#planning Archives

San Francisco Housing Element Update

May 20, 2021May 20, 2021 | Jody Knight

While the Bay Area works to recover from the impacts of COVID-19 on retail and hospitality, and digital nomads slowly return to the office, the pandemic has done nothing to slow escalating home prices. The California Association of Realtors reported this week that the Bay Area’s median single-family home price exceeded $1.3 million in April, with a median price of $1.8 million in San Francisco. The City saw an increase of 5.9% from last year and 2.6% from March.

As single-family homes become increasingly out of reach for many families, the City also continues to experience a shortfall in all housing types, resulting in ongoing debate about uneven development throughout the City and the introduction of legislation at the State and local level that takes aim at single-family zoning.

On March 18, 2021, Reuben, Junius and Rose’s Tuija Catalano updated you about the upcoming RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) cycle. The update explained how the draft allocation would significantly increase the identified need for housing units in the Bay Area compared with the last RHNA cycle. Under the draft, San Francisco would see an increase from 28,869 to 82,069 units.

San Francisco has begun the process of planning for those housing units. The City’s Housing Element 2022 Update began in May 2020. The Housing Element is a component of the General Plan that is updated every eight years.

The current update focuses on social and racial equity, while it looks at how to accommodate the creation of 82,000 housing units by 2031. The plan focuses on building in State identified High Opportunity Areas, which are mainly in the western part of the City. The Planning Department has a page dedicated to the process which provides information and allows for public input.

The first draft of the Goals, Policies and Actions of the Housing Element have been identified as follows:

recognize the right to housing as a foundation for health and social and economic stability;
repair the harms of historic racial, ethnic, and social discrimination for American Indian, Black, and other People of Color;
foster racially and socially inclusive neighborhoods through distinct community strategies;
increase housing production to improve affordability for the City’s current and future residents;
increase housing choices for the City’s diverse cultural lifestyles, abilities, family structures, and income; and
promote neighborhoods that are well-connected, healthy, and rich with community culture.

On April 22, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted an informational hearing on the Draft Housing Element. Planning Staff will be engaging in outreach to further refine the policies in the plan, with a second draft anticipated by Fall 2021. The Draft Environment Impact Report is anticipated in early 2022.

At the April 22, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission also heard the 2020 Housing Inventory and Housing Balance Reports. The City saw a 1% increase in housing stock in 2020, with most new development in SoMa, the Mission and Downtown. While 2020 was a difficult year for development because of the pandemic, the Reports illustrate how far the City has to go to meet its RHNA target, particularly on housing affordable to lower income residents.

Given the already contentious environment surrounding housing equity and the geographic distribution of new units in the City, we expect this Housing Element update to generate significant debate. However, the Plan does not change allowable land uses, heights, or density, so meeting the City’s housing needs will depend on legislative changes. We will follow and report on both as the housing debate continues.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Jody Knight.

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.

Legislative Updates: San Francisco

May 13, 2021 | Daniel Turner

With the end of the Covid-19 Health Emergency on the horizon, San Francisco is seeing an influx of land use legislation as City leaders set their sights on post-pandemic recovery. Below are two recent proposals to watch as they make their way through the approval process.

Small Business Recovery Act: Simplifying and Streamlining Small Business Approval

On March 16, 2021, Mayor London Breed introduced the Small Business Recovery Act (the “SBRA”), an ordinance proposing sweeping amendments to the Planning, Business and Tax Regulations, and Police Codes that are designed to stimulate and retain commercial and entertainment uses in the City.

After receiving a 4-3 approval at the April 22, 2021 Planning Commission hearing, Mayor Breed introduced a third version of the SBRA on May 11, 2021. The SBRA will need to go through further review before the Board of Supervisors ultimately votes on the ordinance.

The current version of the SBRA (as of May 13, 2021) would make the following changes:

Conditional Use Authorizations would no longer expire from abandonment as long as there is no intervening use. Currently, a Conditional Use Authorization expires after three years of disuse.
ADUs would be allowed in commercial spaces in Neighborhood Commercial Districts as long as the first 25 feet of lot depth is reserved for commercial use.
Neighborhood Notification would no longer be required for changes of use in the Eastern Neighborhoods, potentially removing the 30-day notification hold.
The eligibility for expedited 90-day processing for Conditional Use applications would be expanded to include Formula Retail uses with fewer than 20 locations, Bars, Nighttime Entertainment, Cannabis Dispensaries, non-retail sales and service uses, and any eligible use seeking to operate outside of principally permitted operating hours.
The Planning Department would be mandated to develop and use an abbreviated case report format to ensure the efficient processing of expedited Conditional Use applications.
Catering would be permitted as an accessory use in most Restaurants, subject to certain accessory use restrictions.
Additional code modifications would be implemented to give Entertainment Uses greater flexibility.

Elimination of Historic Preservation Commission Review and Appeals for Certain Alteration Permits

The SBRA would also eliminate the review and appeals period for Administrative Certificates of Appropriateness and Minor Alteration permits, which are required for certain projects involving landmarks or historic structures. Under current law, the Planning Department reviews and makes an administrative determination on these permits. After the Department makes a determination, anyone can appeal the decision to the Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) within 15 days. The HPC can also review any determination of its own volition within 20 days.

The SBRA would remove both the appeal and review periods, meaning the determination of the Department would be virtually final. This could significantly speed up certain projects by eliminating the ability of project opponents to contest approvals. However, it also means that project sponsors would lose a guaranteed avenue to quickly appeal a denial.

Removal of Life Science and Medical Special Use District

On May 4, 2021, District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton introduced legislation to remove the Life Science and Medical Special Use District (“SUD”) in the Dogpatch Neighborhood.

The SUD was created 12 years ago to encourage Life Science and Medical uses that would benefit from the close proximity to UCSF Mission Bay, which opened directly to the north in 2003. The SUD covers about a third of the Dogpatch, and is concentrated on the blocks immediately south of UCSF Mission Bay, a thin corridor adjacent to I-280, and along 23rd Street. The SUD overlays the existing Urban Mixed-Use zoning and principally permits Life Science Office, Life Science Lab, and Medical Service uses and exempts them from certain size and PDR replacement controls.

In his proposal to remove the SUD, Supervisor Walton expressed dissatisfaction with the SUD and claimed it was operating contrary to Eastern Neighborhoods Plan by failing to provide a buffer around the Dogpatch and allowing encroachment of large office uses. The proposal claims that the SUD does not contribute to the neighborhood, and that placement of Life Science start-ups in the Dogpatch increases rents and pushes out vibrant and varied community-serving uses.

Under San Francisco’s 30-day rule, consideration of the proposed ordinance cannot take place until after June 3, 2021.

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

Accessory Dwelling Units – Oakland Update

April 21, 2021April 21, 2021 | Justin A. Zucker

As previously reported, a slate of new California State laws became effective on January 1, 2020, that encourage the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”). State law holds that until a city adopts an ordinance that complies with State law, a city’s existing ADU regulations are null and void and only State standards may be applied. Currently, the City of Oakland’s ADU regulations are not in line with State law. In response to this inconsistency, Planning Department staff is proposing amendments to its ADU regulations to bring them in line with State law.

Below are some of the key changes to Oakland’s ADU regulations:

ADU permit approval within 60 days of application submittal.
Ministerial approval for one interior, attached, or detached ADU and one Junior ADU (“JADU”), which are a type of ADU no more than 500 sf with an efficiency kitchen, but do not require a private bathroom, per single-family lot.
Ministerial approval of a detached ADU, provided it is up to 800 sf, 16 feet in height, and maintains 4-feet rear and side setbacks.
Ministerial approval of at least one interior ADU on multifamily lots, up to a number equal to 25% of the existing units, that involves conversion of non-habitable space, and no more than two detached ADUs.
Conversion of existing accessory structures, such as carports and garages, into ADUs without requiring off-street parking replacement if the parcel is within half a mile walking distance of public transit.
Continued prohibition on all new ADUs and JADUs within the S-9 Fire Safety Protection Combining Zone Overlay (basically, the Oakland Hills) and now on streets with a width less than 20 feet or cul-de-sacs greater than 600 feet in length, due to the limited space for cars to escape in an emergency, such as a fire, natural disaster, or a health crisis.
Consultation with Historic Preservation Staff is required for ADUs proposed on a Local or California Register property visible from the public right-of-way. Placement of an ADU in front of a main building on a Local or California Register property is only allowed if the lot conditions or requirements preclude an ADU of minimum allowed size anywhere else on the lot.

In addition, the proposed Planning Code amendments introduce objective development standards consistent with State law:

Same roof pitch, visually similar exterior wall material, and predominant door and window trim, sill, recess and style as the primary dwelling structure for ADUs located in front of a primary structure, attached to it, or visible from the public right-of-way. Applicants may pursue approval of different finishes or styles through the Small Project Design Review process.
Regulation of balconies, decks, or rooftop terraces per established standards of the underlying zone.
Requiring at least one tree per every 500 sf of new ADU floor area, with tree(s) allowed anywhere on the lot or within the public right-of-way in front of the site.
ADUs that do not comply with the objective standards may go through the Small Project Design Review process.

These proposed Planning Code amendments are anticipated to be reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission later this spring with adoption by the City Council this summer. We will continue to monitor this proposed legislation and keep you updated.

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

New Interim Density Controls for Residential-Commercial Districts

February 24, 2021February 24, 2021 | Tara Sullivan

In January the Board of Supervisors passed interim zoning controls for parcels in RC, RM, and RTO (excluding RTO-M) zoning districts. The controls require Conditional Use Authorization (“CU”) for most new construction or alterations that do not maximize residential density. Sponsored by Supervisor Peskin, the interim zoning controls became effective on January 21^st and are in place for 18 months, until July 2022. They apply to all projects—even ones currently under review by the Planning Commission—where a final site or building permit has not been issued (i.e., any project currently on file with the City).

The controls aim to disincentivize low-density projects, restrict the construction of large residences, and prevent the loss or conversion of rent-stabilized housing units. The zoning districts cited allow for a higher density (i.e., more units at a smaller size), but often are developed with larger units that are more suitable to higher-income families (i.e., less units at larger sizes).

The controls apply to any (i) new construction of a residential building or (ii) a proposed alteration that would result in the expansion of the building. A CU from the Planning Commission will be required if the residential building does not maximize the principally permitted residential density while meeting minimum unit size requirements. The following minimum unit sizes must be used in density studies under the interim controls: 450 sf for 1-bedrooms, 700 sf for 2-bedrooms, 900 sf for 3-bedrooms, and 1,100 sf for 4-bedroom units.

There are exceptions to the Conditional Use requirement where site constraints prevent a project from maximizing density or for certain minor expansions. To fall under the site constraints exception, a project must meet the following criteria:

Existing lot conditions or form-based restrictions on development (e.g., height, bulk, rear yard requirements) prevent a project from maximizing density without seeking a variance or subdividing units (while adhering to the minimum unit sizes in the Planning Code);
The proposed project increases density on a subject lot; and
No unit is greater than 2,000 square feet in size.

Expansions of existing residential buildings are permitted without a CU if the proposed expansion is 25% or less of the existing residential building and:

Does not increase the size of any units that is already larger than 2,000 square feet in size;
Does not create a new unit larger than 2,000 square feet, or
Cause an existing unit less than 2,000 square feet in size to exceed 2,000 square feet.

It is unclear how many projects the interim zoning controls will impact, or whether it will result in changes to proposed development. Until the Planning Department or Planning Commission adopt clear guidelines for implementing the controls, including standards for density studies, the impact of the interim zoning controls remains uncertain. Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP will continue to monitor the implementation of the interim controls.

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

Proposition H and New Processing for ADUs

December 3, 2020 | Thomas P. Tunny

Proposition H Adopted by Voters

Proposition H was adopted by the voters at this November’s election. Titled, “Save Our Small Businesses Initiative”, the initiative ordinance gives existing businesses more flexibility in their operations and speeds approvals for new businesses in the City’s Neighborhood Commercial (“NC”) Zoning Districts. The initiative reduces the approval requirement for many uses from a conditional use authorization from the Planning Commission to an over-the-counter administrative approval. Restrictions on office uses are relaxed. The initiative eliminates neighborhood notification for changes to a principally permitted use and provides existing businesses with greater flexibility to adapt their operations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and shifting retail landscape. The initiative calls upon the City to streamline the approval for small businesses to 30 days.

In particular, the initiative provides as follows:

Neighborhood Notification

Eliminates neighborhood notification for new principally permitted uses in Neighborhood Commercial Districts, for Limited Commercial Uses, and for Limited Corner Commercial Uses. These change of use permits can now be approved over-the-counter.

Permitted Uses

In all NC Districts except for the Mission Street NC, 24th Street-Mission NC, and SOMA NC, more principally permitted and conditionally permitted uses are now allowed:
- Non-Retail Sales and Services (e.g., office uses) are principally permitted on upper floors and permitted with a conditional use authorization on the ground floor.
- General Entertainment, Movie Theaters, Community Facilities, Restaurants, Limited Restaurants, Animal Hospitals, and Retail Professional Services (e.g., realtors, accountants, insurance agents) are now principally permitted where currently permitted with a conditional use authorization, and conditionally permitted where currently not permitted. Restaurant controls were not changed in the North Beach Special Use District, where a conditional use authorization is required and any new restaurant may only occupy a space where the last use was a restaurant.
- Arts Activities and Social Service or Philanthropic Facilities are now principally permitted on all floors.
- Formula retail controls (conditional use authorization required) were not changed by the initiative.

Approval Process

Requires the creation of a streamlined review and inspection process for principally permitted storefront uses in NC Districts with a target approval in 30 days or less. The City is in the process of implementing these new procedures;
Requires that in cases of City error, permits to remedy that error be prioritized and have fees waived;
Establishes policy to allow restaurant table service within parklets in addition to the existing use of parklets by any member of the public; and
Locks-in the initiative’s provisions for 3 years from passage, except to further relax restrictions.

Processing ADU Applications Moves to Planning

In an effort to ease the administrative burden on DBI and hasten the approval of ADUs, the City has shifted the intake and processing of ADU applications from DBI to the Planning Department. This includes new applications for ADUs and work related to ADU construction, such as expansions required for an ADU, excavations required for an ADU, new construction for a detached ADU, and interior remodel work to create independent access to the ADU.

Applications consist of the standard Planning Department Project Application, the ADU checklist form, the ADU screening form, a fixture count form for the PUC, and a pdf of the project plans. Applications are submitted online at a new, easy-to-use website just for ADUs. The application can be a full building permit or a site permit with addenda.

Once the application is submitted, Planning will send the applicant a confirmation email with the planning application number. Planning’s Property Information Map (PIM) will provide updates about the application. It will take one day for the record to appear in the PIM. A planner will email the applicant about next steps within 14 business days. The application still will be routed as before to other City agencies having jurisdiction over the proposed work for review, including DBI.

Once the permit is approved, Planning will coordinate with the applicant to verify their licensed contractor information and pay the fees. Planning will email the job card to start construction.

For questions or assistance, email the Planning Department.

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

A Handful of San Francisco Planning Updates

August 19, 2020August 19, 2020 | Chloe Angelis

Final Passage of UMU Office Legislation

Back in February, we covered Supervisor Ronen’s proposal to substantially limit office uses within Urban Mixed Use (“UMU”) districts. You can revisit our prior update here. As originally introduced, the legislation would have prohibited office use on the upper floors throughout the UMU district (where currently permitted), and would have maintained exceptions for qualifying landmark buildings. The first version of the legislation also proposed allowing limited professional service, financial service, and medical service uses that serve the general public at the ground floor, but only with approval of a Conditional Use Authorization from the Planning Commission.

The Board of Supervisors finally passed that legislation on August 11, 2020 with a major substantive change—limiting the prohibition of general office use to the Mission Area Plan portion of the UMU district.

As approved, the legislation provides that in the Mission Area Plan portion of the UMU district, general office uses not in a landmark building are prohibited outright. Professional service, financial service, and medical service uses are prohibited above the ground floor, but are permitted on the ground floor with a conditional use authorization if primarily open to the general public on a client-oriented basis.

Office uses within the UMU district that are not within the Mission Area Plan remain subject to the vertical controls that apply currently. And outside the Mission Area Plan, professional service, financial service, and medical service uses are permitted on the ground floor if primarily open to the general public on a client-oriented basis, and are permitted on upper floors subject to vertical controls.

The final legislation can be reviewed here.

Conditional Use Streamlining Ordinance

In other San Francisco legislative news, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance on Tuesday in an effort to streamline the Conditional Use process for certain types of commercial uses. At that hearing, Supervisor Peskin also requested that the file be duplicated and sent back to committee to allow an opportunity for community groups to weigh in on the changes.

Under the new ordinance, applications that are eligible for streamlining are entitled to a Planning Commission hearing within 90 days from the date the Planning Department deems the application complete and such projects would be calendared for approval via the Planning Commission’s consent calendar. Projects eligible for the program would also be eligible for a reduced application fee—at a rate of 50% of the otherwise applicable fee.

The Planning Commission is entitled to a one-time extension of the 90-day hearing deadline. An extension cannot be for more than 60 days and can only be issued for one of the following three reasons:

The Planning Director or the Director’s designee requests in writing that the item be removed from the Commission’s consent calendar;
Any member of the Planning Commission requests that the item be removed from the Commission’s consent calendar; or
Any neighborhood organization (included on a Planning Department neighborhood organizations list) submits a letter of opposition or written request that the item be removed from the Commission’s consent calendar.

In order to qualify for the streamlining program, a project must comply with the following criteria: 1) propose non-residential use only; 2) be limited to interior or store-front work; 3) not involve a formula retail use; 4) not involve the removal of any dwelling units; 5) not propose the consolidation of multiple storefronts; 6) not seek additional off-street parking, or the expansion or intensification of hours of use, beyond those principally permitted; 7) not involve the sale of alcoholic beverages except for beer or wine sold in conjunction with a Bona Fide Eating Place; and 8) not seek to establish or expand an adult entertainment use, bar, drive-up facility, fringe financial service, medical cannabis dispensary, nighttime entertainment, non-retail sales and service closed to the public, a tobacco paraphernalia establishment, or a wireless communication facility. Projects within the Calle 24 Special Use District would also not be eligible for the streamlining program.

New Application Fee Schedule

On August 31, the Planning Department’s application fee schedule for 2020-2021 will go into effect. Application fees are adjusted annually based on the consumer price index. The 2020-2021 fee schedule preview is available here.

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