE

19TH AVE BALBOA ST

BAKER ST GROVE ST FULTON ST FILLMORE ST

FUNSTON AVE

3RD AVE

BRODERICK ST

7TH AVE GOLDEN GATE AVE

LAGUNA ST GROVE ST CENTRAL AVE LYON ST CABRILLO ST MCALLISTER ST OCTAVIA ST

HAYES ST GOUGH ST CLAYTON ST Shell station near FELL ST Chevron gas station STEINER ST

COLE ST other new developments across from Panhandle Alliant International University (SF Law School)12TH ST

OAK ST PIERCE ST

GOUGH ST

LYON ST SCOTT ST CENTRAL AVE Larkin StreetPAGE ST ASHBURY ST Youth Services

COLE ST HAIGHT ST WALLER ST

SHRADER ST Whole Foods MISSION ST

CLAYTON ST WALLER ST DUBOCE AVE SANCHEZ ST

COLE ST

BEULAH ST 14TH ST

Shell station FREDERICK ST

LINCOLN WAY MARKET ST CAPP ST

19TH AVE 15TH ST

SHRADER ST

GUERRERO ST

16TH AVE

Andronico's CARL ST VALENCIA ST

2ND AVE 2ND

9TH AVE 9TH

3RD AVE 3RD ARGUELLO BLVD ARGUELLO IRVING ST CASTRO ST

4TH AVE 4TH GRATTAN ST 16TH ST

ALMA ST

5TH AVE 5TH 12TH AVE 12TH

FUNSTON AVE FUNSTON PARNASSUS AVE

14TH AVE 14TH 6TH AVE 6TH

CHURCH ST 17TH ST 7TH AVE 7TH RIVOLI ST JUDAH ST

DOLORES ST

DOUGLASS ST 8TH AVE 8TH

NOE ST

CAPP ST

10TH AVE 10TH 18TH ST 15TH AVE 15TH KIRKHAM ST

DIAMOND ST

18TH AVE 18TH 19TH ST

17TH AVE 17TH 11TH AVE 11TH LAWTON ST

20TH ST

Source: San Francisco Parcel Data 0.5 Miles

30 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT 12,000-square foot footprints and 5-story podium building(s) occupying housing units they may be able to accommodate. Sites with existing the remaining built portion (which would feature a footprint large enough housing, or historic resources, or where agencies have published spe- to accommodate a grocery store on its ground floor). The site could cific guidance for the site’s future have been excluded. Additionally, only accommodate over 500 units under existing zoning. sites larger than 10,000 square feet that are suitably located and shaped for residential development have been included.

PUBLIC SOFT SITES Planning has identified 12 public sites in District 5 that could potentially accommodate a substantial number of residential units, as shown on In addition to the privately-owned soft sites, Planning along with Map 7. Assuming these public parcels (mostly zoned P for Public) are MOHCD, OEWD, and the Supervisor’s office also analyzed the devel- re-zoned with similar zoning parameters (e.g. height limits) as their opment potential of public sites that may be suitable for medium- and adjacent parcels, their development capacity would allow roughly high-density residential development. As with the private sites, these 1,165 additional housing units. If projects on these sites were to use public sites were not selected because of any specific projects that have the HOME-SF program or the State’s bonus program on parcels that been proposed for them and they have not been identified as surplus by do not have density limits, the number of possible units would rise to the City or other relevant public entities. These sites are an initial inven- 2,080, as shown in Table 10. tory of potential sites for discussion and a rough estimate of how many

TABLE 10. Publicly owned Opportunity sites for housing development in District 5

Lot Area Potential units Potential units with Parcel Name Address (sqft ) without bonus (1) bonus (local or state -2) Ella Hill Hutch Community Center 1050 McAllister 102,094 255 459 DMV and Parking Lot 1377 Fell St 98,061 163 368 Northern Police Station and Parking Lot 1125 Fillmore St 66,000 165 297 McDonald’s and Parking Lot 700 Stanyan St 37,871 63 170 Parking Lot (African American Art & Culture Complex) Fulton/Buchanan 26,469 44 119 Parking Lot (SFUSD-owned, Central Freeway parcel) 555 Franklin 22,313 67 90 Parking lot (State-owned) Turk (between Gough & Franklin) 18,906 95 128 Parking Lot SF Credit Union Central (Central Freeway parcel) Golden Gate (between Gough & Franklin) 16,880 139 188 Parking Lots (State-owned) 700 Golden Gate Ave 12,820 106 143 Parking Lot (City- (SFMTA) owned) Irving/9th Ave 11,927 15 45 Proxy (City-owned, Central Freeway Parcel K) 370 Linden St 11,486 35 50 Biergarten (City-owned, Central Freeway Parcel L) 380 Fell St 5,976 18 24 TOTAL Large Public Sites 12 451,607 1,165 2,081

1. Assumes 1,000 gross square feet per unit and main constraints established by zoning (density control, height limit, setback) and ground floor retail. 2. Same assumptions as (1), but local density bonus program applied to districts with density limits and State bonus program applied to those without.

District 5 Housing Production 31 MAP 7. District 5 Select Public Parcels

JACKSON ST WALNUT ST VAN NESS AVE

LARKIN ST PIERCE ST WASHINGTON ST

CHERRY ST CLAY ST MAPLE ST

LAUREL ST PINE ST SACRAMENTO ST

BRODERICK ST

PRESIDIO AVE

BAKER ST

LYON ST BUCHANAN ST

14TH AVE

12TH AVE LAKE ST BUSH ST

SUTTER ST POST ST

MASONIC AVE CALIFORNIA ST FRANKLIN ST

WEBSTER ST

PARK PRESIDIO BLVD

11TH AVE

10TH AVE

GEARY BLVD POLK ST

ARGUELLO BLVD

CLEMENT ST SPRUCE ST 15TH AVE ELLISState-owned ST parking lot ELLIS ST Northern EDDY ST PIERCE ST Block of

17TH AVE 16TH AVE 4TH AVE 18TH AVE

2ND AVE 6TH AVE OFARRELL ST Police 8TH AVE SHRADER ST DIVISADERO ST Station SF Credit Union state-owned TURK STCentral Freeway parking lots parcel ANZA ST 5TH AVE 9TH AVE Ella Hill Hutch

TURK BLVD Community CenterMCALLISTER ST SFUSD employee GOLDEN GATE AVE parking (Central

19TH AVE BALBOA ST

BAKER ST African American Art & GROVE ST Freeway) FULTON ST FILLMORE ST

FUNSTON AVE Culture Complex

3RD AVE

BRODERICK ST

7TH AVE GOLDEN GATE AVE parking lot LAGUNA ST City-owned parcel GROVE ST CENTRAL AVE LYON ST CABRILLO ST MCALLISTER ST OCTAVIA ST (Parcel K) HAYES ST GOUGH ST CLAYTON ST FELL ST

STEINER ST

COLE ST City-owned

DMV Biergarten site 12TH ST

OAK ST PIERCE ST

GOUGH ST

LYON ST SCOTT ST CENTRAL AVE PAGE ST

ASHBURY ST

COLE ST HAIGHT ST WALLER ST

SHRADER ST

MISSION ST Former State-owned Central McDonald's Freeway parcel

CLAYTON ST WALLER ST DUBOCE AVE Site SANCHEZ ST

COLE ST

BEULAH ST 14TH ST

FREDERICK ST

LINCOLN WAY MARKET ST CAPP ST

19TH AVE City-(SFMTA) 15TH ST SHRADER ST

GUERRERO ST

16TH AVE

owned CARL ST VALENCIA ST

2ND AVE 2ND

9TH AVE 9TH 3RD AVE 3RD

parking lot BLVD ARGUELLO IRVING ST CASTRO ST

4TH AVE 4TH GRATTAN ST 16TH ST

ALMA ST

5TH AVE 5TH 12TH AVE 12TH

FUNSTON AVE FUNSTON PARNASSUS AVE

14TH AVE 14TH 6TH AVE 6TH

CHURCH ST 17TH ST 7TH AVE 7TH RIVOLI ST JUDAH ST

DOLORES ST

DOUGLASS ST 8TH AVE 8TH

NOE ST

CAPP ST

10TH AVE 10TH 18TH ST 15TH AVE 15TH KIRKHAM ST

DIAMOND ST

18TH AVE 18TH 19TH ST

17TH AVE 17TH 11TH AVE 11TH LAWTON ST

20TH ST

Source: San Francisco Parcel Data 0.5 Miles

32 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT CONCLUSION

Like the rest of San Francisco, District 5 has experienced growing protection, and production to help achieve housing affordability and housing affordability challenges as the overall population and number community stabilization results. of higher income residents has increased while housing production has lagged. The District has also suffered specific displacement and loss of y Increase funding for affordable housinginvestment and services to historic communities, including the Black and Japanese communities. create new homes for low- and moderate- income people, preserve Given this history and present challenges, the District has a need that is existing affordable housing, and provide services to residents. shared with other parts of the city to stabilize current residents and find y Increase housing production for all income levels and household strategies to improve affordability. The District also has unique housing types to provide additional housing options, reduce pressure on exist- resources, such as the concentrations of rent controlled and subsidized ing housing, and provide additional affordable units through inclusion- affordable housing as well as an engaged community interested in find- ary housing. ing solutions to current challenges so as to build the best possible future for the District. With respect to the future of housing in District 5, the housing pipeline includes 2,176 housing units in some phase of development. Major This Report is intended to help inform discussions between District 5 opportunity sites within District 5 could yield almost 2,800 additional residents and stakeholders, city agencies, and the Supervisor, to help units under existing zoning and over 4,700 with bonus programs in identify strategies for housing production, preservation, and protection exchange for greater affordability. Taken together, with the will and that stabilize current residents and increase affordability and opportunity funding, these pools of potential housing could yield between 4,900 to for current and future residents. Work is already underway to achieve 6,900 units over the coming 10-20 years. This additional housing would these goals in the District and builds upon the numerous actions taken represent an 11% to 13% increase in housing if all these potential units to date by the Board of Supervisors and Mayor’s Office, and these efforts were built. At least 25% of these units would likely be affordable to low will continue to build and be informed by forthcoming Citywide strate- and moderate income households if recent history within the District and gies including the Community Stabilization Strategy (CSS) and Housing the city are any guide and, importantly, the amount of affordable housing Affordability Strategies (HAS). could be increased depending on the availability of public funding or The City’s approach to improving affordability and stability are deeply incentives to support more mixed income development. However, new interwoven and broadly follow these key strategies: housing production depends on the willingness of private and public landowners to pursue development opportunities and the financial fea- y Preserve affordable rental housingthrough investment and regu- sibility of development as well as community interest and support. Given lation to maintain existing housing that serves low- and moderate- the size of these developments, lengthy approvals processes could also income people. impact when projects are delivered. y Strengthen protections and provide services for residents to keep The Housing Affordability Strategies (HAS) project will provide additional low- and moderate- income tenants and homeowners in their homes ideas to produce more housing overall and specifically to produce more and communities. affordable housing for San Francisco including District 5. The HAS is currently underway and expected to be completed in early 2020. However, y Expand nonprofit capacityfor affordable housing preservation, new policy and budgeting proposals are constantly coming forward, and

CONCLUSION 33 will continue to be considered and implemented as work on the HAS these reasons, Supervisor Brown helped lead recent, successful legisla- proceeds. As mentioned in relation to affordable housing preservation tion to create a $2 million fee waiver pilot program for affordable hous- and protection, increased funding is also absolutely critical to produce ing and ADUs to encourage the production of new affordable housing additional new affordable housing in the District and the city. Supervisor and ADUs now and in 2020. Brown, alongside Mayor Breed and all of her colleagues on the Board of Supervisors, sponsored a $600M affordable housing bond, Proposition Working with the community, elected leaders, city staff and policy mak- A, which San Franciscans voted to approve on November 5, 2019. ers will continue to develop citywide policies and District-level initiatives Proposition A will now fund development of key affordable housing proj- to address the housing challenges and opportunities in District 5. Please ects in District 5 and across the city. stay engaged by reaching out to the District 5 Office.

Supervisor Brown’s goal has been to work with community members, City agencies, and public and private landowners to identify public and private sites that are of particular priority for housing development and to advance development proposals on those sites. She has worked closely with city staff to prepare Requests for Qualifications/Proposals at several sites identified in this Report, including 700-730 Stanyan and 370 Linden (Parcel K).

Similar to the legislation Supervisor Brown passed to heighten affordability requirements for the Divisadero Neighborhood Commercial Transit District (NCT) that significantly increased the number of affordable units that will be produced by pipeline projects there, in the future District 5 residents and all San Franciscans must consider how to maximize financially feasible affordable housing through inclusionary requirements and zoning changes, such as added height and density in certain corridors, to support the development of more housing and particularly additional affordable housing. In addition, small scale changes such as rezoning to make it easier to add 1-2 units on parcels with existing housing, similar to the ADU program, may also produce new homes in the District without the time and expense of large developments.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are another simple, creative and cost-effective solution for expanding housing supply for District 5 and San Francisco. ADUs facilitate multi-generational households by inde- pendently housing a homeowner’s senior parent, college-age child, or other family member. ADUs are also a good match for the housing needs and preferences of many single renter households of all ages, which make up 41% of District 5 and 37% of the City. Between 2014 and the first quarter of 2018, more ADUs were filed and built in District 5 than in any other district—239 filings, making up 20% of all ADUs filed in the city. For

34 DISTRICT 5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REPORT