End of Summer Legislative Round Up

| Tara Sullivan
ordinance

As the summer winds down and with most of the San Francisco’s boards and commissions on break, there is not much activity happening in the local land-use world.  Below are a handful of ordinances that were introduced on July 30th, the last hearing before the Board of Supervisors’ legislative recess and currently winding their way through the review process.

Crackdown on Unauthorized Dwelling Units

Legislation proposed by Supervisor Melgar (BOS File No. 24-0803) would implement a new, multi-pronged approach to San Francisco’s (the “City’s”) handling of unauthorized dwelling units (“UDUs”).  Under the legislation, the Planning Department’s development application process would be amended to require project sponsors to disclose the presence of UDUs on the subject property, in addition to the number of dwelling units, mailboxes, and utility meters at the property.  Applicants may also be expected to provide information about whether any dwelling units or bedrooms had been rented for the previous ten years.  In addition, this ordinance would also require the Planning Department to conduct property inspections to determine whether UDUs exist before the department may recommend a residential demolition, conversion, or merger under Section 317.

To ensure compliance, Supervisor Melgar’s ordinance would also add specific penalties for misrepresentations on development applications and building permit applications.  If, after receiving a planning application, the Planning Department reasonably believed that an applicant did not disclose a UDU, this legislation would authorize Planning to further investigate and potentially cancel the development application.  Should the Zoning Administrator cancel a development application, applicants may need to start over by re-filing their application with a potential six-month penalty waiting period imposed for willful violations.

Under the proposed legislation, the City may also penalize parties other than the project sponsor for violating the ordinance.  In addition to allowing (and sometimes requiring) the Zoning Administrator to cancel planning applications featuring misrepresentations, the ordinance would also give the Planning Department authority to refer design professionals and authorized agents who signed off on those planning applications to the applicable licensing agency or regulatory body.

Increasing Income Limits for Certain BMR Units

The City’s Below Market Rate (“BMR”) homeownership and rental programs currently requires a percentage of newly developed housing units be made available to households earning a certain percentage of the Area Median Income (“AMI”), with limited exceptions or opportunities to adjust affordability levels.

Under legislation proposed by Supervisor Melgar (BOS File No. 24-0802), an owner who purchases a BMR owned unit at above the current affordable price may seek a permanent adjustment of the unit’s AMI threshold by petitioning the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD).  If the city accepted the owner’s petition, MOHCD would be authorized to increase the BMR unit’s AMI levels up to a maximum of 150%.  Projects whose affordability levels were originally set by either the Planning Commission or the Planning Department, however, would also need that body to approve the adjustment.

This ordinance would also grant MOHCD the authority to grant a one-time exception for certain properties, setting the qualifying income level to 20% above the required AMI.  In addition, MOHCD would also be empowered to grant an exception to affordability limits for BMR rental units converted to owned units up to a maximum of 150% AMI.

Expanding Downtown Entertainment Zones

This ordinance (BOS File No. 24-0804) comes in response to Senate Bill 76 (the “Entertainment Zones Act”), which authorized San Francisco to create “Entertainment Zones” in public places where brick and mortar establishments could sell alcohol for off-premises consumption.  Since Governor Newsom signed the statute into law last year, however, the City’s only proposed entertainment zone had consisted solely of a segment of Front Street between California and Sacramento Streets.

Under this ordinance proposed by Supervisor Peskin, the City’s entertainment zone would be expanded to also include: (1) the segment of Annie Street between Market and Stevenson, (2) Claude Lane between Bush and Sutter, (3) segments of Jessie Street between Mission and Fifth and between Mission and Fourth, (4) Leidesdorff Street between Sacramento and Clay and Commercial and Montgomery, and other locations in and around the Financial District.

The legislation also creates a permitting scheme for businesses hoping to participate in the City’s Entertainment Zones.  If adopted, Supervisor Peskin’s legislation would task the Department of Public Works with issuing permits to sell alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption in entertainment zones on a discretionary basis under a new process, subject to certain conditions.

In addition to allowing outdoor alcohol consumption, the ordinance would also exempt businesses in entertainment zones from obtaining limited live performance permits, entertainment permits, and fixed place outdoor amplified sound permits for sound generated between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

New Interim CU Requirements for Change of Use in Certain Mid-Market Districts

This resolution (BOS File No. 24-0817), if passed, will create interim controls that will require a Conditional Use Authorization for any change of use from either an Entertainment, Arts and Recreation, or Retail Sales and Service use for certain mid-Market zoning districts for eighteen (18) months.  Citing high vacancy rates and public safety concerns, businesses wishing to change uses from one of the above uses would, in addition to making the required findings under the Planning Code, also be required to make certain findings showing that the use would detract from the area’s function as a commercial corridor nor its nearby entertainment, arts, or tourism uses.  The interim controls, proposed by Supervisor Dorsey, would give the City time to reevaluate current zoning controls for mid-Market as the area recovers from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to determine whether changes are needed to encourage and retain entertainment and retail businesses.

 

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

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.

SF’s Proposed BMR and Impact Fee Changes

| Mark Loper
fee

Late last month, Supervisors Peskin and Safai introduced long-awaited legislation lowering San Francisco’s affordable housing requirements for certain approved and proposed projects, as well as reducing impact fees. This week’s alert summarizes the proposal as it currently stands.

Changes for pipeline projects

Sponsors of projects with 25 or more units that were or are approved before November 1, 2023 and have not received a first construction document (usually the architectural addendum)—so-called “pipeline projects”—are allowed to apply for a lower affordable housing obligation, additional time to obtain a site permit, and changes to density bonus law compliance.

The affordable rates are proposed to be reduced across the board as follows:

  • Affordable housing fee. 16.4%, for both ownership and rental projects. If the project is in an area with a specific affordable housing fee, the applicable percentage is 54.5% of the rate for rental projects in the area or 16.4%, whichever is higher.
  • On-site. 12% for both ownership and rental projects, with 8% for low-income, 2% moderate-income, and 2% middle-income. For projects in areas with specific on-site BMR requirements, the rate is 54% of the rate for rental housing projects in that area or 12%, whichever is higher.
  • Off-site. 16.4%, for both ownership and rental projects. If the project is in an area with specific off-site BMR requirements, the applicable percentage is 54.5% of the rate for rental projects in the area or 16.4%, whichever is higher.

Project sponsors can also request an extension of performance periods for their projects up to May 1, 2029. The legislation does not require the City to extend all performance periods to May 2029, though. The current practice is for three-year extensions starting on the date of City approval.

The legislation has two “use it or lose it” provisions. First, the City needs to grant the request for reduced affordable rates by November 1, 2026. Because the deadline is not the date that the request is submitted to the City but the date of City approval, sponsors should make sure to apply comfortably before the end of the deadline. Also, sponsors need to get a first construction document—as noted above, usually the architectural addendum—on or before May 1, 2029.

Finally, density bonus pipeline projects are allowed to request modifications to the number and type of concessions, incentives, and waivers, as well as the number of affordable units. This recognizes that density bonus projects may need to adjust their compliance with the density bonus law if the project’s on-site affordable unit count decreases.

As noted above, sponsors must ask for a reduction; the changes do not apply automatically. Most projects will be approved by City staff administratively, assuming the Planning Commission agrees to delegate its authority. The legislation also would allow staff to extend the time to get a site permit, instead of going to the Planning Commission. Projects proposing “significant modifications” need to go to the Planning Commission, though. This includes projects whose unit count would change by more than 20%, floor area would change by more than 10%, and whose unit typology would change from dwelling units to group housing.

Projects entitled between November 2023 and November 2026

The ordinance would also reduce the affordable housing requirements for non-pipeline projects entitled between November 1, 2023 and November 1, 2026. The rates are proposed as follows:

  • Affordable housing fee. 20.5%, for both ownership and rental projects. If the project is in an area with a specific affordable housing fee, the applicable percentage is 68% of the rate for rental projects in the area.
  • On-site. 15% for both ownership and rental projects, with 10% for low-income, 2.5% moderate-income, and 2.5% middle-income. For projects in areas with specific on-site BMR requirements, the rate is 68% of the rate for rental housing projects in that area.
  • Off-site. 20.5%, for both ownership and rental projects. If the project is in an area with a specific off-site requirement, the applicable percentage is 68% of the rate for rental projects in the area.

These projects also have a “use it or lose it” provision: their first construction document needs to be received within 30 months of entitlement approval or approval on appeal, whichever happens later, and building permit approval for projects that do not require discretionary entitlements.

Permanent affordable housing changes

The ordinance would make a third and permanent change to San Francisco’s affordable requirements:

  • Affordable housing fee. For projects with 25 or more units, 27% for condos and 24.5% for rental projects.
  • On-site. 15% for projects with 10-24 units. For projects with 25 or more units, 20% for condos and 18% for rentals. Condos need to be 10% low-income, 5% moderate income, and 5% middle income. Rentals need to be 10% low-income, 4% moderate-income, and 4% middle-income.
  • Off-site. For projects with 25 or more units, 27% for condos and 24.5% for rentals. Condos need to have 12% low-income, 7.5% moderate-income, and 7.5% middle-income. Rentals need to have 12.5% low-income, 6% moderate-income, and 6% middle-income.
  • UMU and Divisadero NCT. Different Affordable requirements would apply to UMU and the Divisadero NCT.

Starting in 2028, the on-site percentage would increase by 0.5% annually, up to a maximum of 26% for condo projects and 24% for rentals.

Impact fee reductions until November 2026

The ordinance also proposes to reduce most development impact fees by 33%, so long as the fees are assessed by November 1, 2026, and the project gets a first construction document within 30 months of entitlement approval or approval on appeal, whichever happens first, or building permit approval for projects that do not require discretionary entitlements. Pipeline projects need to receive a first construction document by May 1, 2029.

The schools fee—which is imposed by SFUSD and outside of the jurisdiction of the City itself—would not be reduced. And any Community Facilities Districts (aka Mello-Roos assessments) will continue to apply to qualifying projects in areas such as Central SOMA and the Transit Center District.

We will continue to track this important piece of legislation and its eventual implementation. In the meantime, please reach out to us with any questions about whether your project qualifies for a reduction and how to properly ask for and receive a reduction in a project’s affordable housing requirement.

 

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

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.

AB 2011 Could Unlock Mixed-Income Housing

| Mark Loper, Daniel J. Turner and Alex Klein
AB 2011

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.

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.

California Increases Density Bonus to 50%

| Mark Loper
density bonus

Starting in 2021, residential projects in California with on-site affordable housing can get a density bonus of up to 50%.  Currently, under Government Code Section 65915—commonly known as the Density Bonus Law—the maximum bonus is 35%.  It is available for projects that include 11% very low income below market rate (“BMR”) units, 20% low income BMRs, or 40% moderate income BMRs.  Under a new law that flew somewhat under the radar during the last legislative session in Sacramento, a 50% bonus is available with increased affordability.  Specifically, 15% very low income, 24% low income, or 44% moderate income allow the full 50% bonus.

The new state law, AB 2345, requires cities and counties to comply even if they have not yet updated local implementing ordinances.  This means starting January 1, 2021, all jurisdictions in California are required to process projects proposing up to 50% additional density as long as those projects provide the additional BMRs in the “base” portion of the project, unless the locality already allows a bonus above 35%.

AB 2345 also lowered the BMR thresholds for concessions and incentives for projects with low income BMRs.  For background, in addition to waivers from development controls that preclude a project from achieving the density bonus it is guaranteed (with some narrow exceptions) in exchange for on-site BMRs, the Density Bonus Law allows sponsors to ask for “concessions and incentives” from zoning and development regulations that would make the project more expensive to construct.  Starting in 2021, projects with 17% low income BMRs can qualify for two concessions or incentives, and projects with 24% low income BMRs can qualify for three.

Finally, density bonus projects within one-half mile of a major transit stop and with direct access to the stop may be able to avoid minimum parking requirements.

All-Electric New Construction in San Francisco Starting in June 2021

On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a law mandating new construction projects be all-electric.  The building or project will need to use a permanent supply of electricity as the source of energy for all space conditioning including heating and cooling, water heating, pools and spas, cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances.  Gas or propane piping systems are not permitted from the point of delivery at the gas meter.

The all-electric requirement takes effect on June 1, 2021.  Starting then, all new building or site permit applications will need to comply.  Sponsors should keep in mind there is currently a multi-month delay to file permits at the Department of Building Inspection (“DBI”), and should not wait until the last minute to get their building or site permits on file.

There are two minor exceptions.  If it would be physically or technically infeasible to construct an all-electric building, DBI can grant modifications, but only to those portions of the building where infeasibility can be demonstrated, and the alternative design provides equivalent health, safety, and fire protection.  Importantly, financial considerations cannot be used to show infeasibility.

Also, a restaurant is allowed to have gas facilities used exclusively for cooking equipment.  For permits filed through December 31, 2021, permits identifying a restaurant use will be allowed to have gas facilities.  After 2021, the exception is narrowed and DBI has to determine that the gas system is necessary for the specific restaurant using the space.  Identifying a specific restaurant tenant that early in the process will likely be a challenge for many new construction projects.

 

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

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.