#development Archives - Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP

2024 State Housing Legislation Preview

September 12, 2024September 12, 2024 | Alex Klein and Melinda Sarjapur

During its 2024 legislative session, the California State Legislature again passed a variety of laws aimed at increasing housing production. As this new housing legislation heads to Governor Newsom’s desk to be either vetoed or signed into law, here is a preview of nine housing bills which could soon become law:

Streamlining Laws

AB 2243 (Wicks): AB 2011 amendments. This bill would update the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (AB 2011), which allowed for streamlined residential development on parcels abutting commercial corridors where office, retail, or parking are principally permitted uses. If enacted, this bill would update the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (AB 2011, Cal Gov Code Sec. 65912.100, et. Seq.). Among other changes, this bill would expand program eligibility to sites up to 100 acres that contain a regional mall; expand the definition of “urban uses” [which must abut 75% of a qualifying site’s perimeter] to include parking lots and public parks surrounded by other urban uses; and revise the definition of “dedicated to industrial use” so that it applies only to sites which currently contain industrial use, were most recently permitted as industrial and occupied with such use within the past three years, or were designated for industrial use in the jurisdiction’s most recent general plan adopted before 2022 (except where residential uses are also principally permitted). Further, AB 2243 would allow projects within five hundred (500) feet of a freeway, provided they meet certain ventilation and HVAC requirements.
AB 1893 (Wicks): Builders Remedy update. This bill would amend what’s known as the Builder’s Remedy: a provision of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). As amended, the Builder’s Remedy would generally prohibit local governments that have failed to adopt a compliant Housing Element from disapproving residential projects that provide either one hundred percent (100%) of units affordable to lower-income or moderate-income households; thirteen percent (13%) are affordable to lower-income households; ten percent (10%) are affordable to very-low income households; or seven percent (7%) are affordable to extremely-low income households. This affordability requirement would not apply to projects with ten (10) or fewer units located on a site smaller than one (1) acre with a minimum density of ten (10) units per acre. AB 1893 would also set some new site eligibility restrictions; establish maximum and minimum density limits; and allow qualifying developments to use an existing streamlining program such as AB-2011 or SB-423, as well as State Density Bonus Law. Importantly, projects that are currently seeking Builder’s Remedy relief and filed applications with a local jurisdiction before January 1, 2025 may proceed under the original Builder’s Remedy law.
SB 1123 (Caballero): More flexibility for residential subdivisions up to 10 units. This bill would amend the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021 (Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 65852.28 & 66499.41), which allows ministerial approval for subdivisions with ten (10) or fewer units on parcels of five (5) acres or less, zoned for multifamily residential use, and surrounded by qualified urban uses. Among other changes, this bill would extend the Act to vacant sites up to 1.5 acres that are zoned for single-family housing. It would also provide that ADUs and JADUs (if permitted) would not count toward the 10-unit maximum. If signed into law, these changes would become effective as of July 1, 2025.

Development Fees

SB 937 (Weiner): Delaying payment of certain development fees. This bill would amend the Mitigation Fee Act (Cal. Gov. Code 66007, et. seq.). Among other changes, it would delay assessment of development impact fees on certain housing developments until issuance of a first certificate of occupancy or first temporary certificate of occupancy. Further, it would limit the amount of utility service fees that can be collected at the time an application is received for a residential project to costs incurred by the utility related to the connection.
AB 1820 (Schiavo): Fee estimates for residential development. This bill would allow residential developers to request that a local agency provide a preliminary fee and exaction estimate at the time an SB 330 preliminary application is submitted. If requested, the local agency would be required to provide the estimate within thirty (30) business days. Within thirty (30) business days of final project approval, the local agency would also be required to provide an itemized list and good faith estimate of all applicable fees and extractions.
SB 1210 (Skinner): Greater transparency for utility fees and timeframes. This bill would require certain publicly-owned utilities to post the following information on their websites by January 1, 2026: (1) a schedule of fee estimates for typical service connection fees; and (2) estimated timeframes for completing typical service connections for a variety of residential developments including ADUs, single-family homes, multifamily, and mixed-use developments.

Entitlement and Permit Extensions

AB 2729 (Patterson): Entitlement extension for certain projects. This bill would extend entitlements for housing developments that were issued prior to and in effect on or before January 1, 2024, and that are set to expire before December 31, 2025, by eighteen (18) months. AB 2729 would apply to a broad range of entitlements including legislative approvals; administrative approvals; ministerial approvals; and building permits, but would not apply to development agreements, SB-330 preliminary housing applications, or tentative maps that have already been approved for at least twenty-four (24) months under the Government Code. The area of qualifying housing development projects must be at least two-thirds residential.
AB 2117 (Patterson): Tolling expiration dates. This bill would toll the expiration of certain local entitlements during the time when an action challenging them is pending. AB 2117 tolling would apply to approvals including variances, conditional use permits, and any other development permits, but not to building permits issued under state or local code, demolition permits, minor or standard excavation and grading permits, or other nondiscretionary permits required post-entitlement prior to construction.

ADUs

SB 1211 (Skinner): Expanding state ADU law. This bill would increase the number of detached ADUs eligible for a ministerial approval on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling from two (2) detached ADUs to no more than eight (8) detached ADUs, provided that the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of existing dwelling units on the lot. It would also prohibit local agencies from imposing objective development or design standards that are not authorized by state law on ADUs subject to ministerial approval, or from requiring the replacement of parking spaces if uncovered parking is eliminated to construct an ADU.

The Governor has until September 30, 2024, to either sign or veto legislation passed during the California State Legislature’s 2024 legislative session.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney, Alex Klein, and Partner, Melinda Sarjapur.

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.

HCD Reverses Course: No Zoning Amendments for Builder’s Remedy Projects

August 28, 2024August 28, 2024 | Chloe Angelis

Back in May, we wrote about a March 28, 2024, Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) Letter of Technical Assistance to the City of Compton, which determined that the Builder’s Remedy does not prohibit a city or county from requiring Builder’s Remedy projects to obtain zoning or general plan amendment approvals.[1] Since then, HCD has issued a Letter of Technical Assistance and a subsequent Notice of Violation[2] to the City of Beverly Hills, walking back that March determination and confirming that a Builder’s Remedy project cannot be denied based on inconsistency with a jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation.

The Builder’s Remedy, which is part of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), allows developments that meet certain affordability thresholds to bypass local zoning when a city or county is out of compliance with housing element requirements.

In the March letter to the City of Compton, HCD wrote that “the Builder’s Remedy does not expressly prevent the City from requiring discretionary permits and/or legislative actions (e.g., GPAs, Zoning Changes, CUPs, specific plan amendments, etc.) that would be required for similar projects where the Builder’s Remedy does not apply.” While the March letter focuses on a general plan amendment and zoning change intended “to remedy the inconsistencies between the project and applicable regulatory documents that will result when the project is approved,” the determination cuts to the core of the Builder’s Remedy, which is meant to provide a path for qualifying projects to completely bypass local zoning.

Thankfully, the latest pair of HCD letters to the City of Beverly Hills reverses course. At issue in these letters is a 165-unit project with 20% low-income units. The applicant had appealed an incompleteness letter, in which the City instructed the applicant to pursue a general plan amendment and zoning change. Pending the City Council’s decision on the appeal, the applicant sought direction from HCD on whether a general plan amendment and zoning change could legally be required under the HAA.

The June 26, 2024, Letter of Technical Assistance acknowledges the earlier City of Compton Letter and walks back the March conclusion, explaining that a requirement to pursue a general plan and/or zoning amendment is, in fact, a violation of the HAA:

“While it remains true that the statutory language in the HAA does not expressly prevent the City from requesting or requiring legislative actions (e.g., a GPA/ZC) that would be required for similar projects where the Builder’s Remedy does not apply, requiring such action where the Builder’s Remedy does apply leads to an absurd outcome . . .

The HAA is clear that a project protected by the Builder’s Remedy may not be disapproved for inconsistency with a jurisdiction’s general plan and zoning ordinance. Accordingly, a jurisdiction that refuses to process or approve a project subject to the Builder’s Remedy due to the applicant’s refusal to submit a GPA/ZC requested or required by the jurisdiction to resolve such an inconsistency violates the intent of the HAA.

. . . In other words, the requirement for a GPA/ZC is essentially a requirement for consistency, and disapproving the project for failure to resolve that inconsistency is effectively a disapproval on the grounds of inconsistency. The HAA prohibits such a disapproval.”

Following the June letter, HCD issued a Notice of Violation after the Beverly Hills City Council ignored HCD’s prior guidance and denied the applicant’s appeal of the City’s incompleteness letter, based on a finding that a general plan amendment and zoning change are required for the application to be deemed complete.

HCD confirms in the Notice of Violation that, irrespective of the HAA, the Permit Streamlining Act prohibits a city from determining that an application is incomplete on the basis that it does not include an item (in this case, a general plan amendment and zoning change application) that was not included in the submittal requirement checklist.

The Notice of Violation also offers two important reminders about processing preliminary development applications (pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1) and the rights provided by a vested preliminary development application:

(1) The 90-day deadline that an applicant has to respond to a notice of incompleteness resets each time a city issues a notice of incompleteness, such that a project with multiple incompleteness letters and responses could have multiple 90-day response periods without losing the vested right of a preliminary development application.

(2) A vested preliminary development application remains vested unless the number of units or the square footage changes by at least 20%. Other project changes do not affect the rights conferred by a vested preliminary development application.

[1] HCD RE: 1601 W. El Segundo Blvd., Compton – Letter of Technical Assistance (March 28, 2024); available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/compton-hau604-ta-03282024.pdf.

[2] HCD RE: 125-129 Linden Drive, Beverly Hills – Notice of Violation (August 22, 2024) and HCD RE: 125-129 Linden Drive, Beverly Hills – Letter of Support and Technical Assistance (June 26, 2024); both available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/beverly-hills-hau-1071-nov-082224.pdf.

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

San Francisco Entitlement Streamlining Legislation Faces Legislative Hurdles

October 5, 2023October 6, 2023 | Daniel J. Turner

As previously reported in August, San Francisco is currently considering a major overhaul of its Planning Code that would revise, relax, and simplify many of the city’s complex zoning and development controls. The legislation, aptly named the Housing Production – Constraints Reduction Ordinance, would affect over 30 sections of the Planning Code, ranging from reducing required setbacks to relaxing demolition controls and notice requirements.

As part of the legislation process, the City’s Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance in late July and gave its approval 4-2-1 with a few minor modifications. It then came before the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) on September 18^th to be reviewed, discussed, and amended, if necessary. This committee review is a necessary hurdle before the legislation can be presented to the full Board of Supervisors and voted on.

Although some were hopeful of the ordinance passing in its current form, it met strong opposition from both supervisors and members of the public. The hearing began with Planning Department staff recommending a number of corrective amendments, including some that re-added various conditional use requirements that the legislation originally proposed to remove. During the over four hours of public comment, members of the public expressed concerns about reduced notice requirements, loss of rent-controlled housing, and a loss of neighborhood character from simplified development controls.

The three supervisors on the committee echoed these sentiments, expressing great concern over many of the proposed changes. Notably, many members of the committee were not convinced that relaxing and making development standards more uniform, such as setbacks and height limits, would produce more housing, and felt that, instead, it would simply lead to a loss of neighborhood character. It was stated multiple times that zoning fixes should focus on large-scale projects, while many of the proposed changes were seen to mostly benefit one and two-unit developments. The supervisors were also critical of the changes to notice requirements and demolitions controls, citing worries over reduced public participation and the loss of rent-controlled housing, respectively.

The hearing ended with Supervisor and LUTC President Melgar stating that she had been planning to introduce numerous amendments based on community feedback. The LUTC also agreed that there was a need to formalize the amendments proposed by Planning and the Mayor, and to incorporate many of the changes discussed during the meeting. The legislation was continued for two weeks, although it remains to be seen if the amendment language will be ready by then. If said amendments are considered substantive, the legislation would need to go back to the Planning Commission, then return to the LUTC before finally going before the full Board of Supervisors. The ordinance is open to further amendment at each step of the way, and it seems that many of the provisions intended to simplify the development process are now at risk of being weakened or removed.

With Planning Commission’s blessing of the legislation and San Francisco’s looming RHNA requirement to build 82,000 new housing units over the next eights years, some were hopeful that the legislation would move quickly through the City’s legislative bodies; however, last week’s hearing proved there’s a long road ahead for the Housing Production – Constraints Reduction Ordinance.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Daniel J. Turner.

Legislation Aimed at Impact Fee Reform Nears Final Approval

August 24, 2023 | Kaitlin Sheber

Last month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed on first reading Impact Fee Reform legislation aimed to make development more predictable, easier, and financially feasible. The legislation complements the proposed BMR and impact fee changes our office previously reported on and will:

Reinstate the fee deferral program;
Escalate development impact fees by 2% each January;
Allow projects to lock in the type and rate of impact fees to be paid;
Waive development fees for a narrow category of projects; and
Adopt a nexus analysis that was completed in December 2021.

The Impact Fee Reform legislation is a part of the City’s efforts at recovery from the pandemic and is meant to supplement efforts to accomplish the policy goals outlined in the updated Housing Element that was adopted earlier this year. Inclusionary housing development impact fees are specifically excluded from the scope of the legislation, so would not be affected.

Below is a brief summary of the changes proposed by the legislation:

Fee Deferral Program

The legislation would reinstate and modify a Fee Deferral Program that expired in 2013 to allow project sponsors to defer 80%-85% of total development impact fees, except inclusionary affordable housing fees. For projects that opt to defer fees:

Generally, projects subject to a neighborhood infrastructure impact development fee would be required to pay 20% of the total amount of development fees owed prior to issuance of the first construction document;
For projects not subject to a neighborhood infrastructure impact development fee, project sponsors would be required to pay 15% of the total amount of development fees owed prior to issuance of the first construction document.

The remaining percentage of fees must be paid before issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. To obtain deferral, the project sponsor must submit a deferral request to DBI on a form provided by DBI before issuance of the first construction document. Fee deferral is not available to project sponsors that pay the fee before the effective date of the legislation. Projects subject to a development agreement would be eligible for fee deferral, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

Development Fee Indexing

The legislation would replace and simplify the current method of annual fee escalation with a 2% escalation rate every January 1st.

Development Fee Assessment

The legislation proposes to freeze the rates of development impact fees as follows:

Additionally, the legislation institutes new procedures for assessing development impact fees when a development project requires a modification, renewal, or extension.

Development Impact Fee Waivers for Certain Projects

The legislation would also waive development impact fees for certain projects. Eligible projects that obtain a final approval before the effective date of the ordinance that have not already paid development impact fees are eligible for waiver. Waiver under the legislation is set to expire on December 31, 2026.

Projects in Production, Distribution, and Repair (“PDR”) Districts:

Within PDR Districts, projects that meet the following requirements are eligible for waiver from development impact fees related to establishing new PDR or retail use:

Located in a PDR District;
Contain a retail or PDR use and no residential uses;
Propose new construction of at least 20,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) and a maximum of 200,000 square feet of GFA;
Located on a vacant site or site improved with buildings with less than a 0.25:1 Floor Area Ratio on the date a development application is submitted; and
Submit a complete development application on or before December 31, 2026.

Projects in C-2 and C-3 Districts

Within C-2 and C-3 Districts, projects that meet the following requirements are eligible for waiver from development impact fees related to establishing hotel, restaurant, bar, outdoor activity, or entertainment use:

Located in a C-2 or C-3 District;
Contain hotel, restaurant, bar, outdoor activity, or entertainment use; and
Submit a completed development application on or before December 31, 2026.

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

Details on San Francisco’s Proposed Housing Production Ordinance

May 3, 2023May 3, 2023 | Mark Loper

Recently, Mayor London Breed and Supervisor Joel Engardio introduced an ordinance removing some of the Planning Code’s regulatory barriers to housing. A major implementing measure of San Francisco’s recent Housing Element, it is rich in detail and nuance and proposes a range of common-sense changes to increase housing production. Below, we summarize some of the major aspects of the proposal captured in the first draft of the ordinance, broken up into two sections: process streamlining, and relief from certain building design and density restrictions.

Process Streamlining

Eliminating conditional use requirement for certain developments. Automatic conditional use (“CU”) approvals for developments on certain “large lots” in neighborhood commercial districts would be eliminated. Similarly, CU requirements for buildings taller than 40-50 feet in RH, RM, RC, and Broadway NC districts would be eliminated, as would buildings taller than 50 feet along the Van Ness Special Use District. This would unlock the development potential of many sites where the height limit is comfortably above the 40-50 foot CU threshold.
HOME–SF. HOME-SF would be modified to allow projects on sites where a single-family home exists and is proposed to be demolished, and to remove a requirement that the Planning Department’s Environmental Review Officer determine the project will not have any adverse wind, shadow, or preservation impacts.
Dwelling unit demolitions. Outside of the “priority equity” areas of San Francisco—which are neighborhoods with a higher density of vulnerable populations; see the map at the bottom of this alert—some residential demolition projects will not require a CU. The project cannot remove more than two residential units; the units to be demolished cannot be tenant occupied or have a history of evictions within the last 5 years; the building cannot be an historic resource; the project needs to add at least one more unit than is proposed for demolition; and the unit needs to comply with the Housing Accountability Act’s protections for replacement units and recent tenants.

Design and Density Regulation Changes

Increased residential density in RH districts. The ordinance would eliminate the need for a conditional use (“CU”) to exceed the one- to three-unit base density in RH districts. And, it would principally permit one unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area in the three RH-1 districts; one unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area in RH-2; and 1 unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area in RH-3, exclusive of any ADUs. Also, residential projects in RH zones that meet certain eligibility criteria currently can have up to six units on corner lots, and up to four units on non-corner lots. The ordinance would add group housing to this potential density bonus on RH-1 zoned lots and eliminate an owner occupancy requirement, opening up the number of sites that could qualify for this density increase.
Making senior housing easier and more widespread. Currently, senior housing—which generally allows increased residential density—is only permitted within ¼ mile of an NC-2 zoning district or higher. The ordinance would eliminate this restriction, opening a wider area of the city for this much-needed type of housing. It would also eliminate an automatic CU requirement for senior housing in RH and RM districts that are not close to neighborhood commercial districts.
Minimum lot width and area. The City’s minimum lot width would be reduced from 25 feet in most districts to 20, and lot area reduced from 2,500 square feet to 1,200. This would allow more residential density on some larger lots.
Reducing rear yard requirement. San Francisco’s rear yard requirements are notoriously complicated and a regulation that often requires exceptions or limits the development potential of a property. The ordinance would make the rear yard requirement 25% of lot depth or 15 feet in most zoning districts. In certain “R” districts, the requirement would be 30% or 15 feet. It also includes a common-sense option for corner lot developments to provide an interior corner open area, saving the need for a variance or other entitlement.

We should note that the legislative digest flags a few aspects of the residential streamlining proposal that do not appear to be included in the first draft of the ordinance. These may be added to subsequent versions of the legislation, and it could be amended as it is brought to the Planning Commission and eventually the Board of Supervisors. We will continue to track this important ordinance as it moves forward. We will also track other legislation that seeks to further implement the Housing Element.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

HCD Cracks Down on S.F. Housing Practices; S.F. Real Estate Tax Appeal Deadline

September 6, 2022September 7, 2022 | Thomas P. Tunny

Last month, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) announced that its Housing Accountability Unit (“HAU”) will conduct a first-ever Housing Policy and Practice Review of San Francisco, aimed at identifying and removing barriers to approval and construction of new housing in the City. According to the City’s self-reported data, it has the longest timelines in the state for advancing housing projects to construction, among the highest housing and construction costs, and the HAU has received more complaints about San Francisco than any other local jurisdiction in the state. U.S. Census data shows that Seattle – a city of comparable size – approves housing construction at more than three times the rate of San Francisco.

Over the next nine months and beyond, the HAU, in partnership with the U.C. Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development and others, will conduct a comprehensive analysis of San Francisco’s housing approval policies and practices. The review will examine discretionary decision-making patterns that lead to abnormally long housing delays. The review also intends to identify barriers to the approval and development of housing at all income levels, including housing that is affordable to lower- and moderate-income households.

Separately, in an August 8 letter to Planning Director Rich Hillis, HCD was both critical and encouraging of the City’s Draft Housing Element. California cities are required to update their General Plan Housing Elements by January 2023. HCD praised the City’s “bold and meaningful actions to both reduce barriers to higher-opportunity neighborhoods while simultaneously reinvesting in historically underserved neighborhoods.” Yet HCD also identified a number of revisions that would be necessary for the Housing Element to comply with state law.

In yet another letter on August 11, HCD asked the City to explain itself concerning a specific project approval, expressing concern that the City violated housing law. HCD was concerned with the City’s decision, in granting conditional approval, to downsize a 19-unit group housing project at 3832 18th Street in the Mission District. HCD expressed concern that the downsizing violated the State Density Bonus Law.

This project-specific letter follows HCD’s letter to the City last November expressing concern that the City’s denial of two large housing projects, at 450 O’Farrell Street and 469 Stevenson Street, may have violated state law. In those cases, the Planning Commission had approved the projects, but the Board of Supervisors denied them.

The aforementioned Housing Accountability Unit at HCD is part of an unprecedented new initiative to support the production of housing statewide. According to its website, “California’s housing crisis has reached historic proportions despite the passage of numerous laws intended to increase the supply of housing affordable to Californians at all income levels.” As part of the 2021-2022 state budget, HCD received additional staff to grow its accountability efforts and formed the HAU. The HAU holds jurisdictions accountable for meeting their housing element commitments and complying with state housing laws. One of its primary tools is technical assistance to the public and enforcement letters. More information on these powers is available at the HCD website.

San Francisco Real Estate Tax Appeal Deadline

The deadline for San Francisco property owners to appeal their property’s value for the 2022/2023 tax year is September 15, 2022. Deadlines for other California counties vary. Please contact Kevin Rose (krose@reubenlaw.com) if you have questions about the tax appeal process.

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

San Carlos Enacts Northeast Area Development Moratorium

May 5, 2022May 5, 2022 | Matthew Visick

Pending Specific Plan Will Streamline CEQA Review of Future Life Science Projects

On April 25^th, the City of San Carlos enacted a development moratorium covering approximately 120 acres of land in the north side of the City, and east of Old County Road (see map below). San Carlos has seen significant life science and R&D development in recent years, and the northeast area is anticipated to see an expansion of those uses. The moratorium is broad, applying to virtually all development applications other than tenant improvements and projects with complete, filed applications. It is expected to be in effect for two years while the City prepares a Specific Plan that will guide future development, articulate the public benefits future projects will provide, and streamline CEQA review of projects consistent with the Specific Plan.

State law allows a City Council or County Board of Supervisors to enact a development moratorium of up to two years after it makes findings that approving projects would create an immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The moratorium is initially limited to 45 days but can be extended with another vote of the City Council or Board of Supervisors to a maximum of up to two years. Both the vote to enact the moratorium and the vote to extend must be approved by a supermajority (i.e., 4/5^ths) vote.

The San Carlos City Council found development in the northeast area would have health, safety, and welfare impacts unless the Specific Plan considered how it would affect the “supply of land and adequate sites suitable, feasible, and available for the development of housing.” The findings anticipate that the Specific Plan will “develop policies and strategies to incorporate housing as a part of this new development.”

While not expected, it is possible the City Council will carve out additional projects when it considers whether to extend the moratorium. Several project sponsors opposed the enactment of the moratorium at the meeting on April 25, urging the Council to exempt projects with applications pending even if those applications were not yet complete. At least one Council member appeared sympathetic to those arguments during the May 25^th meeting (as noted above, at least four of the five Council members would need to vote to extend the moratorium). Planning Department staff will hold a public meeting with stakeholders on May 11^th to gather stakeholder input and that input will be shared with the Council.

Planning Department staff emphasized at the April 25^th hearing that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) the City is preparing for the Specific Plan will help streamline the approval of future projects that are consistent with the Plan. State law provides several CEQA streamlining tools for projects consistent with a specific plan analyzed with an EIR. Development under Redwood City’s Downtown Precise Plan (DTPP) provides a good example of the advantages of this approach for both the City and the applicable project sponsors. Projects consistent with the DTPP required little to no additional project-specific CEQA review, allowing them to move through the approval process in a fraction of the time normally required. In an ideal world, this strategy allows over-stretched Planning Department staff to redirect their time from project-level CEQA review to other priorities, and project sponsors to significantly reduce the often inordinate time and cost associated with CEQA review of individual projects.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Matthew Visick.

Cities’ Upcoming Need to Identify Housing Opportunity Sites

March 18, 2021 | Tuija Catalano

The next RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) cycle is quickly approaching, which means that all Bay Area cities will be taking a closer look at their Housing Elements and determining whether they have enough land zoned to accommodate more housing.

In June 2020, the California Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) provided the Bay Area its Regional Housing Needs Determination for the next RHNA cycle (2023-2031), identifying a need for 441,176 new housing units. The overall figure is further categorized into very low (26%), low (15%), moderate (16%), and above moderate (43%) housing and income levels. This figure represents a significant increase when compared to the prior RHNA cycle (2015-2023) when the Bay Area was allocated 187,990 units. In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) is responsible for allocating the overall figure among cities and counties, and its Housing Methodology Committee spent much of 2020 in meetings to discuss and decide on different methodology options. Regardless of which allocation methodology was going to be chosen, most Bay Area cities and counties are seeing a significant increase in their RHNA allocations.

ABAG’s Executive Board approved the Draft RHNA Methodology and Final RHNA Subregional Shares (“Draft Allocation”) for the Bay Area on January 21, 2021. The Draft Allocation is subject to HCD approval on or before April 11, 2021, and thereafter an appeal opportunity by individual cities and counties during Summer/Fall 2021. Historically, very few appeals by individual cities or counties have been successful, and thus most of the Draft Allocation figures are anticipated to be adopted as final allocations by late 2021.

Once the allocations have been finalized, individual cities and counties will need to amend their Housing Elements and identify sufficient number of vacant or underdeveloped sites that can accommodate the RHNA figure allocated to each city. Many cities are currently starting the process by engaging consultants to work on their next Housing Element update. The updated housing elements must be submitted to the State by each city and county no later than January 2023, and if applicable, cities and counties will thereafter need to rezone properties consistent with the updated Housing Elements and site identifications.

To understand the magnitude of the increases cities and counties are facing for the next RHNA cycle, it is helpful to look at some of the Draft Allocation figures. The following represents a sampling of Bay Area cities, comparing their final 2015-2023 RHNA figure to those proposed in the Draft Allocation for the next, 2023-2031 cycle. For a complete list of cities/counties, see the Draft Allocation.

City	2015-2023 cycle	2023-2031 cycle
San Francisco	28,869	82,069
Oakland	14,765	26,251
San Jose	35,080	62,200
Berkeley	2,959	8,934
Fremont	5,455	12,897
Concord	3,478	5,073
Lafayette	400	2,114
Walnut Creek	2,235	5,805
Novato	415	2,090
Tiburon	78	639
Daly City	1,350	4,838
Menlo Park	655	2,946
San Bruno	1,155	3,165
Cupertino	1,064	4,588
Los Gatos	619	1,993
Sunnyvale	5,452	11,966

Cities and counties are not required to build new housing, but they are required to plan for it and specifically plan for enough housing that satisfies their assigned RHNA figure. Since most Bay Area cities and counties are subject to significant increases, local city councils and board of supervisors, along with their Planning Departments, will be taking a comprehensive look at zoning and development in their jurisdictions over the next year and a half. This may also represent opportunities in the near-term for property owners of currently vacant or underutilized properties and/or those that lack the zoning necessary for residential development.

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