Objective HH.1 Preserve and construct housing in proportion to demand with regards to size, affordability, and tenure

Indicators, Development Targets and Policies/Design Strategies

Indicators Development Targets Policies/Design Strategies
Primary
a. Proportion of housing production to housing need by income category

Benchmark: Does the project set aside 20% of units for affordable housing to contribute to affordable housing need?   

Regulatory Minimum:  SF Planning Code Section 315 mandates that 15% of units constructed on all projects of 5 units or more be affordable.  Should the developer opt to construct its affordable units off-site, the construction requirement jumps to 20%.  Lastly, developers can opt to pay an in-lieu fee instead of constructing units.
  • Provide density bonuses to developers for increased affordable housing. Density bonuses are when a city permits developers to increase the number of units allowed on a piece of property if they agree to something beneficial for the city such as restricted rents or sales prices or brownfield clean-up.1
  • Allow state environmental law exemptions (e.g., CEQA) for affordable housing development (e.g. Implementation of CA Senate Bill 1925 allowable exemptions).2
  • Require below market rate units to come in a mix of sizes/number of bedrooms to address the need for affordable housing for different household types (e.g., at least 25% of below market rate (BMR) units have 2-bedroom and at least 25% have 3 or more bedrooms).3,4
  • Provide incentives for development of rental property. Examples include tax credits, bond financing, deferral or forgiveness of real estate taxes, water charges, and other public debts owed on rental properties, construction financing, technical assistance, etc.5,6
  • Use tax increment financing (TIF) to capture a portion of the increased land value from the conversion of commercial land to residential and from increased height limits, to be used for increased affordable housing.7
  • Support the development of affordable housing on and/or through the sale of surplus public lands to non-profit housing developers.8
  • Improve the accuracy of the City's homeless count methodology to better determine homeless housing needs.9
  • Achieve permanent affordability through community land trusts and limited equity housing ownership and management.10
  • Give preference to households with dependent children in rental or resale of multiple bedroom units in assisted housing programs. 11
  • Reduce the number of parking spaces per household or overall parking spaces per development by unbundling the sale of parking from the sale of housing units.12
  • Provide permanently affordable and service-enriched housing to reduce the need for temporary homeless shelters.13
b. Proportion of households paying greater than 50% of their income on their homes

Same as above.
c. Housing purchasing capacity of the median income household

Same as above.
d. Proportion of households living in overcrowded conditions

Benchmark #1: Does the project distribute unit size with at least 25% of units being 2-bedrooms?

AND

Benchmark #2: Does the project distribute unit size with at least 25% of units being 3-bedrooms?
e. Proportion of renter and owner occupied housing

Benchmark: For project-level evaluations, does the project provide rental housing? For plan-level evaluations, does the plan include a mix of rental and ownership housing within 15% of the current distribution of rental and ownership housing (currently 65% rent and 35% own). In other words, range between 50%-80% rental and 20%-50% owner?
Secondary
f. Housing wage as a percent of minimum wage

Same as HH.1.a.
g. Homeless population

Same as HH.1.a
h. Residential density

Benchmark: Is the project designed with a residential density at or above 25 dwelling units per residential acre (or at or above 40 dwelling units per residential acre for projects <1/2 mile from regional mass transit stops including rail, ferry, or bus service)? (note: 1 acre = 4840 Square Yards = 43560 Square Feet = 220 ft. x 198 ft.)
i. Proportion of renter households paying more than 30% of their household income on gross rent

Same as HH.1.a.

Health-based Rationale

  • High housing costs relative to the income of an individual or household result in one or more outcomes with adverse health consequences: spending a high proportion of income on housing, sharing housing with other individuals or families, accepting lower cost substandard housing, moving to where housing costs are lower, or becoming homeless. Spending a high proportion of income on rent or a mortgage means fewer resources for food, heating, transportation, health care, and child care. Sharing housing can mean crowded conditions, with risks for infectious disease, noise, and fires. Lower cost housing is often substandard with exposure to waste and sewage, physical hazards, mold spores, poorly maintained paint, cockroach antigens, old carpeting, inadequate heating and ventilation, exposed heating sources and wiring, and broken windows. Moving away can result in the loss of job, difficult school transitions, and the loss of health protective social networks.14
  • A lack of affordable housing within communities may compromise the health of low-income residents as they spend more on housing costs and less on other health needs. It can also put residents at greater risk of exposure to problems associated with poor-quality housing (mold, pests, and lead and other hazardous substances), and cause stress and other adverse health outcomes as a result of potential housing instability.15
  • Overcrowded housing conditions contribute to tuberculosis16 and respiratory conditions.17
  • Studies have found evidence of an independent relationship between childhood TB infection and overcrowding in deprived areas, such as the Bronx in New York, as well as in adults. 18
  • 78% of homeless children have suffered from either depression, behavior problems or severe academic delay.19
  • Age-adjusted death rates were four times higher in the homeless than the general U.S. population in a study done in New York City.20

  • Homeownership positively impacts the social cohesion and civic participation of a neighborhood, which in turn can impact health. Homeowners are more likely to feel invested in their community. They are more likely to participate in nonprofessional associations and vote in local elections. Additionally, a higher rate of homeownership in a neighborhood has been associated with fewer years of life lost due to cardiovascular disease for residents.21

Established Standards

  1. SF Planning Code Section 315 mandates that 15% of units constructed on all projects of 5 units or more be affordable. Should the developer opt to construct its affordable units off-site, the construction requirement jumps to 20%. Lastly, developers can opt to pay an in-lieu fee instead of constructing units. Available at: http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?sid=5&browseAllCodes=San%20Francisco
  2. HP 2010 Objective 8.23: Reduce the proportion of occupied housing units that are substandard. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
  3. Canadian National Occupancy Standards (CNOS) defines health-based standards for occupancy:
    1. There should be no more than two people per bedroom; parents or couples share a bedroom;
    2. Children aged under five years, either of same or opposite sex, may reasonably share a bedroom;
    3. Children aged under 18 years of the same sex may reasonably share a bedroom;
    4. A child aged five to 17 years should not share a bedroom with one aged under five of the opposite sex; single adults aged 18 years and over and any unpaired children require a separate bedroom.
    There are no established occupancy standards for San Francisco Housing. CNOS is a standard referenced by many other countries.
1. American Planning Association, Model Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance, http://myapa.planning.org/smartgrowthcodes/pdf/section44.pdf
2. CA Senate Bill 1925 Text - http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_1901-1950/sb_1925_bill_20020928_chaptered.html
3. Laws Affecting the Location and Approval of Affordable Housing http://www.pilpca.org/www/docs/CASCManual-Title.pdf
4. Manufacturing a New Kind of Affordable Housing: Seattle's Noji Gardens. http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/article/relfiles/fmf_0510_noji_gardens.pdf
5. PolicyLink. http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5137215/k.14C2/Affordable_Housing_Development.htm
6. District of Columbia Housing and Development Incentives http://dcbiz.dc.gov/dmped/cwp/view,a,1365,q,569285.asp
7. City of SF, Public Benefits Zoning, http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/communityplanning/pdf/DRAFT%20PBZ%20issue%20sheet-%2009-30.pdf
8. Center for Housing Policy, http://www.housingpolicy.org/toolbox/strategy/policies/public_land.html?tierid=156
9. SF 2007 Homeless Count Report, http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/lhcb/homeless_count/SanFrancisco2007HomelessCount%20final.pdf
10. Institute for Community Economics and SF Community land Trust. http://www.iceclt.org/clt/, http://www.sfclt.org/
11. Affordable Housing and Family Well-Being http://www.cyfc.umn.edu/policy/issues/briefings/housing.pdf
12. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability, http://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf
13. SF General Plan Housing Element, http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=41412
14. San Francisco Department of Public Health, Program on Health, Equity, and Sustainability. The Case for Housing Impacts Assessment: The human health and social impacts of inadequate housing and their consideration in CEQA policy and practice. May, 2004. Available at: http://dphwww.sfdph.org/phes/publications/PHES_publications.htm
15. Cohen R. 2007. The Positive Impacts of Affordable Housing on Health: A Research Summary. Enterprise Community Partners, Center for Housing Policy.
16. Stein L. A study of respiratory tuberculosis in relation to housing conditions in Edinburgh; the pre-war period. Br J Soc Med. 1950;4:143-169.
17. Graham NM. The epidemiology of acute respiratory infections in children and adults: a global perspective. Epidemiol Rev. 1990;12:149-178.
18. Sabel C, Fung A, Karkkainen B. 2000. Beyond Backyard Environmentalism. Boston: Beacon Press.
19. Zima BT, Wells KB, Freeman HE. 1994. Emotional and behavioral problems and severe academic delays among sheltered homeless children in Los Angeles County. American Journal of Public Health. 84:260-264.
20. Barrow SM, Herman DB, Cordova P, Stuening EL. 1999. Mortality among homeless shelter residents in New York City. American Journal of Public Health 1999:529-534.
21. Franzini L, Spears W. Contributions of social context to inequalities in years of life lost to heart disease in Texas, USA. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(10):1847-1861.