Legislative Analysis Archives

SF Contemplates Major Reductions in Inclusionary Housing and Impact Fees

March 16, 2023March 16, 2023 | Kaitlin Sheber

In the recently released Preliminary Controller Recommendations, the Inclusionary Housing Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”) recommended reductions in San Francisco’s inclusionary housing requirements to make low- and mid-rise condo development feasible. Through its studies, TAC found no housing project prototype studied would be financially feasible under San Francisco’s 2022 inclusionary on-site requirements or at the current fee percentage requirements.

In 2022, the inclusionary requirements for projects with 25 or more units were as follows:

5% for apartment units provided on-site.
5% for condominium units provided on-site.
30% in-lieu fee for apartment units.
33% in-lieu fee for condominium units.

TAC recommended lowering the on-site requirement within the range of 12-16% and lowering the in-lieu fee within the range of 22-29% to make some housing project prototypes possible. The study suggested the reduction would make some low- and mid-rise condominium project prototypes under 8 stories feasible. However, the analysis acknowledged that under the recommended reduced inclusionary housing requirements, condominium project prototypes over 8 stories and all apartment project prototypes would remain infeasible. Overall, a greater proportion of low-rise condominium projects would likely be feasible than mid-rise condominium projects under TAC’s recommended reductions. If requirements were set in the lower portion of recommended ranges, additional mid-rise condominium projects may be feasible.

TAC also outlined additional policy levers available to the Mayor and Board which could affect financial feasibility of housing development, including:

Impact and other permanent regulatory fees.
Timing of payment.
Other city-imposed exactions.

TAC recommended the reduced requirements remain in place through April 2026 and that current TAC membership not expire to ensure a fully-seated TAC during the next Triennial Review.

Further, as of February 16, 2023, San Francisco’s Planning Department (the “Department”) updated its Bulletin on implementing the State Density Bonus Program (“SDBP”). The update clarifies and revises certain Department policies regarding the interaction of the SDBP and local inclusionary requirements. Two of the biggest takeaways include:

SDBP projects (rental or ownership) can now use an incentive to substitute low-income units for required moderate or middle income units in the base project, lowering the base project overall affordability requirements. However, ownership projects must still include the required percentage of low-income (80% AMI) ownership units in both small and large projects and may not reduce the affordability level of those units below 80% AMI in order to qualify for greater bonus under state law.
For SDBP projects with a base project under 25 units, the addition of density bonus units to the project will not trigger the City’s higher inclusionary requirements for projects with 25 or more units.

We will continue to track San Francisco’s efforts to reduce constraints on housing development as the City implements its recently adopted updated housing element.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Kaitlin Sheber.

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.

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.

Matt Haney Seeks To Eliminate Only-in-San Francisco Appeals

March 1, 2023March 1, 2023 | Thomas P. Tunny

Housing developers in San Francisco no doubt recognize this entitlement moment of disbelief: after a grueling, years-long process of working with staff, neighbors, and policy-makers, with numerous concessions made to address the potential impacts of their proposed project, the project finally receives its entitlement from the Planning Commission (a recent study found that a multifamily housing project takes 627 days on average to obtain a building permit) when lo and behold, the Board of Appeals sends notice that the project’s site permit has been appealed; and/or the demolition permit is appealed; and/or the grading permit; and/or the tree planting permit…

Fueling the disbelief even further is that the appeal isn’t based on anything new. The project has already gone through exhaustive review and revisions. The permit appeal process simply gives project opponents one more “bite of the apple”, an opportunity to cause delay and gain leverage for further negotiations and concessions. The standard of review for the Board of Appeals is merely whether the permit was issued in error. And four out of five votes are needed to overturn the permit. All of this highlights the City’s recognition that these appeals are superfluous; and yet, they remain allowed.

Assembly Member Matt Haney seeks to change that. This month he introduced AB 1114, a new bill that recognizes the absurdity (and steep costs to housing) of these appeals, and would eliminate them. The bill would bar cities from allowing building-permit appeals after an applicant has navigated the long and winding road to entitlement. Although the legislation would apply to all cities and counties in California, San Francisco is the only jurisdiction in the state that allows such appeals of entitled projects. Hence, only San Francisco would be affected by the new law. Only permits for projects that are at least 2/3 residential would be protected by the legislation.

One potential hurdle for the legislation is the City’s Charter. Arguably, this proposed change requires an amendment of the City’s Charter, which can be done only by San Francisco voters. But Haney is seeking to bypass that requirement, relying on the state’s vested interest for all California jurisdictions to build more housing.

The bill was introduced February 15 and is scheduled tentatively for a committee hearing on March 18. State Senator Scott Wiener supports the bill, and the Housing Action Coalition was instrumental in its drafting.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Thomas P. Tunny.

Cotenancy Provision Upheld and not Deemed an Unenforceable Penalty

February 6, 2023February 3, 2023 | Lindsay Petrone

JJD-HOV Elk Grove v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC (80 Cal.App.5^th 409) (“JJD-HOV”)[1] highlights that a court is unlikely to intervene and insert terms in a negotiated contract even if one party receives a windfall upon the realization of the contract’s terms. In JJD-HOV, a tenant in a shopping center, Jo-Ann Stores, had a lease with the owner, JJD-HOV Elk Grove, which provided that if a condition arose where the shopping center either had less than (i) three operating anchor tenants or (ii) 60% of the center leased, then Jo-Ann Stores would pay a stipulated lower rent until either or both conditions were resolved. This is typically called a “cotenancy provision” and can be included in shopping center retail leases to encourage a bustling shopping center and customers on-site to shop. Upon the occurrence of less than three operating anchor tenants, Jo-Ann Stores paid the reduced stipulated rent and JJD-HOV Elk Grove sued alleging that the cotenancy provision was an unenforceable penalty.

JJD-HOV Elk Grove relied on a prior case, Grand Prospect Partners, LP v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. (“Grand Prospect”) in which that court of appeal distinguished the general rule that courts enforce contracts as written and held the cotenancy provision in Grand Prospect was an unenforceable penalty because of a lack of a proportional relationship between the forfeiture compelled and the damages or harm that might actually follow from the failure to perform the covenant or satisfy the condition. In Grand Prospect, they relied on the concept of a cotenancy provision as a liquidated damages provision since they are fixing the rent ahead of time upon the condition not being fulfilled. There, the court found that the harm to Ross (which was essentially zero dollars) was not in any way proportional to the remedy (in that case, they paid no rent upon such cotenancy condition not being satisfied), thus the liquidated damages provision was deemed a penalty and unenforceable.

Liquidated damages is a contract provision prescribing in advance the payment to one party as damages for a breach of the contract by the other party. The damages amount should be reasonable for the applicable breach otherwise it could be deemed an unenforceable penalty. In JJD-HOV, the court declined to find a cotenancy provision akin to a liquidated damages provision because the lease did not state that reduced occupancy in the shopping center resulted in JJD-HOV Elk Grove’s breach of the lease, only that the condition was not satisfied. Further, unlike in Grand Prospect, this court held that the alternate rent paid should not be considered “damages”, just two different rental rates, similar to paying a higher amount when a tenant holds over in a space after the lease termination date. Finally, the JJD-HOV court found that the parties negotiated the lease in an arms-length transaction and were hesitant to alter a negotiated contract, even if one party (in this case, Jo-Ann Stores) received a windfall when paying the lower stipulated rent.

JJD-HOV declined to follow the Grand Prospect holding that a cotenancy provision could be held unenforceable if the predetermined reduction in rent did not have a reasonable relationship to the harm the parties anticipated to be caused by the failure in condition. Instead, the court relied on the general rule that it will not alter a contract negotiated in good faith even if one party receives a windfall because of its terms. JJD-HOV reminds us that courts may take a more laissez-faire approach if a contract is negotiated, even if inherently unfair, unless a provision expressly violates a specific law.

[1] The JJD-HOV case is under review. We will update if further action is taken.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Lindsay Petrone.

SF Housing Element Certified by State, adopted by the Board on Jan. 31 deadline

January 31, 2023 | Kaitlin Sheber

Today, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) unanimously voted to adopt an ordinance that amends San Francisco’s Housing Element as required under California law. Today was the last day for the City to meet its deadline to adopt an updated Housing Element that complies with a variety of new state laws.

The updated Housing Element plans for 82,069 new housing units in the next 8 years—nearly three times the units the City was expected and failed to construct over the past 8 years. Of the 82,069 new units, 32,881 units must be affordable to Low or Very Low Income households. To plan for the ambitious requirement and comply with new Housing Element Laws, the City has made extensive updates to its Housing Element, including the following:

Housing production is being shifted towards small and mid-rise housing across all neighborhoods, particularly along transit corridors and the west side of the City.
Programs and actions to affirmatively further fair housing have been added as newly required under state law.
The Housing Element has been updated to reflect the City’s commitment to advancing racial and social equity in San Francisco.
Environmental justice policies will address unique or compounded health risks in affected areas.

As many jurisdictions across the Bay Area work to ensure their updated Housing Elements comply with state law to avoid consequences such as loss of state funding, fines, and potentially loss of local control, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) issued a letter on January 20, 2023 deeming San Francisco’s Housing Element update will comply with State Housing Element Law when it is adopted, submitted to, and ultimately approved by HCD.

Now that the updated Housing Element has been adopted, the City will begin work on implementing its Housing Element to stay in compliance with State Housing Element Law. This will entail rezoning significant swaths of the west side of the City within the next 3 years to allow for more density, especially as HCD has indicated the City should pursue its most aggressive rezoning strategy. The City will also work to reduce governmental constraints in an effort to facilitate housing production under its new Housing Element.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Kaitlin Sheber.

Bigger Code Violation Fines In SF’s Future?

January 11, 2023January 11, 2023 | Mark Loper

We kick off Reuben, Junius and Rose’s 2023 client updates by discussing a proposed San Francisco ordinance that would significantly enhance penalties for unpermitted work eliminating or adding residential units and significantly altering historic resources, and increase administrative and civil penalties for violations of the Building and Planning Codes.

The legislation, co-sponsored by Supervisors Ronen, Peskin and Chan, was introduced in July 2022 (Board File No. 220878). In October 2022, the Building Inspection Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. A Planning Commission hearing is scheduled for next Thursday, January 19^th. After the Planning Commission, hearings would take place at the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee, followed by the full Board.

The ordinance would increase the Zoning Administrator’s authority to impose significant monetary fines on property owners who carry out unpermitted work associated with a residential demo, merger, or change of use, and significant alterations to historic buildings. For unpermitted alterations, mergers, or demolition that eliminate one or more residential units, and also for unpermitted additions of more than two unauthorized units, the property owner would be liable for an administrative penalty of up to $250,000 for each unit. The owner also would be required to file a permit and request retroactive permission from the Planning Commission to eliminate the dwelling unit with a Planning Code Section 317 Conditional Use permit. The Planning Department’s Zoning Administrator would ultimately determine the amount of the fee; the ordinance directs the Planning Commission to adopt factors and criteria for the Zoning Administrator to consider.

The ordinance would also punish property owners who carry out alterations that are tantamount to demolition without securing a Section 317 Conditional Use permit. For five years, no permits authorizing construction or alteration are allowed. There would be one exception: the permit would need to have the same or more residential units, with the same or higher proportion of residential to non-residential units as the building as it existed before the unpermitted work occurred. Also, the replacement units need to be at least 40% of the size of the largest unit in the project. They also could be subject to rent control; as written, this provision of the draft ordinance is unclear.

The ordinance would also enhance the potential penalties for unpermitted damage to historic properties. For historic properties that are designated locally or on the California or National registers, a penalty of up to $500,000 is available for each structure that is “significantly altered or damaged,” or “demolished.” Similar to the unpermitted residential work, the Historic Preservation Commission would be tasked with adopting factors and criteria for the Zoning Administrator, and would also need to define the terms “significantly altered or damaged” and “demolished.”

Also, for all Notices of Violation (“NOVs”)—not just NOVs relating to unpermitted work on residential or historic buildings—the ordinance would add the following additional factors when considering whether to uphold the NOV and whether to assess administrative penalties:

if a violation was willful or intentional;
the extent to which it resulted in financial gain;
if tenants were displaced; if the violation is reversible; and
if it created a nuisance, health hazard, or dangerous condition.

Also, the daily administrative penalty would be increased from $100 to $200.

On appeal to the Board of Appeals, if the Board upholds in whole or in part the Zoning Administrator’s decision on the amount of the penalty, it can reduce the penalty, but not below $50,000 for each residential unit or $100,000 for each historic property.

The ordinance would also allow a court to assess a daily civil penalty of between $200 and $1,000 and adds criteria for a court to consider when assessing the amount of any civil penalty for any Planning or Building Code violation. They include: the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, number of violations, the persistence of the misconduct, length of time, willfulness of the defendant, if any tenants were displaced, if the violation is reversable, if the violation impacted an historic resource, the financial gain because of the violation, and the defendant’s net worth.

Finally, the ordinance adds some procedural teeth. Any time after issuing an NOV, the Zoning Administrator can issue a “Notice of Additional Compliance Actions and Accrued Penalties” that requires a responsible party to perform additional abatement actions, and/or sets out the total penalties accrued to-date. Final NOVs or Notices of Violation and Penalty Decisions (“NOVPD”) may be recorded as an Order of Abatement on title, which also would spell out the steps necessary to abate the violation. The Ordinance would also make transferees responsible for daily penalties that accrue after the transfer if an NOV or NOVPD has been recorded on title; if not, the Zoning Administrator can only start assessing daily penalties if a notice and an opportunity to cure the violation are provided.

We will continue to track this interesting piece of legislation as it moves forward.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Mark Loper.

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.

CEQA Litigation Win

November 30, 2022November 30, 2022 | Sabrina Eshaghi

RJR Attorneys Successfully Defend 180-Unit Housing Development

Earlier this month, the First District Court of Appeals handed down a win for our client in a CEQA lawsuit challenging the approval of a 180-unit residential project in Petaluma (Project). (Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma (Nov. 14, 2022, A163192) [nonpub. opn.].) Matthew Visick and Sabrina Eshaghi of our office represented the developer during entitlements and litigation.

The Court confirmed:

The “baseline” conditions against which biological impacts are measured can be drawn from site visits, studies, and habitat evaluations that were undertaken both before and after the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is issued; and
The EIR need not contain a standalone analysis of evacuation impacts, despite expert testimony to the contrary, where substantial evidence indicates large-scale evacuations would not be necessary.

The Project went through an extensive environmental review process that resulted in the release of a Draft EIR in 2018. The City allowed for an extended public comment period on the Draft EIR and held two hearings to solicit additional comments before preparing the Final EIR. As intended under CEQA, the developer adjusted the project multiple times to respond to comments received during the hearings on the Draft and Final EIR. Despite the developer’s efforts to respond to community input, opponents of the Project submitted a letter from an attorney to the City on the day the City Council approved the Project asserting a broad range of alleged errors in the Project’s CEQA review. Soon after the City Council approved the Project, the opponents filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the approval.

At the Trial Court, in addition to challenging the adequacy of the EIR’s biological resources and emergency evacuation analysis, the opponents claimed the developer had deprived the public of its right to meaningfully participate in the CEQA process by making changes to the Project in response to public and City input after publication of the Final EIR, failed to analyze the impact of formaldehyde off gassing from composite building products, and failed to adequately analyze potential impacts related to flooding from the adjacent Petaluma River. The Trial Court rejected the opponents’ wide-ranging claims and upheld the EIR’s certification. The opponents promptly appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Court’s decision as to the two issues raised on appeal: the “baseline” for measuring biological resources impacts and the adequacy of the Project’s emergency evacuation analysis.

First, the Court agreed that information and analysis conducted both before and after the NOP is issued can be the basis for establishing the “baseline” against which Project impacts are measured. The state CEQA Guidelines generally require existing baseline conditions to be based on the environmental conditions at the time the NOP issues. Here, the NOP was published in 2007, but a special status species report for the EIR’s biological resources analysis was drafted in 2004. The EIR indicated its analysis included updated database reviews and information gathered from site visits in the years following the NOP. The Court confirmed that the use of materials from before and after the NOP issued did not require additional justification because there was no indication that the conditions had changed. Instead, the Court determined that the “inclusion of the post-2007 information indicates that the EIR was prepared with an eye toward ‘completeness’ and ‘a good faith effort at full disclosure.’” The Court also rejected the opponents’ argument that the EIR must provide additional documentation from the biologist’s studies and site visits to allow the opponents to evaluate whether they support the analysis in the EIR, confirming that factual information in the EIR itself may constitute substantial evidence. The Court also noted that the opponents could have obtained this information if they had raised their comments during the public comment period rather than on the day the Project was approved.

Second, the Court agreed that where the City has substantial evidence that large scale evaluations will not be necessary, the EIR need not include a stand alone analysis of evacuation impacts. While the EIR did include an analysis of the Project’s impact on adopted emergency response and evacuation plans, the opponents argued that the EIR also needed to evaluate egress and evacuation safety due to neighborhood concerns regarding flooding and grass fires as well as a letter from a “national evacuation expert” opining on allegedly dangerous public safety impacts in the event of an evacuation. The Court reaffirmed that CEQA does not allow courts to reweigh conflicting evidence when reviewing an EIR and that case law allowed the City to rely on the expertise of its staff to determine that the Project will not have a significant impact. Here, City staff prepared a memo reiterating that the Project is outside the 100-year floodplain and is not within the high fire severity zone, and the Assistant Fire Chief confirmed the Fire Department did not have significant flood or fire access/egress concerns. Given the analysis in the EIR and the corroborating statements from City staff, the Court concluded that the opponents failed to prove any inadequacy of the public safety analysis in the EIR.

This opinion affirms the deferential review that the Courts will give to an EIR. So long as the EIR reasonably sets forth enough information to allow informed public participation and allows the City to make a reasoned decision whether to approve a project, the Courts will not second guess the City’s decision to approve a project.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Sabrina Eshaghi.

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.

November 8th Elections Update – Real Estate Edition

November 16, 2022 | Tara Sullivan

Now that the election is a week behind us, the final results of the various political races and ballot measures are becoming clear. There are still 15,500 votes left to count as of November 15^th, but many of the results are final. Below are the results that most impact land use and real estate in San Francisco.

Board of Supervisors

With Supervisors Stefani (D2), Mandelman (D8), and Walton (D10), cruising to easy re-elections, the focus has been on Districts 4 and 6. In both, the race has been between a mayoral-backed, moderate candidate and a Board-backed, progressive candidate. The outcome of these two races will shift the makeup of the Board and impact how land use decisions are made, particularly housing policy and project decisions. Currently, the Board leans more progressive and is somewhat conservative when deciding many land use decisions. Recent examples of project denials are 469 Stevenson Street and 450 O’Farrell Street – both of which may have been approved with a more moderate make up of Supervisors.

As of Tuesday November 15^th, Joel Engardio is leading Supervisor Gordon Mar, the incumbent, in District 2 at 51% to 48.9%. In District 6, Supervisor Matt Dorsey has won the seat with 51.6% of the vote.

If the current count stands in District 2, then the balance of the Board of Supervisors is sure to tilt to a more moderate stance that is friendlier to the development of housing projects.

SF Propositions

There were 14 propositions on the November ballot, with the following of most interest to land use and real estate.

Prop D & Prop E – Fast Track Affordable Housing

These two measures were perhaps the most written about and discussed (at least in land use circles). Prop D was put on the ballot by the Mayor, Prop E by the Board of Supervisors. Both have a goal of streamlining the approval process for affordable housing developments. However, they differed in qualifying requirements, types and level of affordable units, and project review timing. Each needed a simple majority to pass; if both reached 50% then the measure receiving the most votes wins.

As of this writing, both measures are expected to fail. Neither has reached the 50% threshold, although Prop D is closer at 48.5% (compared to 45.3% for Prop E). With the defeat of Prop D, it will continue to be difficult to review, approve, and construct affordable housing in San Francisco.

Prop M – Vacancy Tax on Landlords

Perhaps one of the more controversial measures on the ballot, this measure will tax landlords that keep residential units vacant and off-market. It applies to property owners with at least three units who keep them vacant for more than 6 months. Fines start at $2,500 and $5,000 per empty unit, increasing annually. While this measure penalizes owners who choose not to be landlords or keep units vacant for a variety of reasons, it does exempt single-family and duplex owners. Meaning, owners of homes with Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and the like that are not rented out will be able to continue to keep them vacant.

Prop M passed with 53% of the vote, which some say shows how the citizens are fed up with the high number of empty units. For others, it is overreach into the private business doings of property owners.

Prop M contained language allowing the Board of Supervisors to amend the tax by 2/3rds vote and without voter approval. Meaning, those with ADUs may soon be subject to this tax. Regardless of how one feels about this, it will be interesting to watch how it plays out over the next several years.

Prop I & Prop J – Vehicles on JFK Drive and the Great Highway

Another set of competing land use measures, this time relating to keeping certain roads vehicle-free. Both were spurred by the Board of Supervisors approval to make JFK Drive permanently car-free in 2020. Prop I would allow cars back on JFK Drive, except on all Sundays, Saturdays during the summer, holidays and special events. Prop I would fully reopen the Great Highway to cars as well. Prop J would affirm the Board’s decision and keep JFK Drive vehicle-free.

Prop J overwhelmingly passed. Residents utilized JFK Drive during the COVID lockdown, and Rec & Park’s efforts to turn the road into a safe public gathering space helped people see the long-term benefits of keeping it car-free. Now that the road’s fate is determined, it will be interesting to see if the city can make it into a true public benefit.

Prop L – Sales Tax to Fund SFMTA Projects

This measure to extend the city’s 0.5% sales tax to fund transportation projects has passed with nearly 71% of the vote; it needed a two-thirds majority vote to pass. The current tax isn’t set to expire for years, but the last measure extending it set strict limits on how the money could be spent. Prop L would allow San Francisco to continue spending funds from the tax on categories where it has currently reached or is nearing its spending cap, including buying new light rail vehicles.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Tara Sullivan.