Land Use Archives

West Side Story: Proposed Legislation May Remove Barriers for Small Projects

March 8, 2023March 8, 2023 | Chloe Angelis

Supervisor Myrna Melgar has introduced legislation that aims to incentivize much-needed family-sized housing on the west side of the city. While clearly in line with the City’s housing production goals, it includes some requirements that could make it inapplicable to most of the west side properties it aims to cover.

The draft legislation would create the Family Housing Opportunity Special Use District, which shares a boundary with the Well-Resourced Neighborhoods Map included in the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element. The map covers the entire west side of the city, plus the Marina, Cow Hollow, and parts of North Beach. As drafted, the ordinance would expire eight years after it becomes effective.

The proposed ordinance encourages the construction of two-to-four-unit projects that provide at least two 2-bedroom units within the new special use district. Qualifying projects would be exempt from an otherwise-required conditional use authorization (“CU”), including CUs that typically apply to the demolition of an existing residential unit. Eligible projects would also be exempt from Section 311 notice and the discretionary review process. Obtaining approval of a CU or having a project sent to the Planning Commission by a neighbor via discretionary review creates uncertainty and can add many months to a project’s approval timeline. Taking both CU requirements and Section 311/discretionary review off the table are meaningful incentives.

The legislation does not automatically exempt these projects from CEQA—but small new construction projects should be eligible for Class 3 (new construction of small structures) categorical exemptions.

Specifically, the new rules would apply to projects that construct two-unit buildings (including a two unit building with a third standalone unit outside the proposed building envelope) and three-unit buildings (including a three unit building with a fourth standalone unit outside the proposed building envelope). At least two of the units in a qualifying project must have at least two bedrooms.

Projects must consist of ground-up new construction, and while they would be exempt from the otherwise-applicable density limit (up to four units per lot and not including any permitted accessory dwelling units), projects would not be exempt from the otherwise-applicable height limit for the property in question.

As drafted, the legislation includes several other restrictions that will limit its potential impact:

Qualifying projects cannot demolish a historic resource and must comply with the Residential Design Guidelines and the Planning Code, except for lot-based dwelling unit density limits. While requiring Code compliance in exchange for bypassing Planning Commission review is reasonable, the Residential Design Guidelines are not entirely objective, which will make it difficult for sponsors to assess whether Planning Staff will deem a particular project in compliance with the guidelines. It’s also difficult to imagine how a third or fourth unit constructed outside the main building envelope could comply with the Planning Code’s rear yard and obstruction controls.

Additionally, projects cannot propose the demolition of any of the following:

Units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past five years;
Units that are or were subject to the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (Chapter 37 of the Administrative Code) within the past five years;
Units that are or were occupied by lower or very low income households within the past five years; or
Units that were withdrawn from the rental market pursuant to the Ellis Act within the past 10 years.

The requirement related to the Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (i.e., the “Rent Ordinance”) is very limiting as drafted. Most residential units in San Francisco are subject to the Rent Ordinance, which has a rent control component and an eviction protection component.

Units built after June 13, 1979, most single-family homes and condos, and units that have undergone substantial rehabilitation are subject to the Rent Ordinance, but only to the eviction controls (not the rent increase limitations that apply to other units). If the legislation intends to exclude these units and older units subject to rent control limits, there will be nothing left for redevelopment pursuant to the proposed Family Housing Opportunity Special Use District. Protecting affordable units from demolition is a logical policy choice, but hopefully the legislation will be amended to limit this restriction only to units subject to the Rent Ordinance’s rent control protections.

Supervisor Melgar’s proposal has the potential to be an impactful piece of legislation to spur development on the west side of the city and we’ll be keeping an eye on its progress through the legislative process.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Chloe Angelis.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient. Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein. Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm. We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law. We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

Cars to Casas Nearing Adoption

December 14, 2022December 14, 2022 | Tuija Catalano

Approximately a year ago we reported on Mayor London Breed’s introduction of the “Cars to Casas” legislation which proposed to make it easier to build housing on existing parking lots, gas stations and properties improved with certain other automotive uses. The legislation has now been rebranded as “Automotive Uses to Housing Uses” and made significant progress in the last two weeks with a positive recommendation from the Land Use and Transportation Committee on Monday, December 5^th, and unanimous votes at the full Board of Supervisors on first reading on Tuesday, December 6^th and on second and final reading on Tuesday, December 13^th. The legislation will be forwarded next to the Mayor for her signature, and if signed, will become effective 30 days thereafter.

The legislation has been pending since October 2021, in part due to the Land Use and Transportation Committee’s request for an economic analysis. If adopted, the legislation will eliminate a conditional use authorization requirement that currently applies to conversion of existing gas station uses, and would create an exception to the permitted residential density at eligible sites. Sites that are eligible under the legislation are those that are currently used for auto-oriented uses, allow residential uses as a principally permitted use but do not currently contain any residential uses, and have not had a Legacy Business on the site within four years prior to the application submittal date.

As proposed, including amendments by the Land Use and Transportation Committee, the legislation will not apply to any properties that are zoned for the RM (Residential-Mixed) or RC (Residential-Commercial) district, or to properties that are located in a historic district.

The permitted residential density for RH (Residential-House) districts is up to four units per lot, and for all other eligible sites density is unlimited provided the project complies with applicable height, bulk, setback and other Planning Code requirements. That said, eligible sites can also utilize the state density bonus program, which can allow waivers and concessions from otherwise applicable Planning Code requirements.

The legislation is one example of efforts by Mayor Breed and the City to make it easier to build more housing and to get entitlements and permits for development proposals, and as such, a welcome proposal. If the legislation is signed by the Mayor in the next 10 days, it will become effective in approximately mid-January 2023.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Tuija Catalano.

PDR Protections & Higher Fees for Large Institutions in Housing Element Package

November 23, 2022November 23, 2022 | Melinda Sarjapur and Daniel Frattin

San Francisco’s Housing Element Update (“Update”) has been in the works since mid-2020, and the City is sprinting to adopt it before a January 2023 deadline that could open the door to Builder’s Remedy Projects and eventually a loss of state funding for affordable housing and transportation. (See Exhibit D to the Planning Department’s Update Initiation Memo).

The Update’s primary focus is to spur residential construction to meet the state-mandated RHNA target of 82,000 new homes over eight years and to shift more housing development – especially affordable housing – to transit corridors on the westside.

However, through “conforming amendments” to other elements of the City’s General Plan, the City sets the stage for new restrictions on the conversion or displacement of existing Production, Distribution, and Repair (“PDR”) or Industrial uses. It also targets large institutions – one of the sectors where in-person activity tends to be higher in the era of hybrid work – for new development impact fees.

Two of these amendments are shown below. For each item, text from the existing General Plan is shown in plain text; proposed additions to the General Plan are underlined.

Air Quality Element:

Policy 3.3: Continue existing city policies that require housing development in conjunction with office development and expand this requirement to other types of commercial and large institutional developments.

The intent is to require large institutional employers that aren’t currently subject to the City’s Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee to conduct an analysis of the housing demand of their employees and then show how they will meet that demand in their Institutional Master Plans (“IMP”). It could also pave the path for extending the JHLF to large non-institutional uses that are not currently subject to it (hospitals/schools/etc.).

In a bit of revisionist history, the Planning Department notes that the “IMP” caused colleges to realize the housing needs of their students and credit that as causing many private non-profit colleges to build student housing. In fact, IMPs had nothing to do with colleges building housing. The need was obvious; in reality inclusionary housing requirements were too expensive for them to shoulder. It was only when the City exempted student housing from inclusionary requirements that several private schools embarked on ambitious housing construction programs. Non-profit colleges and healthcare providers will find it difficult to grow in San Francisco if the Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee – currently ranging from $26 – $76 per square foot for other uses – is extended to them.

Commerce & Industry Element:

Policy 4.5: Control encroachment of incompatible land uses on viable industrial activity. Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR) areas offer economic opportunity for adjacent neighborhoods, especially for low-income communities and communities of color. PDR businesses can provide stable job opportunities, good wages, and diversity in types of activities and jobs Restrict incompatible land uses, such as housing and office, and the conversion of industrial buildings to other building types in PDR districts and in areas of concentrated PDR, construction, or utility activities.

In mixed-use districts or areas adjacent to PDR districts, avoid the displacement of existing businesses, protect the affordability of PDR space, and, if displacement is unavoidable, replace some or all the PDR use with viable, affordable industrial space on-site or off-site in a PDR district.

This revised language paves the way for the City to adopt additional restrictions on the types of uses permitted in PDR districts – specifically the conversion or new construction of laboratory uses that frequently complement PDR. Engineering labs, for example, often need PDR to supply parts for prototyping, testing, and may well grow into small-scale manufacturing (PDR) uses themselves. This flexibility has served both PDR and lab uses well. How is a policy that replaces synergy with inflexibility good for the City? Why is industrial protection in districts where housing is not even permitted a “conforming” amendment to the General Plan?

Even more ironically, this policy amendment sets the stage to say “no” to housing in the very areas that have been most successful at producing it: rezoned PDR areas accounted for roughly ¾ of housing production by striking a balance between preserving space for industry and allowing much higher residential density. Proposition X made it harder to build housing in certain districts by requiring replacement space. However, this policy could reach much further and set up yet another restriction on housing in favor of preserving industrial space. The Update is supposed to remove barriers to housing. This one fails that test.

A full list of the General Plan updates proposed in connection with the Housing Element Update is available on the Planning Department’s website.

The full Housing Element Update is anticipated for adoption by the Planning Commission on December 15, 2022, and Board of Supervisors in January 2023.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Melinda Sarjapur and Daniel Frattin.

2022 Housing Legislation Round-Up

October 6, 2022October 6, 2022 | Justin A. Zucker and Daniel J. Turner

This year was a blockbuster year for housing legislation coming from Sacramento. Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law more than three dozen bills related to housing and housing production. Below please find a brief overview of twelve housing bills signed by the Governor that become effective next year.

AB 682. Density Bonus for “Shared Housing” Buildings

AB 682 amends the State Density Bonus Law to create a density bonus for “Shared Housing” developments. Shared housing, or group housing as it is commonly known, is characterized by single-room units with shared access to common kitchen and dining facilities. Each unit is typically intended for one or two occupants and features a small kitchenette. This new density bonus will allow shared housing developments to build at greater densities in exchange for dedicating a percentage of units to affordable housing, with the same affordability requirements and bonus amounts as is currently available to standard-unit developments. Notably, shared housing developments can provide up to 25% of their floor area as standard-unit housing and still qualify for a density bonus.

AB 916. No Public Hearing to Increase Bedroom Count

AB 916 prohibits cities from requiring a public hearing for a permit to add up to two bedrooms by reconfiguring existing space within an existing dwelling unit.

AB 1551. Commercial Development Bonuses for Providing Affordable Housing

AB 1551 creates a density bonus for commercial developers who partner with housing developers and support the provision of affordable housing through land donation, cash payment, or by directly building units. A commercial developer is eligible for up to a 20% density bonus. To qualify, the housing development supported by the commercial developer must provide either 30% of units as affordable for low income (<80% AMI) or 15% of units as affordable for very-low income (<50% AMI).

AB 2011. Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act

AB 2011 provides streamlined, ministerial approval of multifamily housing developments that contain affordable housing units located in commercial zones. Two tiers of development are available, depending on the amount of affordable housing provided. A project dedicating 100% of units as affordable for lower income households can be developed by right on most parcels zoned for retail, office, or parking uses. A project with market-rate units that provides a specific percentage of rental or ownership units as affordable for either lower income or very-low income households can be developed by right on parcels zoned for retail, office, or parking if the site has at least 50 feet of frontage on a commercial corridor (a street between 70 and 150 feet wide). AB 2011 projects are also subject to certain prevailing wage and skilled workforce requirements. We have discussed AB 2011 in greater detail in previous updates on August 24, 2022, and September 1, 2022.

SB 6. Middle Class Housing Act

SB 6 is intended to increase the development potential for middle-income housing by principally permitting housing developments that meet specific criteria in areas zoned for office, retail, or parking uses. Eligible developments are required to meet or exceed certain density thresholds established in the state’s Housing Element law, such as 30 units per acre in metropolitan settings or 20 units per acre in suburban settings. SB 6 projects must also meet certain prevailing wage and skilled and trained workforce requirements, although a development can be exempted from these in certain circumstances.

AB 2334. Density Bonus in Very Low Vehicle Travel Area

AB 2334 expands the available density bonus for 100% affordable housing developments in very low vehicle travel areas. A “very low vehicle travel area” is a transit analysis zone where existing residential development generates 85% or fewer vehicle miles traveled per capita than the regional area in which it is located. Qualifying density bonus projects are not subject to maximum density controls, are entitled to up to 4 development incentives, and may receive an additional three-stories of height. This additional density bonus is only available in the counties of the Bay Area, Sacramento, the Southern Coast, and Inland Empire. AB 2334 also clears up the grey area for application of the state density bonus in a form-based zoning district, requiring calculation of an “average unit size” multiplied by the density bonus amount to determine increase in floor area allowed.

AB 2653. Housing Element Reporting

AB 2653 alters some of the requirements for annual housing element reports cities must submit to the state. Cities must include greater detail, including the numbers of all new and demolished housing units in the jurisdiction, as well as data on all approved density bonus projects. AB 2653 also provides a mechanism for the state to request corrections and make referrals for enforcement.

AB 2668. SB 35 Streamlining Updates

AB 2668 amends SB 35 clarifying streamlined SB 35 projects are not subject to any non-legislative discretionary approval and that density bonus units are not considered when calculating whether a project satisfies SB 35’s affordability requirements. Further, the bill prohibits cities from denying an application for missing materials if there is enough information to allow a reasonable person to conclude the development is consistent with the applicable objective standards. AB 2668 also brings important change to how the Cortese List affects SB 35 eligibility. Placement on the Cortese List, which is the aggregate of the state’s decentralized hazardous waste sites databases, disqualifies a site from SB 35, until it is cleared for residential use by the authority having jurisdiction. However, longstanding confusion over the mechanism of clearing a site meant that once a site was listed, it was effectively barred from SB 35 permanently, even if it had undergone extensive remediation. AB 2668 establishes specific criteria, documentation, and agency determinations that allow a “listed” site to qualify for SB 35.

AB 2221 & SB 897. ADU Law Updates

AB 2221 and SB 897 make a number of changes to existing ADU law to provide for greater development flexibility and ensure consistent and efficient project review. Under these bills, a city that denies an ADU application will be required to provide a full set of written comments that includes a list of all deficient items and details how the application can be remedied. These comments must be provided within the existing 60-day review period. Additionally, a city will be prohibited from denying an ADU application based on nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or unpermitted structures that are not affected by the ADU construction and do not pose a threat to safety.

The bills also increase ADU development potential by restricting setbacks that prevent ADUs below a minimum floor area, increasing the minimum height limit for ADUs located near transit stops or attached to primary dwellings, and prohibiting owner-occupancy requirements until January 1, 2025. Importantly, the addition of an ADU will no longer constitute a change of R occupancy under the building code such as from an R3 (single-family or duplex) to an R2 (multi-family), and will not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers if not previously required.

AB 2234. Post-Entitlement Permit Processing

AB 2234 focuses on post-entitlement non-discretionary building permit processes after the planning process has concluded and environmental review is complete. AB 2234 requires local agencies to compile a list of information need to approve or deny a post-entitlement permit, a checklist and post an example of a completed, approved application. AB 2234 also sets timelines for review of post-entitlement applications for housing projects: (a) for projects with 25 units or fewer, a local agency shall complete first review and comment within 30 days of an application completion; and (b) for projects with 26 or more units, a local agency shall complete first review and comment within 60 days of an application completion. These time limits are tolled if a local agency requires review of an application by an outside third-party reviewer. Failure to meet these timelines is a violation of the Housing Accountability Act.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorneys Justin A. Zucker and Daniel J. Turner.

Downtown Oakland Specific Plan: ZIP Update

September 21, 2022September 22, 2022 | Justin A. Zucker

As previously reported, the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan (“DOSP”) is working its way to the City Council for adoption, currently anticipated in late 2022. The DOSP includes Zoning Amendments (which we’ve previously reported on) and a Zoning Incentive Program (“ZIP”). Initial details for the ZIP were released earlier this summer (which we’ve previously reported on). Below are additional details regarding the ZIP based on the economic analysis reports prepared by Hausrath Economics Group, dated August 2022 and September 16, 2022, in addition to recent community meetings on September 13 (presentation slides) and on September 19 (presentation slides).

The ZIP was developed in response to community concerns to allowing development downtown without obtaining community benefits. The ZIP allows developers to voluntarily elect to provide community benefits, in one of four forms, to increase allowed development capacity, either additional market-rate dwelling units or commercial space. The four on-site community benefits options include providing (1) affordable housing, (2) below market-rate ground floor commercial space, (3) public restrooms, or (4) streetscape, open space and flood control improvements exceeding basic city requirements. Alternatively, the ZIP includes the option to provide community benefits through payment of an in-lieu fee instead of providing on-site benefits, or some combination of on-site benefits and an in-lieu fee.

The ZIP is a voluntary program that creates additional value for a development project with the City capturing a portion of the value increase. The increase in value from the additional, higher-intensity development is calculated as the difference in value of development under the maximum intensity zoning compared to the base zoning. The value is expressed in dollars per building square foot of added development for commercial and dollars per dwelling unit added for residential.

As currently analyzed, the ZIP is structured so that a third of the additional value from the more intense development is captured in the form of a community benefit. The remaining two-thirds is split with one-third to the developer to incentivize development at increased intensity and a third to the owner to account for increased resulting land value, which in turn results in increased property taxes. During recent community meetings, there has been discussion of adjusting this formula to increase the City’s value capture share.

In creating the incentive, the ZIP considers the costs and economic variables specific to development types, i.e., change from Type III or V (mid-rise/low-rise) to the more costly Type I (high-rise) construction. Properties with large increases in density supporting high-rise development over mid-rise/low-rise projects can have lower value capture per additional dwelling unit or per additional building square foot due to higher costs involved. To account for this, the ZIP establishes three Zoning Incentive Areas that reflect similar market contexts, development patterns and potentials, parcel sizes, and existing land uses. There are three areas each for residential development (map) and commercial development (map), with R-A, R-B, and R-C zones for residential and C-A, C-B, and C-C for commercial development.

The ZIP incentive areas allow additional density ranging from 11% to 800% more density with 65% of cases more than doubling density. The large density bonus accounts for increased costs associated with change in construction typology to Type I for high-rise development.

Based on location, a commercial development could obtain an additional 100,000 sf of office space with the provision of below market ground floor commercial space totaling 6,828 sf (Zone C-A), 4,655 sf (Zone C-B), or 3,724 sf (Zone C-C).

The ZIP is available to a developer in lieu of or in addition to the State Density Bonus set forth in Government Code Section 65915, et. seq. Meaning, a project could layer the State Density Bonus on top of the ZIP to increase development intensity. In instances when the ZIP and State Density Bonus are used in tandem, the project’s ZIP development intensity is the base density not the underlying base zoning density.

The DOSP and ZIP are slated to return to the Zoning Update Committee (“ZUC”) before advancing to the Planning Commission and City Council. While previously schedule to return to the ZUC on September 29, that hearing has been cancelled to allow additional public meetings. The ZUC hearing has not yet been rescheduled. We will continue to track this significant rezoning and community planning effort as it moves forward.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Justin A. Zucker.

AB 2011 & SB 6: Pro-Growth or Slow Growth for Construction Workforce

September 1, 2022September 1, 2022 | Daniel Frattin and Daniel J. Turner

AB 2011, along with SB 6 (Cabellero, Eggman and Rubio), were passed by the California Legislature this week with large majorities in both houses. The two bills will create 10-year housing programs with similar aims: increasing housing production and increasing the skill level, wages, and number of residential construction workers. However, the bills differ in important ways—their approach to density, allowances for ministerial approvals, and the degree of deference to local zoning rules. They also take markedly different approaches to growing, training, and better compensating the residential construction workforce. The bills were the product of a political compromise between the State Building & Construction Trades Council and the Carpenters Union. They effectively set up an experiment to test the relative efficacy of the SB 6 labor rules favored by the State Building & Construction Trades Council—basically requiring union labor on any SB 6 project and the rules preferred by the Carpenters Union – requiring payment of prevailing wages and benefits to all workers on an AB 2011 project.

A good deal of attention has been given to improving the regulatory conditions for getting new housing approved, expanding access to sites, and requiring cities to upzone. However, less attention has been paid to the fact that—even if there were shovel-ready projects for the Governor’s declared goal of 3.5 million new homes over ten years—the current residential construction workforce could only build about a third of that number without significant increases in the number and productivity of workers, who currently build housing at a rate of one home per worker per year. By comparison, average productivity per worker was 1.4 units per year from 1990-2005. Put simply, the state cannot meet its housing targets without an increase in the number of workers and productivity.

However, attracting new workers has proven difficult. Median residential construction worker pay in California ranks 46^th in the country when adjusted for the high cost of living. On average, residential construction workers income is 2/3 of their commercial counterparts and they get about 1/3 the amount of fringe benefits. Less than half have insurance through employers. This is a dramatic shift since the 1970s and 1980s, when average pay in both sectors was roughly equal.

AB 2011, which we discussed in greater detail last week, provides for time-limited ministerial approvals for properties on commercial corridors that meet certain criteria for affordable housing and overrides local zoning rules that conflict with its minimum standards for density and height. It also mandates payment of prevailing wage to all construction workers, or at least the prevailing apprentice wages for apprentices enrolled in state-approved apprentice programs. Family healthcare benefits are required for projects with qualified construction craft workers on projects with more than 50 units, while those without such workers can credit qualifying expenditures toward the prevailing wage requirements. Essentially, AB 2011 bets that rapid approvals under more liberal standards will entice employers to pay higher wages and create a strong, near-term incentive for developers to invest in apprenticeship programs to elevate worker productivity.

A final version of SB 6 has yet to be published, but takes a less aggressive approach than AB 2011 with lower minimum density requirements, greater deference to local zoning, and no mandatory ministerial approval process unless a project otherwise qualifies under SB 35. Thus, many SB 6 projects would be subject to lengthy CEQA reviews and modified discretionary approvals. It would require lower amounts of affordable housing subsidies by than AB 2011, but would effectively require the use of union labor if two qualified bids are received from union contractors. While SB 6 expands potential building sites, most projects would not realize the cost savings associated with quick ministerial approvals or the elimination of most entitlement/CEQA risk. Without these incentives in place, it may be years before the state sees its first SB 6 project, or additional demand for workers.

AB 2011 passed the Assembly 67-4 with 9 abstentions and the Senate 33-0 with 7 abstentions. While the 4 Noes in the Assembly were from rural and suburban districts leaning more conservative (3 Rs & 1 D), notably 7 of the 9 abstentions were from urban and suburban districts along the coast between Ventura and San Diego with a high number of Democratic representatives (6 Ds & 3 Rs). Conversely, SB 6 passed the Assembly 67-0 with 13 abstentions and the Senate 34-0 with 6 abstentions. Of the 4 Noes for AB 2011, 3 abstained in SB 6 and 1 voted yes (a democrat representative from District 29, encompassing Santa Cruz and the surrounding area). The Assembly abstentions followed a similar pattern as AB 2011, with those abstaining coming from both parties and primarily representing rural districts or coastal urban and suburban districts in Southern California. For both AB 2011 and SB 6, the Senate abstentions followed a similar geographic pattern as in the Assembly.

While union support was split between the two bills, with both construction and other unions on either side, pro-housing and business organizations tended to support both. Most affordable housing developers supported AB 2011 and opposed SB 6, presumably because the latter would tend to increase cost and time for approval without offsetting benefits. San Francisco’s Council of Community Housing Organizations, which frequently opposes market-rate development, was a notable outlier, supporting SB 6 and opposing AB 2011 in spite of its clear benefits to affordable housing developers.

Both bills still need to be signed by the governor and will not take effect until July 2023. Annual reports of projects approved under both bills are required from cities and the Department of Housing & Community Development is to provide two reports on the use of each during the ten year period prior to their sunset date.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorneys Daniel Frattin and Daniel J. Turner.

AB 2011 Could Unlock Mixed-Income Housing

August 24, 2022August 25, 2022 | Mark Loper, Daniel J. Turner and Alex Klein

East Bay state representative Buffy Wicks, along with other co-sponsors including Senator Scott Wiener, proposed a compelling bill that aims to bridge a long-sought gap between pro-housing advocates’ desire for streamlining code-compliant multi-family residential projects with on-site affordability (both mixed-income and 100% affordable), and construction labor unions’ desire to ensure fair wages and future training for its members.

Known as the High Road Jobs Act of 2022, AB 2011 would allow ministerial, by-right approval for certain multi-family affordable housing. A development project in a zoning district where office, retail, and parking are principally permitted would be subject to streamlined, ministerial review if it meets many of the requirements for SB 35 eligibility, as well as additional locational and affordability requirements. AB 2011 projects would not need to obtain discretionary entitlements and would not be subject to CEQA.

To qualify for AB 2011 streamlining, housing development projects must either provide 100% affordability, or provide on-site affordable units, aka BMRs, in a primarily market rate project. As amended in the Senate on August 11, the on-site BMR requirement is somewhat complicated for rental units, but essentially requires between 12-15% BMRs unless a local requirement is higher, in which case the local program applies and additional AMI restrictions could be required. For condos, 30% could be offered at moderate income or 15% at lower income, and the same caveat about higher local requirements applies.

These projects would be subject to objective development standards, and additional qualifying criteria. As of August 11, the criteria for mixed-income projects include, but are not limited to:

proposing a multi-family housing development project;
abutting a commercial corridor and having a frontage at least 50 feet in width, on a site 20 acres or less in size;
not demolishing rent controlled or deed-restricted affordable units, or listed historic resources;
replacing no more than four existing units;
located no closer than 500 feet from a freeway;
providing relocation assistance to certain commercial tenants; and
vacant properties that are not zoned for multifamily residential use cannot qualify for streamlined ministerial processing.

Once an AB 2011 development application is submitted, several streamlining provisions apply. The local government must determine whether the project complies with objective planning standards within 60-90 days depending on unit count. If a local government determines that a project does not comply with objective planning standards, it must provide a written explanation to the proponent within this timeframe. Further, any design review must be completed within 90-180 days. Projects using the streamlined approval process would also be eligible for density bonuses, incentives, concessions, waivers, reductions in development standards, and potentially reduced parking ratios, under California’s density bonus law.

AB 2011 projects would also be required to pay construction workers at least the prevailing rate of wages and certify their compliance with this provision with the local government. As part of the developer’s obligation to pay prevailing wages, developers building 50 or more units of housing must submit monthly compliance reports to the local government.

Importantly, projects utilizing AB 2011 would not be a project for the purposes of CEQA (i.e. no environmental review) and the approval procedures the municipality would be permitted to use would solely be ministerial in nature.

In May of 2022, AB 2011 passed out of the California State Assembly, and is currently with the Senate, where it was voted out of committee on August 11. The bill has received several key union endorsements, including from the California Conference of Carpenters and SEIU. However, other unions, such as the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, and the California Labor Federation have opposed the bill claiming it would “eliminate[] the mandate that a skilled-and-trained workforce be a part of… [project] construction crews.” Unions such as the Building Trades Council oppose the bill because the bill would not require developers to use a “skilled and trained workforce,” which has the effect of eliminating the requirement that a certain percentage of workers on a project are unionized. The bill provides instead that for developments streamlined under AB 2011 that workers be paid a “prevailing wage” with some additional benefits such as healthcare coverage.

We will continue to track this potential game-changer of a bill as it makes its way through Sacramento.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorneys Mark Loper and Daniel J. Turner, and Law Clerk Alex Klein.

Supervisors Pass New EV Charging Rules

July 28, 2022July 28, 2022 | Chloe Angelis

Back in March, we wrote about pending legislation that would amend the Planning Code to specifically address electric vehicle (“EV”) charging uses. At the time, the legislation was headed to the Planning Commission for initial consideration. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed an amended version of that legislation on the first reading.

As we explained in our March update, the Planning Code does not currently contemplate EV charging at all—leaving operators to work with the Planning Department on a case-by-case basis to determine the permissibility and approval path for any new EV charging site.

In order to meet the City’s climate action targets (which include a goal of 100% registered private vehicle electrification by 2040), the legislation aims to create a Planning framework to streamline the approval of publicly accessible EV charging stations and to regulate (though not necessarily streamline) the approval of new fleet vehicle charging sites.

The legislation creates two new Planning Code use categories, both under the umbrella of “Automotive Use.” The new “Electric Vehicle Charging Location” (“EV Charging Location”) use covers public-facing charging locations and “Fleet Charging” covers EV charging facilities that are dedicated to a private entity and not available to the general public.

The initial draft of the legislation would have required Conditional Use (“CU”) Authorization for Fleet Charging in most zoning districts, except in PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 districts, where Fleet Charging would have been principally permitted. That draft also would have prohibited Fleet Charging in the Neighborhood Commercial Districts. The earlier version of the ordinance called for more permissibility related to EV Charging Locations, which would be permitted in most districts, and would be principally permitted wherever the existing use is already some type of Automotive Use. This provision remains in the version passed on Tuesday.

The legislation was heard by the Land Use and Transportation Committee three times after it came out of the Planning Commission on April 14 with a handful of recommended changes. Several more amendments were made at those three Committee hearings—mostly to further restrict the permissibility of Fleet Charging uses—as outlined here:

While the initial version of ordinance would have allowed EV Charging Locations to dedicate up to 1/3 of spaces as accessory Fleet Charging, the final version of the ordinance prohibits Fleet Charging as an accessory use to EV Charging Locations or to any other use. I.e., no accessory Fleet Charging, period.
Consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the final legislation permits Fleet Charging in most of the Neighborhood Commercial Districts with approval of a CU.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee opted to require a CU for Fleet Charging in all of the PDR districts, primarily based on a concern that Fleet Charging uses could displace businesses that provide blue collar jobs. However, existing Private Parking Lots and Vehicle Storage Lots in the PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 districts will be able to convert to Fleet Charging without a CU. Supervisor Peskin explained that this minor exception would cover a limited number of properties located in District 10.

In addition to the above changes incorporated into the version of the legislation approved by the Board this week, the Land Use and Transportation Committee also created a duplicated version of the file in order to add a set of new CU findings that would apply to Fleet Charging projects. As drafted, a proposed Fleet Charging use would require consideration of the following criteria:

The proposed Fleet Charging use will not induce demand for low occupancy vehicles in highly congested areas or in transit-rich areas.
Vehicle movement on or around the Fleet Charging use will not unduly impact pedestrian spaces or movement, transit service, bicycle movement, or the overall traffic movement.
If the vehicles accessing the proposed Fleet Charging use are owned by one ownership entity, that the ownership entity establishes that it has secured sufficient parking spaces for vehicles when not in operation within San Francisco or adjacent counties.

The second finding essentially codifies a question that a Fleet Charging project’s environmental review would already address—i.e., would a new vehicle-oriented use significantly impact traffic in the vicinity of the project? The Planning Department is experienced with traffic circulation issues and how they should be addressed as part of the land-use process. So, we don’t anticipate a significant amount of uncertainty related to this second finding.

The first and third findings, however, leave open some critical questions of interpretation.

The first finding speaks to low occupancy vehicles. The Planning Code doesn’t define that term, but it is generally understood to mean a vehicle with one or two people in it. It’s not clear what this finding would mean as applied to a Fleet Charging use serving EV rideshare vehicles—which may sometimes carry only one passenger at a time. Other types of fleets, including delivery vehicles and service vehicles, will often have a driver and no passengers. Depending on how it’s applied, this finding could actually discourage the electrification of rideshare fleets—contrary to a 2021 California Air Resources Board mandate that rideshare companies reach zero GHG emissions and ensure that 90% of their vehicle miles are fully electric by 2030.[1]

It’s also unclear what exactly the third proposed finding aims to accomplish. EV chargers are likely to be installed at parking facilities, such that vehicles can be parked and charged in one place. Discouraging a dual charging/parking use would seem to run contrary to vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) reduction goals.

Hopefully, these questions will get answered as the duplicated version of the ordinance makes its way through the legislative process. The duplicated legislation has been referred back to the Planning Commission, but as the Commission and Board of Supervisors head into August recess, we’ll have to wait until the fall to see how this shakes out.

[1] California Air Resources Board, Resolution No. 21-10 (May 20, 2021); see also California Air Resources Board Bulletin, California requires zero-emissions vehicle use for ridesharing services, another step toward achieving the state’s climate goals (May 20, 2021), available at: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CARB/bulletins/2da5a7a.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Chloe Angelis.

Oakland: Housing Approved & Zoning Updates

July 20, 2022 | Justin A. Zucker

Golden West Project CEQA Appeal Denied

Yesterday, the Oakland City Council unanimously denied the appeal of a 222-unit State Density Bonus project, including 16 units for very low income households, on a vacant lot next to the West Oakland BART Station, aka the Golden West project (the “Project”). The City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s March 3, 2021, unanimous approval of the Project.

Appellant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision approving the Project and the environmental review performed for the Project. Appellant argued the Project’s environmental review did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), demanding that a focused or infill EIR be prepared alleging hazardous materials impacts.

An EIR was prepared, however, which the Project tiered off of. The Project site is within the West Oakland Specific Plan area and was evaluated by the West Oakland Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). The City’s independent environmental consultant analyzed and determined there was nothing peculiar about the Project than what was programmatically analyzed in the West Oakland Specific Plan EIR. Upon review, City staff determined that “all hazardous materials concerns were previously addressed in the [West Oakland Specific Plan] EIR” and “conclude[d] that the requirement for any supplemental and/or infill EIR would be inappropriate and not justified.” No further CEQA review was required. Tiering off the West Oakland Specific Plan EIR was found to be proper.

Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP, led by Justin A. Zucker, is happy to have successfully assisted Project sponsor in navigating this Project from concept and entitlement through appeal.

Downtown Oakland Specific Plan Zoning Incentive Program Released

As previously reported, the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan is working its way to the City Council for adoption. One of the main purposes of the new specific plan is to address issues with existing zoning controls. A key element of the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan is establishment of a Zoning Incentive Program (“ZIP”).

On July 7, 2022, Oakland released the details of the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan ZIP. The ZIP allows developers to elect to provide one or more community benefits or pay an in-lieu fee to the City to fund such benefits, in exchange of increases in allowable building height and/or density. Projects may only participate in the ZIP if they are within one of the three ZIP areas designated in the Zoning Map. The three areas are generally located in:

Jack London Square – area along the Embarcadero, including the Victory Court area;
Central Downtown Oakland – area extending one to three blocks out from Broadway between 10^th and 20^th Streets and from 14^th Street between Castro Street to Lake Merritt Boulevard; and
Koreatown/Northgate – area surrounding Telegraph Avenue along 23^rd, 24^th, 25^th, 26^th, 27^th and 28^th

Under the ZIP, a project providing one of the following will result in allowance for additional density or non-residential floor area:

On-site, below market rate ground-floor commercial space – ground floor space provided at fifty percent (50%) of market rate rent for qualified retail, commercial, arts, and non-profit tenants;
On-site affordable dwelling units – providing on-site affordable dwelling units allows for increases over base density but not non-residential floor area;
Public restroom facility(ies) – provision of ground-floor, gender-neutral restroom facilities open to the public during work hours;
Streetscape, open space, and flood control improvements – provision of public streetscape and/or open space improvements includes landscaping, tree planting, and public art installation with flood control improvements including raising public lands, construction of drainage facilities, retaining walls, and other similar improvements;
In-Lieu Fees – provision of an in-lieu fee to be used by the City for the above-listed community benefits or for job training programs. The in-lieu fee per square foot of commercial development (non-residential floor area) ranges from $10 to $20 with the residential development in-lieu fee ranging from $12,000 to $22,000.

On July 13, 2022, the Zoning Update Committee held a hearing on the proposed ZIP. At that hearing, no action was taken by the Zoning Update Committee. An economic analysis of the ZIP is being prepared and will be reviewed and analyzed at the next scheduled Zoning Update Committee hearing on August 24, 2022.

Reuben, Junius, & Rose LLP has experience with entitlement projects and land use diligence throughout Oakland, and we are pleased to have worked on some of the largest housing projects approved in the city over the last several years. We will continue to track this significant rezoning and community planning effort as it moves forward.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Justin A. Zucker.

Legislation Expands CUA Appeal Rights to Tenants

July 11, 2022July 11, 2022 | Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP

On Tuesday June 14^th, Supervisor Melgar introduced a new version of legislation (“Appeal Legislation”) that will change, and effectively lower the threshold, for appeals of Conditional Use Authorizations (or denial) by the Planning Commission.

A Conditional Use Authorization (“CUA”) refers to the use or development of a parcel that is not permitted as-of-right but requires additional scrutiny by the Planning Commission. These land uses have special characteristics or a unique nature that may be suitable only in certain locations or operated and arranged in a particular manner. As such, they have a higher threshold for approval. The San Francisco Planning Code states that a CUA can be approved if they are “necessary or desirable for, and compatible with, the neighborhood or the community” (Section 303(c)(1)), along with other specific findings. CUA appeals are acted upon by the Board of Supervisors.

Because the standard for granting CUA’s are highly subjective, public opinion and political pressures often come into play in determining the “necessity or desirability, and compatibility” of a project. While land use justifications are given for classifying certain uses as conditional, other motives are often in play: to protect existing, local businesses from competition by formula retail or an overconcentration of similar businesses; to preserve the amenity and value of existing buildings by making height above 40 or 50 feet a conditional use, even in high-density districts where height limits allow for taller buildings and tall buildings are prevalent. With subjective standards for both approvals and appeals at the Board of Supervisors, some decisions may effectively become a popularity contest and create a great deal of uncertainty for applicants, property owners, and tenants. This is particularly true for businesses requiring a conditional use. Prior to new state laws setting stricter standards for disapproving or reducing the density of housing developments, new residential construction was downsized more frequently for compatibility with adjacent buildings.

Currently, a decision by the Planning Commission on a CUA may only be appealed within 30 days by either 1) five members of the Board of Supervisors; or 2) the owners of at least 20% of the property within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. Where a property has joint ownership, the signature of each owner is calculated as representing the affected property in “direct proportion to the amount of total ownership of that property attributable to the owners subscribing to the notice of appeal” (Section 308.1(b)(4)). A CUA may only be overturned or modified by a 2/3 vote of the Board.

The primary substantive change in the Appeal Legislation would count the signature of “Verified Tenants” as well as those of property owners toward meeting the 20% threshold for filing an appeal (currently, only owners are eligible). After receiving the signatures, the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) would have five days to verify whether the 20% requirement had been fulfilled.

In a city where the vast majority of owners and businesses rent or lease, and many owners do not live or operate businesses on their property, the policy motivations of the Appeal Legislation are self-evident: to give the people living or running a business in a building who may be most affected by a CUA decision standing to file an appeal regardless of whether they own the affected property.

With some narrow exceptions (e.g., property owners voting to tax themselves for community benefit districts that provide additional services), conditioning public participation or voting on property ownership is an anachronism. (North Carolina, the last state to make property ownership a prerequisite to voting in presidential elections, abolished its requirement in 1856.) With that said, the Appeal Legislation does raise several questions about the relative weight given to verification of tenant signatures, tenant votes, and the potential for double-counting votes in some instances:

Verified Tenants or Honor System? Only a “Verified Tenant” may subscribe to an appeal. A Verified Tenant is a commercial or residential tenant who declares under penalty of perjury that they lease an entire property or a unit on the property with a lease term exceeding 32 days. A Verified Tenant must maintain proof of tenancy (lease or other government document showing residency/occupancy) and have occupancy longer than 32 days as of the date of signing the appeal.

However, the Department of Public Works is not required to verify tenant documentation; it “may” request documentation at its discretion. It also does not specify that the signature from a business must be an authorized signatory for the business. For example, during the installation of street seating under COVID emergency orders, there were instances of unauthorized employees granting permission for structures with seating for adjacent restaurants to encroach on another store’s frontage without the business owner’s knowledge or consent. Given that DPW only has five days to determine the validity of an appeal, the verification process seems more like an honor system with a bare minimum of time for DPW to calculate the percentages based on self-reporting by signatories.

Five days does not provide a reasonable amount of time for requesting and verifying even a random sample of documentation from Verified Tenants. Further, defining a Verified Tenant as one occupying a unit pursuant to a lease should require a tenant to provide a copy of the lease. Other documents (DMV records, federal income tax records, and utility bills) may demonstrate that a tenant lives somewhere, but not that they are an authorized occupant with a lease. Verifying property ownership, the current requirement for CUA appeals, is an easier process since ownership is a matter of public record. Under the Appeal Legislation, the relevant documents to prove up occupancy for Verified Tenants are not a matter of public record and an applicant has no right to demand an audit by DPW. At minimum, a random audit of a percentage of tenant signatories should be included and the overall total counted toward the appeal discounted accordingly. This could be accomplished without extending overall timelines for a 5-day preliminary acceptance of the appeal, subject to an additional period for DPW to conduct a random audit to determine the percentage of invalid signatures. If the rate of valid signatures in the sample would cause the overall number of signatures to fall below the 20% threshold, the appeal would be rejected. (This is similar to the approach used for a preliminary evaluation and rejection of signatures in support of ballot measures.)

One Tenant Speaks for All Tenants in a Unit & All Units Are Equal. Where a rental unit is occupied by more than one tenant, the signature of one tenant in a unit effectively speaks for all tenants in the space. Similarly, all rental units are counted equally toward the 20% threshold. For example, in a multi-unit property, a 10,000 square foot commercial rental unit would be given equal weight as a 500 square foot studio unit. Compare this to the treatment of jointly owned property, where only the portion of the property attributable to a single signatory is counted.

Potential for Double-Counting. Where a joint owner and a tenant sign on to an appeal, each signatory is counted according to the method laid out for each. As an example, if an owner of one unit in a 2-unit condo building has a 50% interest in the property and rents that unit out, their two signatures would be added together such that they would effectively represent 100% of the property for appeal purposes. If the other owner or tenant joined, the percentage counted toward the appeal would not increase beyond 100%. On the other hand, if the other owner also rented and both that owner and tenant opposed the appeal, they would effectively be disenfranchised in determining the appeal threshold.

Depending on the number of rental units and ownership structure of buildings near the project, the Appeal Legislation could significantly reduce the 20% threshold, effectively negate the voice of supportive property owners and tenants, and, without any mandatory verification mechanisms for tenants, undermine transparency and trust in the validity of an appeal.

With that said, the Appeal Legislation does include other terms that reduce confusion and promotes administrative efficiency. For example, it requires the Planning Commission’s final, signed approval to be transmitted to the Clerk of the Board within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s action. No such reporting is currently required, and final decisions are not always issued within 10 days. Thus, the 10-day limit should broadly benefit all recipients of CUA approvals and reduce the burden on the Clerk of verifying the Planning Commission’s action. Appeals may not be filed “earlier than ten business days” or later than 30 days from the date of action by the Planning Commission. Although this technically shortens the appeal window to 20 days, the overall 30-day time period remains unchanged and there is no tolling of the appeal period if the final Planning Commission decision is not transmitted to the Clerk within 10 days.

Since most CUA appeals are filed towards the end of the 30-day appeal period, the change should have minimal, if any, effect on the length of the CUA appeal process. It does, however, lower the bar for appeals and increases the risk of delay and cost overruns, particularly for small businesses.

Given San Francisco’s slower-than-average recovery from COVID-19 job losses, the broader question the Appeal Legislation raises is one of priorities and goals for the city’s future. Is this the time to introduce more uncertainty and procedural hurdles into the business and housing environment?

Or should policymakers be focused on bigger questions facing our city: the revival of downtown and Union Square, restoring the tourism sector, and creating space for more flexible models for living, working, and doing business in a post-pandemic (or COVID endemic) world. Is a CUA really necessary for banks, architect’s offices, or small-scale hotels in Neighborhood Commercial Districts? Or for enlarging a successful business into an adjacent storefront? Are minor changes like these worth the time and attention of San Francisco’s elected officials? On balance, does the extent of regulatory oversight strike the right balance between public participation, public policy goals, and the costs, both in time and money, to applicants.

Public participation in the Planning process should be—and is—a given. But right now, shouldn’t that participation be focused on how to fill vacant spaces and addressing a persistent housing shortage and widespread homelessness, rather than adding time, cost, and risk for businesses and projects that fulfill those goals? By making big moves to provide flexibility and fast, by right-approvals for new housing and new/expanding businesses, San Francisco can send a strong signal that it is still the adaptable, dynamic, creative city that will continue to be an economic and cultural powerhouse—and not the dystopia the national press has portrayed it as of late. Tenants—both residential and commercial—should of course have a place at the table when major changes are proposed. But that participation should be focused on major changes in zoning rules and large-scale projects that need exceptions from standard regulations. At a bare minimum, an expansion of the right to bring a CUA appeal should be accompanied with the elimination of CUA requirements that stand in the way of important public policy goals.

Regardless of where one stands on these amendments, if approved, they will change the CUA Appeal landscape. The legislation was introduced at the June 14^th Board of Supervisors hearing and requires review and comment by the Planning Commission before it is taken up by the Supervisors. Stay tuned for updates on this legislation.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP.