residential Archives - Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP

San Francisco Building Department Updates

November 12, 2024November 12, 2024 | Gillian Allen

Some exciting improvements and developments at the Building Department have been published in the past few weeks including the guidelines for adaptive reuse projects converting downtown commercial offices into multi-family residential buildings and a streamlined ADU review process. See below for the direct updates from San Francisco Department of Building Inspection.

Converting Downtown Commercial Offices into Multi-Family Residential

Multiple agencies came together to work on final guidelines for commercial to residential adaptive re-use projects and the result is a thoughtful and comprehensive clarification of building code provisions and local equivalency processes that may present developers and design professionals options which could enable many more potential projects to pencil out without sacrificing code compliance.

Throughout this incredibly extensive information sheet, the authors did a great job of providing clear and detailed information on how to approach equivalencies for building envelope, exterior walls and openings, means of egress, ventilation, lighting, unit size, earthquake safety, accessibility, high-rise and low-rise structures, use of the California Historic Building Code, and the San Franciscos Green building code. Some of the highlights include the following:

Dwelling unit sizes may meet the minimum size for new construction instead of the larger dimensions required for existing buildings. This will require approval of local equivalency through the SFDBI Administrative Bulletin AB-005 process.
Qualified historic buildings are permitted to use existing fire escapes per CHBC 8-502.5 where the fire escapes are inspected and improved to comply with SFDBI Administrative Bulletin AB-019.
Existing elevators in low-rise buildings can remain unchanged in a downtown adaptive reuse project and do not need to be upgraded to meet the current code requirements for gurney size, hoistway construction or Firefighters Emergency Operation.
High-rise structures over 120’ that do not have fire safe access elevators or do not house two elevator banks, and a hardship to install a new fire safe access elevator exists, may propose alternative equivalent facilitations to satisfy CBC 3003 FSAE.
Link to full Information Sheet G-29.

ADU Roundtable

The City has also recently launched a new service to streamline and speed up the review and issuance of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) building permits submitted through the State or Hybrid Program.

The Permit Review Roundtable will quickly and efficiently review plans, provide feedback and answer compliance questions during a live virtual meeting. A 45-minute roundtable meeting will be held on Mondays with the ADU project’s design professional, the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), the Planning Department, SF Fire, Public Works and the Public Utilities Commission. Both the adaptive re-use guidelines and the relaunch of the ADU round table process are continued evidence of the hard work behind the scenes by City staff to improve their partnership with the development community.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Manager, Post Entitlement Division Gillian Allen.

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.

SRO Hotel Deadline Alert

October 17, 2024 | Tuija Catalano

In March 2023, San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 36-23, that changed the definitions that apply to the use and minimum stays in residential hotels governed by the Hotel Conversion Ordinance under Administrative Code Chapter 41. The ordinance included a 2-year grace period, so that the new rules will not become effective until April 24, 2025. The ordinance also included an opportunity to request an extension of the grace period for up to 2 additional years if the residential hotel owner or operator can show that additional time is needed to recover reasonable investments in the hotel. The deadline for filing an extension is October 24, 2024.

As of today, residential hotel rooms (SROs) must be rented for 7 or more consecutive days. On April 24, 2025, this will change to a minimum of 30 or more consecutive days, and stays that are shorter than 30 days will be considered a Tourist Use, which is generally not permitted in residential hotels, except for few limited circumstances. The general rule during the Winter season, from October 1 through April 30, is that all residential hotel rooms must be rented for residential stay lengths, which currently is 7 or more days, but after April 24, 2025 will be 30 or more days. During the Summer season, from May 1 through September 30, up to 25% of the residential rooms can in certain circumstances be rented for tourist stay lengths, which currently is 1-6 day stays, but after April 24, 2025 will be 1-29 day stays.

If you have questions regarding an extension application or are interested in applying, please contact Tuija Catalano via email at tcatalano@reubenlaw.com. Please note the deadline is next week, on October 24, 2024.

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

Fee Waiver Possible for Downtown Conversions

October 16, 2024October 16, 2024 | Thomas P. Tunny

Mayor Breed and Supervisor Dorsey recently introduced legislation to waive development impact fees and inclusionary housing requirements for downtown office-to-housing conversion projects. For the Mayor it is the latest in a series of new policies she has dubbed the “30 x 30” initiative, designed to bring at least 30,000 residents and students downtown by 2030.

The city’s impact fees and inclusionary housing requirements are the largest source of city-imposed costs on conversion projects. According to some estimates they add between $70,000 to $90,000 per unit in project development cost. The legislation would waive these fees for all commercial-to-residential conversion projects downtown, specifically projects located in any C-3 zoning district or a C-2 zoning district east of or fronting Franklin Street/13th Street and north of Townsend Street. The legislation would apply to new projects and projects that have received Planning approvals or permit sign-off by Planning prior to January 1, 2025, but not yet received issuance of the first construction document. This legislation builds off the waiver of real estate transfer taxes for conversion projects that was enacted in March 2024.

The Mayor first introduced her 30 x 30 initiative in March 2024. The initiative has three components: (1) commercial to residential conversions; (2) 5,000 units of new housing; and (3) a focus on colleges and universities seeking to bring 10,000 students, teachers, and staff downtown.

The office-to-residential component of the initiative aims to convert 5 million square feet of office space to approximately 5,000 units of housing, bringing 10,000 of the 30,000 new residents downtown. Actions towards this goal include:

The Commercial-to-Residential Adaptive Reuse Program streamlines permitting by waiving a number of Planning Code requirements for conversion projects. Now scheduled to expire in 2028, the proposed impact fee legislation would extend this streamlining indefinitely.
Approved by voters in March 2024, Proposition C waives the real estate transfer tax on up to 5 million square feet of commercial-to-housing conversion projects downtown.
The Department of Building Inspection’s Commercial-to-Residential Adaptive Reuse Information Sheet, published in September 2024, clarifies Building and Fire Code requirements and alternative methods of compliance for adaptive reuse projects.
In 2025, as authorized by AB 2488, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development will establish a special Financing District for commercial-to-residential conversion projects that would reinvest incremental property tax revenue to offset a significant share of development costs for these projects.

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

Palo Alto Adopts Bold Upzoning

November 27, 2023November 27, 2023 | Alex Klein

Palo Alto recently reached a new housing milestone. On November 13, Palo Alto’s City Council adopted a legislative package implementing rezonings originally proposed in the City’s still uncertified sixth cycle Housing Element. In addition to increasing density and height limits on specific parcels across Palo Alto, this rezoning effort will unlock multi-family residential development on certain properties zoned for industrial or commercial uses.

The City Council’s action comes after a year marked by Palo Alto’s inability to adopt a compliant Housing Element. After missing its state mandated January 2023 deadline, Palo Alto adopted a Housing Element in March. But HCD, the state agency tasked with ensuring local compliance with Housing Element Law, rejected the City’s March Housing Element forcing City planners to go back to the drawing board. A second round of Housing Element legislation passed in May but to little avail. During its review process, HCD again refused to certify Palo Alto’s Housing Element. In a letter sent to the City’s Planning Department in early August, HCD requested Palo Alto make various modifications before it would certify the City’s Housing Element, citing concerns that the City’s site inventory was insufficient. Consequently, as of the time of this publication, Palo Alto’s Housing Element is out of compliance with state law and the City may be vulnerable to further Builder’s Remedy projects. With the adoption of this legislative package, the Palo Alto City Council seeks to appease HCD in the hope that the agency will finally certify the City’s Housing Element.

In addition to modest upzoning across the city, the enacted legislation focuses on rezoning parcels identified as housing opportunity sites in the City’s Housing Element. These identified opportunity sites are primarily clustered around a handful of the City’s major transit corridors, including properties along the west side of El Camino Real between Page Mill and Matadero Avenue (the “El Camino Real Focus Area”), commercial and industrial properties near San Antonio Road and Fabian Way (the “GM/ROLM Focus Area”), and certain sites owned by Stanford University along El Camino Real and Pasteur Drive. These changes come as affected property owners and lessees along El Camino Real have expressed increasing interest in redeveloping their properties to accommodate new housing.

Under the adopted rezoning package, opportunity sites identified in the City’s Housing Element will be rezoned to allow multi-family housing as a permitted use and will enjoy higher density and height limits compared to base zoning. The upshot is that industrially zoned properties located in the GM/ROLM Focus Area will allow multi-family housing as a permitted use, maximum height increases, and FAR maximum increases from 0.5 to 2.5 within the focus area and 1.5 on other opportunity sites. Because these densities would represent the “base” density, developers could leverage the rezoning and use the State Density Bonus Law to construct even taller and denser buildings. Properties located in the GM/ROLM Focus Area will also enjoy modified development standards, including a relaxed landscape coverage standard, reduced parking requirements, and taller height limits further easing constraints on development and leading to more housing in Palo Alto.

Sites identified as part of the City’s El Camino Real Focus Area will also enjoy higher densities, height limits, and lot coverage maximums. But, in response to local concerns, these projects will also face new headwinds. Residential development on these properties will be subject to architectural review to meet either objective design standards or context-based design criteria and would be required to provide 20% below-market rate housing at 80% AMI, an increase from the City’s typical requirement of 15%.

Finally, responding to demands from Stanford University, Palo Alto’s City Council also adopted higher density zoning regulations for university owned properties along El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road. Even though Palo Alto will count housing built on Stanford campus toward its RHNA, the university intends to develop these parcels with subsidized housing for graduate students, faculty, and other Stanford employees.

Beyond the focus areas identified as part of the Housing Element update, however, the rezoning also relaxes design and development standards for certain exclusively residential projects intended to accommodate lower income households across the City. Palo Alto’s recent rezoning legislation presents opportunities across Palo Alto to develop more residential housing in one of the most expensive communities in the Bay Area.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Alex Klein.

Transfer Tax Waiver Proposed by Mayor

October 25, 2023 | Kaitlin Sheber

Last week, Mayor London Breed proposed a ballot measure aimed at encouraging conversion of office to residential use in San Francisco’s Downtown by eliminating transfer tax for certain converted residential space. The measure would complement the Commercial to Residential Adaptive Reuse Program, effective as of August this year, which we previously provided an overview of on April 19, 2023.

Currently, the City’s Transfer Tax is as high as 6% for transactions over $25 million (Article 12-C, San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code (the “Transfer Tax”)). If approved by the voters, any deed, instrument, or writing that effects a first transfer of converted residential property, that would have been subject to the Transfer Tax, is exempt from the Transfer Tax. However, the exemption only applies up to the first 5,000,000 square feet of converted residential space. Above the 5,000,000 gross square feet limitation, the Transfer Tax would apply to the proportional value of or consideration for the property, based on the floor area over 5,000,000 square feet.

Under the ballot measure, converted residential property is the property or portion of property that received a first certificate of occupancy after conversion from nonresidential property to residential property (“Converted Residential Property”), and meets the following requirements:

Either (1) the first development application for conversion is approved or (2) the first site or building permit is issued, before January 1, 2030. Note, in cases where there is an appeal, the approval/issuance must be upheld before January 1, 2030;
A certificate is requested from the Planning Department, before January 1, 2030, showing the square footage of the proposed conversion, to be within the 5,000,000 square foot limitation (“Qualifying Certificate”);
A first construction document is received within three years after final approval of the conversion; and
At the time of the transfer, the gross floor area of the improvements divided by the lot area is at least one.

Those who seek to claim the proposed Transfer Tax exemption must take the following steps:

Request, after final approval of the property conversion, a Qualifying Certificate;
Request an exemption certificate from the Planning Department for each transfer for which an exemption will be claimed; and
For each exemption claimed for each transfer, submit the exemption certificate to the recorder at the time the Transfer Tax Affidavit is submitted.

According to the Mayor’s Office, 30 million square feet, or 34% of the office market, is currently vacant in the City. The proposed ballot measure aims to assist projects on the edge of financial feasibility through elimination of tax that would be due on the sale of a converted building. Voters will decide whether to approve this proposed ballot measure at the upcoming March 5, 2024 election.

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

Legislation to Overhaul Residential Building & Zoning Standards

August 21, 2023August 22, 2023 | Tara Sullivan

On June 29^th, the San Francisco Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of Mayor Breed’s proposed legislation titled “Housing Production” (BOS File No. 23-0446). The legislation amends the Planning Code to encourage housing production by focusing on the controls that mainly apply to Residential and Neighborhood-Commercial Districts. This legislation is proposing significant and far-reaching changes that will greatly change how residential projects are developed, for the better.

First, the legislation proposes to reduce the number and type of projects that require Planning Commission hearings. The major changes are below:

Eliminate Conditional Use Authorization (“CUA”) / Planning Commission Hearing / Neighbor Notice

The legislation also proposes to modify some of the more basic building standards that apply to most properties in the city: setbacks, open space, and lot area requirements. If passed, these changes would be the most radical to residential projects in decades. A summary of the significant changes are below.

Required Rear Yard (Section 134)

Lot Size (Section 121, 121.1)

Front Yard/Setback (Section 132)

Usable Open Space (Section 135)

There are several other changes proposed, but the above are the most far-reaching. The legislation is currently awaiting a hearing at the Land Use & Transportation Committee, which may happen once the Board of Supervisors returns from their summer recess. As with any legislation, changes may occur before it is finally passed, but it is expected to pass largely as-is.

Reuben, Junius, & Rose, LLP will continue to monitor this legislation and provide an update once passed.

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

Can New Rules Jumpstart Downtown?

April 19, 2023April 19, 2023 | Melinda Sarjapur

Last week, two new ordinances were introduced, both seeking to encourage residential conversion projects downtown, which have been recently touted by the media and policy advocates as one potential solution to address San Francisco’s office vacancy; combat the housing crisis; and draw retail foot traffic back to the City’s core.

The “Commercial to Residential Adaptive Reuse and Downtown Economic Revitalization” ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Aaron Peskin and Mayor London Breed, proposes an expansive list of Planning, Building and Fire Code amendments that share a common goal of encouraging downtown residential conversions and revitalizing the downtown core.

The “Development Impact Fees for Commercial to Residential Adaptive Reuse Projects” ordinance, sponsored by Supervisors Asha Safai and Matt Dorsey, is limited in scope but also seeks to incentivize residential conversions by exempting them from development impact fees.

The Breed/Peskin ordinance proposes the following Code modifications, which, if adopted, would not only encourage downtown residential conversions but would also broaden the types of uses allowed downtown, streamline process, and reduce costs for new businesses:

Creates a new definition for “Adaptive Reuse” project, which would apply to downtown projects that change existing GFA from non-residential to residential. Qualifying “Adaptive Reuse” projects must be located in a C (commercial) zoning district that is east of or fronting on Van Ness/South Van Ness Avenue and north of Harrison Street; can’t utilize California State Density Bonus Law; can’t propose an addition to the building envelope that exceeds 20% of the existing building’s GFA; can’t propose an addition of more than one vertical story; and must submit an application on or before December 31, 2028.
Relaxes zoning controls for qualifying “Adaptive Reuse” projects. Such projects would be exempt from zoning requirements that often trigger discretionary exceptions through a Downtown Project Authorization entitlement and/or drive-up development costs, such as lot coverage (which the ordinance substitutes for rear yard setback in C districts); usable open space; streetscape and pedestrian improvements; bike parking; dwelling unit mix. “Adaptive Reuse” projects would also be subject to reduced dwelling unit exposure, and Intermediate Length Occupancies would be principally permitted regardless of the number of units in the project. In addition, eligible “Adaptive Reuse” projects would not be subject to public hearing requirements for Downtown Project Authorization entitlements, unless seeking Planning Code exceptions beyond those listed above.
Raises the thresholds for public hearings of permits in Downtown Residential Districts and C-3 Districts so that public hearings are only triggered by proposed construction of new buildings or vertical additions greater than 120 feet in height (its currently triggered for any project of 75 feet in height or that adds 50,000 gsf of floor area).
Changes dimensional limits on exemptions to height restrictions for mechanical equipment, elevator, stair, and mechanical penthouses on existing buildings;
Proposes a range of zoning code tweaks intended to draw business back to the downtown core. These include creating a new definition for “Flexible Workspace” and allowing it as active ground floor commercial uses along certain street frontages in the C-3 District; authorizing large-scale retail uses (> 50,000 gsf) in the C-3 District; allowing window displays to be at least four-feet deep in the C-3 District; allowing accessory storage in the C-3 Districts; allowing temporary signs for 60 days in the C-3-R district; allowing temporary “pop-up” non-residential uses in vacant spaces for up to a year in certain C, NC, NCT, or Mixed-Use districts; principally permitting Lab, Life Science, Agricultural and Beverage Processing, and Animal Hospitals in C-2 Districts; principally permitting office and design professional uses on the second floor and above for C-3-R districts; and requiring consideration of office vacancy rates in consideration for granting code exceptions in the Transit Center Commercial Special Use District.
Streamlines sign permit requirement in the C-3 District and Citywide by exempting existing business sings in the C-3 District from certain requirements and allowing non-conforming neon signs to be physically detached from a building for repairs or maintenance, under certain conditions.
Streamlines Historic Preservation Review for administrative certificates of appropriateness and minor permits to alter for awnings.
Allows for In Lieu Fee payment to satisfy POPOS requirements in certain C-3 Districts.
Amends the Building Code by directing the Building Official and Fire Code Official to develop an alternative building standards manual, providing building standards specific to “Adaptive Reuse” projects.

The Safai/Dorsey ordinance is focused solely on economic incentive. It would exempt certain downtown residential conversion projects from all development impact fees except for Inclusionary Housing Program requirements.

To qualify for these fee waivers, an “Adaptive Reuse” project would need to be located in a C zoning district that is east of or fronting on Van Ness/South Van Ness Avenue north of Harrison Street; can’t utilize California State Density Bonus Law; can’t expand an existing building envelope by more than 20% of the existing buildings GFA; and can’t add more than one vertical story. Fee waiver would not apply to the area of any non-residential use proposed within a broader conversion project.

The above ordinances clearly aim to incentivize downtown residential conversions, but it’s unclear whether they go far enough to trigger a significant up-tick in “Adaptive Reuse” projects.

On April 3, 2023, the Board’s Land Use and Transportation Committee held a public hearing to review a Policy Analysis Report drafted by the Board’s Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office on feasibility of repurposing existing commercial real estate for residential use in San Francisco. While the Analysts report identified that zoning and policy changes in line with those under review could help to incentivize residential conversions, it also noted that “converting commercial properties to residential use is not a panacea for solving California’s housing shortage” because such conversions face a number of challenges “including architectural and building design limitations, municipal development approval processes that add time, cost, and uncertainty to conversions…” Likewise, a recent policy paper issued by the San Francisco Policy and Urban Research organization (“SPUR”) found that given current economic conditions and development costs, most conversions of underperforming office buildings would not pencil.

The Breed/Peskin and Safai/Dorsey ordinances were both introduced on April 4, 2023 and assigned to the Board’s Land Use and Transportation Committee under the Board’s 30-Day Rule, which means they cannot be heard by Committee until at least early May 2023.

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

Cars to Casas Nearing Adoption

December 14, 2022December 14, 2022 | Tuija Catalano

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supervisor Mandelman’s Fourplex Legislation Clears Planning Commission

November 24, 2021November 24, 2021 | Mark Loper

On Thursday, November 18, 2021, the San Francisco Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve legislation proposed by Supervisor Rafael Mandelman to allow four units on any residential lot, as well as up to six units on corner lots, in “RH” zones.

Supervisor Mandelman’s proposal—actually two pieces of legislation—only proposes minor changes to the Planning Code itself, and is quite simple in its effect: (1) up to four dwelling units per lot would be allowed either on every corner lot or on every lot in an “RH” zoning district, and (2) those sites would be subject to the development controls of the RH-3 zoning district. All other aspects of the SF Planning Code would continue to apply. That includes height, rear yard, setback, and open space requirements, as well as the standard entitlement and environmental review process. The Planning Commission also recommended the Planning Department’s proposed modifications, including that the Board of Supervisors allow six units on corner lots.

Supervisor Mandelman has been pushing for this legislation for nearly a year. He expanded the reach of the ordinance after the state passed SB 10, which allowed moderate upzoning near transit without a cumbersome and years-long CEQA review process that ordinarily would be required (not to mention that each project utilizing the increased density would undergo its own CEQA review). In spite of well publicized denials of major housing projects by the Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Mandelman proposed legislation that can become a key solution to San Francisco’s housing crisis. This is not an easy time to propose pro-housing laws in San Francisco, much less expanding its scope when presented with the opportunity.

The Planning Department’s staff report contains an insightful point that seems to get lost in the debate over adding new units in formerly single-family housing districts. 12,568 residential buildings in San Francisco have more units than would be allowed under current zoning. That represents about 31% of all homes in the city. As the Planning Department’s staff report notes, Supervisor Mandelman’s proposal rectifies policy decisions made in the 1970s which effectively downzoned large swaths of western and southern San Francisco. Multifamily buildings coexist with single-family homes currently and can in the future.

The Planning Department’s recommendations included an increase on corner lot density to six units, amending the residential design guidelines to add objective standards, eliminating the RH-1 zoning district and adopting a local alternative to SB-9, increasing funding for supportive housing programs, and establishing an impact fee on homes over 4,000 square feet. Ensuring all San Franciscans have access to capital in order to benefit from the legislation will be crucial to create new fourplex housing. Development impact fees have become a primary cost consideration for development projects; taxing housing instead of looking for a more generalized funding source might not prove successful. Also, establishing objective residential design guidelines will be critical to ensuring that fourplex projects can actually be approved, and in an orderly fashion without overburdening Planning Department staff or dissuading San Franciscans wary of an overly complicated set of guidelines or process. For example, in spite of the RH-4 zoning, the Residential Design Guidelines could effectively limit some sites to a lower density.

As noted above, Supervisor Mandelman’s ordinances as currently proposed are straightforward and clear to understand and execute. They now move to the Board of Supervisors, which will be able to add the Planning Commission and Planning Department’s suggestions and make proposals of their own. It remains to be seen what final form the legislation could take.

Finally, this update includes two maps from the Planning Department’s staff report. The first shows the areas in San Francisco that are currently zoned RH, where the proposed legislation would allow fourplexes. The second shows where new housing has been built in San Francisco since 2005. The maps generally do not overlap.

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

Size Restrictions Proposed on San Francisco Homes

March 31, 2021 | Thomas P. Tunny

San Francisco policy-makers continue to scrutinize the size of dwellings in an attempt to manage affordability and housing stock. Merits aside, policy-makers have expressed a consistent concern about demolitions, expansions, and new large-home construction. The latest measure is an ordinance introduced last month by Supervisor Rafael Mandelman (District 8), whose district includes the Castro, Noe Valley, Glen Park, and Bernal Heights.

Planning Code Section 317 already requires a conditional use authorization for residential demolitions, mergers, and removals. Supervisor Mandelman’s proposal would discourage residential units over 2,500 square feet by requiring, with some limited exceptions, a conditional use for them in RH (residential, house) zoning districts:

Expansions

On a developed lot where no existing dwelling unit exceeds 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, expansion of the residential use that would result in an increase of more than 50% of gross floor area to any dwelling unit or would result in a dwelling unit exceeding 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, except where the total increase of gross floor area of any existing dwelling unit is not more than 10%.
On a developed lot where any existing dwelling unit exceeds 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, expansion of the residential use that would result in an increase of more than 10% of gross floor area of any dwelling unit.

New Construction

Residential development on a vacant lot, or demolition and new construction, where the development would result in only one dwelling unit on the lot or would result in any dwelling unit with a gross floor area exceeding 2,500 square feet.

New Conditional Use Criteria

In addition to the standard conditional use criteria, the Planning Commission must consider the following new criteria:

the property’s historic preservation status;
whether additional dwelling units are added;
whether the proposed development preserves or enhances the existing neighborhood character by retaining existing design elements;
whether the development proposes to remove more than 50% of the existing front façade; and
whether the project removes rent control units.

Exceptions

The legislation would except developments from the new conditional use authorization requirement where a complete development application was submitted before February 2, 2021. The legislation would also except developments that increase the number of dwelling units on the lot provided that no dwelling unit exceeds 2,500 square feet of gross floor area as a result of the development, no proposed dwelling unit is less than one third the gross floor area of the largest dwelling unit resulting on the lot, and that neither the property or any existing structure on the property: (i) is listed on or formally eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources; (ii) has been adopted as a local landmark or a contributor to a local historic district under Articles 10 or 11 of the Planning Code; or (iii) has been determined to appear eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources.

The legislation has been referred to the Planning Department for review and consideration by the Planning Commission. To date, there is no estimate of how many projects would be affected by this requirement in a typical year, how many hours of staff time it would take to process them, or how the volume of new conditional uses would affect backlogs for all projects. No hearing date has been set for the Commission to consider the legislation, but we will continue to monitor and keep readers informed.

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