Your architect hands you the planning application and points at a box near the bottom: Priority Policies findings. You are converting a ground-floor shop into a café. Nothing is being demolished, nothing is being built up. And yet the city cannot approve the change until it has formally written down that your project is consistent with eight policies adopted by San Francisco voters in 1986.
Every San Francisco project that needs an environmental study, a demolition, a conversion, or a change of use requires a written finding that it is consistent with the city's eight Priority Policies before a permit can issue (§ 101.1). The policies came from Proposition M in November 1986 and they sit above the rest of the General Plan.
The eight policies, in plain terms
The code lists them as the basis on which conflicts inside the General Plan get resolved (§ 101.1). Stripped of the legal phrasing, they are:
- Preserve and enhance existing neighborhood-serving retail, and improve chances for residents to work in and own those businesses.
- Conserve and protect existing housing and neighborhood character, to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of neighborhoods.
- Preserve and enhance the city's supply of affordable housing.
- Keep commuter traffic from impeding Muni service or overburdening streets and neighborhood parking.
- Maintain a diverse economic base by protecting industrial and service sectors from displacement by commercial office development.
- Achieve the greatest possible preparedness against injury and loss of life in an earthquake.
- Preserve landmarks and historic buildings.
- Protect parks and open space — and their access to sunlight and views — from development.
Notice what these are not. They are not dimensional standards. There is no number in any of them. They are value statements, and the finding your project needs is a written judgment that the project does not conflict with them.
When the finding is required
This is the part that catches property owners by surprise, because the trigger list is broader than "new construction."
| Trigger | Finding required before |
|---|---|
| A project or law needing an environmental study under state law | Issuing the permit or adopting the law |
| Any demolition | Issuing the permit |
| Any conversion | Issuing the permit |
| Any change of use | Issuing the permit |
| Any action requiring a General Plan consistency finding | Taking the action |
All five come from the same subsection (§ 101.1). Separately, the city may not adopt a zoning ordinance or a development agreement without first finding it consistent with the Priority Policies.
Prior to issuing a permit for any project or adopting any legislation which requires an initial study under the California Environmental Quality Act…
That is the opening of the trigger sentence itself (§ 101.1).
What counts as a "change of use"
"Change of use" sounds obvious until you try to apply it. The Zoning Administrator's published interpretations answer it directly: a change of use is a change from one category of use to another category listed in the use table for that lot's zoning district (Planning Code Interpretations).
The consequence is that the same physical work can be a change of use in one district and not in another. The interpretations give the examples:
- Going from a Limited Restaurant to a Restaurant is a change of use in the Neighborhood Commercial Districts, because those districts distinguish the two. The identical work in a C-2 district is not, because C-2 does not draw that distinction.
- Adding a general advertising sign to a building that only had business signs is a change of use, because general advertising signs are not allowed in some districts.
- Developing anything on a vacant lot is a change of use.
A second interpretation covers density. Adding dwelling units in a number that would only be permitted by a higher-density zoning district than the most restrictive district allowing the previous count — moving from an RM-1 density to an RM-2 density, in their example — is itself a change of use (Planning Code Interpretations).
So a homeowner adding units can land in the Priority Policies findings without touching the outside of the building.
Why this exists at all
Proposition M's drafters were reacting to a downtown office boom that residents felt was displacing neighborhood businesses, housing and industrial jobs. Rather than write new numeric limits, they inserted a values test the city has to satisfy every time it approves something significant. The policies are also the tiebreaker: where two parts of the General Plan pull in different directions, § 101.1 makes the Priority Policies the basis for resolving the inconsistency.
The section was added by Proposition M on 11/4/86 and amended in 2015.
What this means for your project
Practically, the findings are drafted by planning staff, not by you. Your job is to give them the material to write an honest one — which is why a project that removes ground-floor retail, removes housing, removes parking, or touches a historic building draws more scrutiny and more conditions than one that does not.
What § 101.1 does not tell you: how the city weighs the eight policies against each other, or what happens when a project advances one and harms another. That balancing is discretionary, and it is decided project by project by the Planning Commission. Neither does this section set your zoning district's actual limits — height, density, use and setbacks come from your district's own rules. Start with the San Francisco jurisdiction overview if you do not know which district you are in.
