December 2008Live-Work May Become Live-and-Let-Live LoftsBy Tiffany RobertsTwo decades ago dozens of live-work buildings were constructed in Southeast San Francisco. Built primarily between 1988 and 2000, the lofts enabled developers to get around restrictions on new construction, and were suppose to provide low-cost housing for artists and small businesses. Over the years, however, live-work buildings have failed to significantly increase housing access to artists, and haven’t contributed to the fees necessary to maintain neighborhood infrastructure. And because live-work units were built in then industrial areas, the public amenities typical of resident communities weren’t required. Only a small percentage of live-work loft tenants pay below market rents as working artists or small businesses. Instead, live-work lofts mostly cater to mainstream San Franciscans, who now want better sidewalks, adequate parking, street benches and lighting. Tony Kelly, Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association president, believes that as Dogpatch, Potrero Hill, and Showplace Square continue to de-industrialize the needs of loft residents should be addressed. “Now [live-work loft] residents want sidewalks, lighting, the things that make a complete neighborhood and things to sustain housing,” Kelly said. “Originally, this hadn’t been required for the live-work dwellers. Back then, it wasn’t a question of fairness for how a neighborhood was done or was being developed. But now let’s recognize that it’s turning residential.” A discussion about how to address the needs of live-work loft residents began earlier this year, when District 10 Supervisor Sophie Maxwell floated the idea of charging a fee on loft owners who acknowledge that they are occupying the lofts strictly as residents, rather than as working artists or businesses. According to Maxwell, if loft owners want residential type amenities they need to help pay for them. When they were first developed the City did not require live-work loft buildings to help finance residential amenities, and zoning laws protected the developers from paying fees, which is typically required for new construction in residential neighborhoods. During the late-1990s community activists called on policymakers to close this loophole in zoning laws. However, city officials maintained that the lofts were being built in industrial areas, whose basic character needed to be preserved, including their lack of residential-related infrastructure. According to Ed Capaña, a real estate broker for www.somapro.com who focuses on the South-of-Market neighborhood, construction in industrial areas was less expensive than it would have been in neighborhoods zoned as residential. “The reality is that the City was supporting building alternate developments in non-development areas, and that is why the procurement was cheap,” said Capaña. “At that time, developers should have been charged up front. Now the property value is double and they want amenities.” In an attempt to ensure that live-work loft residents were professional artists and small businesses, loft buyers were supposed to have a business license. However, according to Capaña this requirement was loosely monitored, and the required license wasn’t always obtained by people who bought the units. “The realtor isn’t a policeman,” said Capaña. “It’s the City’s job to make sure that the tenants and buyers are in compliance. This was honored for probably the first decade, but then it was ignored.” As Southeast San Francisco has gentrified, and industrial land has given way to mixed and residential uses, loft prices have steadily increased, and higher-paying tenants and owners have moved in. According to Tim Colen, San Francisco Housing Action Coalition’s executive director, it will be difficult to implement Maxell’s proposal to collect fees, in part because there’s no clear definition of what constitutes a live-work loft. And with the eastern neighborhood planning process absorbing much of Maxwell’s attention, any near term action to address the issues now raised by live-work developments is unlikely. “The live-work loft space issue is a backdrop to the current eastern neighborhood plan, which is the largest rezoning in the City in a generation,” Colen said. “I do not see how [live-work] fees for new development will work, I do not see how it is realistic or feasible.” Dan Sider, San Francisco Planning Department senior planner, stated that the department would be willing to cooperate with Maxwell’s office on developing a live-work fee plan. “We welcome the opportunity to work with Sophie Maxwell’s office.” Sider said. “Although as far as we know this isn’t a project yet, it is just an idea. It is my understanding that the eastern neighborhood plan has taken precedence.”
|
This Month's StoriesPublic Benefits Delayed in Eastern Neighborhoods New Economy Emerges in Dogpatch Historic District Channel Street Used As Private Parking Lot Attack on Bicyclists Claims Four Victims, Two in Potrero Lack of Transparency Dogs Community Trust Fund Parking Restrictions Coming to Tennessee Street Property Owners Grapple with Rent Control Regulations “Dogpreneur” Becomes Latest Career Trend Steady Flow of Newcomers Call Potrero Hill Home Jewish Film Festival Turns Thirty On-going Features
 |