#zoning Archives

Objective Standards for Housing Projects – The Next Battleground?

January 15, 2025January 15, 2025 | Andrew J. Junius

In November of last year, to little fanfare, the San Francisco Planning Department presented to the Planning Commission its new Citywide Objective Design Standards. San Francisco, like cities across the state, are grappling with the brave new world of objective standards as required by recent housing legislation out of Sacramento. As the dust settles around the new and improved Housing Element process, the next battleground will be over individual projects, and each jurisdiction’s take on how to implement “objective standards.”

The need for objective standards is straightforward: as the state took dramatic action to jumpstart housing production by removing local zoning barriers, the focus was on eliminating local discretion for qualifying housing projects. In other words, planning commissions and city councils could no longer determine that a proposed housing project, while compliant with all local zoning, density and height controls, simply did not fit into the neighborhood character, was too big, blocked views, and generally displeased existing residents. That discretion – used by cities across the state – is why California doesn’t have enough housing. For decades, local residents have been leaning on their city officials to stop these projects. And in many cities they have succeeded.

No longer able to defer to local discretion, planning departments were charged with making sure that housing projects would only be evaluated with respect to objective standards. What is an objective standard? The California Housing Accountability Act (amended in 2017) defines objective standards as those that “involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criteria available and knowable by both the developer, applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal.”

This created an immediate challenge to planning departments across the state. While all city planning and zoning codes do have objective standards (i.e., numbers like height limits, floor area ratios, and the like), they also included a significant number of discretionary standards and processes. One would think that removing these discretionary provisions from planning codes and simply leaving the objective numbers would be a straightforward process. In other words, if a housing project in a certain zoning district required a conditional use authorization previously (a conditional use approval requires a Planning Commission to make very subjective findings regarding whether the project will be necessary and desirable and otherwise good for the neighborhood…) it should be a simple matter to remove that requirement and get on with it.

In many instances, that has simply not been the case. Discretionary and objective standards and procedures for many cities have been woven tightly together and cannot be easily untangled. At times there is even a debate over what is objective and what is subjective. And of course, such changes in local planning codes require legislative action by city councils.

Some California jurisdictions have attempted to comply with relatively minor changes to their code, claiming that these are in fact, “objective”. However, careful review of these minor changes reveals that there are still portions of their code purporting to protect views, “harmonize” the development with surrounding character, etc., etc. The subjective criteria that remain are not objective and would not pass muster if challenged.

Other jurisdictions, including San Francisco and Marin County, have taken a very different approach. In these cases, the Planners have gone to extraordinary lengths to provide an objective standard for virtually every aspect of a development, from site design, height limits, building modulation, etc., down to the more nuanced details for lobby and building entrance design and location, window location and design, façade treatment, building articulation, blind walls, and more. Marin County’s form-based code clocks in at a formidable 323 pages of objective standards.

It’s hard to predict how this will all work out in the months and years ahead. Now that the Housing Element battles are for the most part over (or at least not at full boil), the project-by-project housing battles have begun. We commend the state legislature’s efforts to prioritize housing production the only way it can: by removing the ability of cities to say no to qualifying housing projects. We hope that cities across the state will see the need for housing as critical and will work to implement these state laws as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner, Andrew J. Junius.

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.

California Passes New Law to Spur Housing

September 20, 2023September 20, 2023 | Melinda Sarjapur

Last week the California Legislature passed SB-423, new law introduced by Senator Scott Weiner to spur statewide housing production.

SB-423 extends and expands SB-35 (Weiner, 2017), which allows streamlined, ministerial processing for housing developments in cities that haven’t met their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) goals. Qualifying SB-35 projects must also meet certain criteria, including on-site affordability and labor requirements, and comply with local objective zoning standards.

SB-35 has been celebrated by housing development advocates statewide over the past six years for unlocking the potential to develop thousands of new homes. According to an August 2023 report issued by the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation, SB-35 spurred applications for construction of more than 18,000 new units in California between 2018 and 2021, 62% of which were 100% affordable.

SB-423 extends the original term of SB-35 by decade, to January 1, 2036.

It also makes a number of significant tweaks to SB-35, including:

Extending into the Coastal Zone. Previously, SB-35 did not apply to property within California’s Coastal Zone, which is a band of land that extends approximately 840 miles along California’s coast. SB-423 removes this exemption, allowing SB-35 to apply within the Coastal Zone beginning January 1, 2025, except for certain environmentally sensitive or hazardous locations, or areas not zoned for multifamily housing. Qualifying developments would still require a Coastal Zone Permit, but the public agency must approve it if they determine the development is consistent with objective zoning standards, which may be modified through state density bonus law.
Shortening San Francisco’s Reporting Period. SB-35 applies to cities that aren’t meeting their RHNA housing production goals either for low- or above-moderate income categories, which is typically determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) every four years. However, SB-423 singles-out the City of San Francisco, requiring analysis of its RHNA goal progress (and SB-35 eligibility under each income category) every year. As of the most recent assessment, San Francsico was meeting RHNA goals for above-moderate income housing, but not low-income housing. As a result, SB-35 projects in the City must currently provide 50% of units affordable to low-income households. However, if moving forward San Francisco falls below above-moderate income housing targets in an annual review period, projects could instead qualify for SB-35 by providing 10% of on-site units as affordable. Local Inclusionary Program requirements would still apply, but affordable units under SB-35 would count toward the local requirements.
Tying Application to Housing Element Compliance. SB-423 extends application of SB-35 to Cities that have failed to adopt a compliant housing element as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), even if they’re currently meeting RHNA goals.
Altering Affordability Requirements. SB-423 amends the affordability requirements for rental units in 10% jurisdictions, requiring such units to be affordable to households making 50% of the area median income, instead of the current 80%. The legislation also includes an alternate definition for “affordable rent” for developments that dedicate 100% of their units, exclusive of manager’s units, to lower income households.
Clarifying Interaction with Local Inclusionary Programs. It specifies that if a local BMR program requires units that are restricted as affordable to AMI tiers higher than those required by SB-35, the units meeting SB-35 thresholds will satisfy the local program requirements for higher-income units.
Amends Labor Standards. It requires projects over 85 feet in height, regardless of unit count, to utilize a skilled and trained workforce. Further, on projects with 50 or more units, contractors and subcontractors with construction craft employees must meet specified apprenticeship program and health care expenditure requirements.
Allowing the State to Approve Development on State Property. It authorizes the California Department of General Services, at its discretion, to act in the place of the local government, at its discretion, in order to approve SB-35 projects on property owned by or leased to the state.
Creating New Noticing Requirements. Requires local governments to hold a public meeting within 45 days of receiving a notice of intent to submit an SB-35 application for projects proposed in a census tract designated as a moderate- or low-resource area, or an area of high segregation and poverty.
Limiting the Scope of Local Review. Expressly states that cities cannot request studies, information or other materials that are not related to determining whether the development is consistent with the objective standards, nor can they require compliance with any standards necessary to receive a post-entitlement permit before the issuance of the project’s entitlement.

SB-423 is now on Governor Newsom’s desk along with a long list of other new bills passed just before the end of the legislative session. The Governor has until October 14^th to sign or veto the bill. Unless vetoed, it will take effect on January 1, 2024.

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

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.

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.

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

Oakland: Housing Approved & Zoning Updates

July 20, 2022 | Justin A. Zucker

Golden West Project CEQA Appeal Denied

Yesterday, the Oakland City Council unanimously denied the appeal of a 222-unit State Density Bonus project, including 16 units for very low income households, on a vacant lot next to the West Oakland BART Station, aka the Golden West project (the “Project”). The City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s March 3, 2021, unanimous approval of the Project.

Appellant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision approving the Project and the environmental review performed for the Project. Appellant argued the Project’s environmental review did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), demanding that a focused or infill EIR be prepared alleging hazardous materials impacts.

An EIR was prepared, however, which the Project tiered off of. The Project site is within the West Oakland Specific Plan area and was evaluated by the West Oakland Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). The City’s independent environmental consultant analyzed and determined there was nothing peculiar about the Project than what was programmatically analyzed in the West Oakland Specific Plan EIR. Upon review, City staff determined that “all hazardous materials concerns were previously addressed in the [West Oakland Specific Plan] EIR” and “conclude[d] that the requirement for any supplemental and/or infill EIR would be inappropriate and not justified.” No further CEQA review was required. Tiering off the West Oakland Specific Plan EIR was found to be proper.

Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP, led by Justin A. Zucker, is happy to have successfully assisted Project sponsor in navigating this Project from concept and entitlement through appeal.

Downtown Oakland Specific Plan Zoning Incentive Program Released

As previously reported, the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan is working its way to the City Council for adoption. One of the main purposes of the new specific plan is to address issues with existing zoning controls. A key element of the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan is establishment of a Zoning Incentive Program (“ZIP”).

On July 7, 2022, Oakland released the details of the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan ZIP. The ZIP allows developers to elect to provide one or more community benefits or pay an in-lieu fee to the City to fund such benefits, in exchange of increases in allowable building height and/or density. Projects may only participate in the ZIP if they are within one of the three ZIP areas designated in the Zoning Map. The three areas are generally located in:

Jack London Square – area along the Embarcadero, including the Victory Court area;
Central Downtown Oakland – area extending one to three blocks out from Broadway between 10^th and 20^th Streets and from 14^th Street between Castro Street to Lake Merritt Boulevard; and
Koreatown/Northgate – area surrounding Telegraph Avenue along 23^rd, 24^th, 25^th, 26^th, 27^th and 28^th

Under the ZIP, a project providing one of the following will result in allowance for additional density or non-residential floor area:

On-site, below market rate ground-floor commercial space – ground floor space provided at fifty percent (50%) of market rate rent for qualified retail, commercial, arts, and non-profit tenants;
On-site affordable dwelling units – providing on-site affordable dwelling units allows for increases over base density but not non-residential floor area;
Public restroom facility(ies) – provision of ground-floor, gender-neutral restroom facilities open to the public during work hours;
Streetscape, open space, and flood control improvements – provision of public streetscape and/or open space improvements includes landscaping, tree planting, and public art installation with flood control improvements including raising public lands, construction of drainage facilities, retaining walls, and other similar improvements;
In-Lieu Fees – provision of an in-lieu fee to be used by the City for the above-listed community benefits or for job training programs. The in-lieu fee per square foot of commercial development (non-residential floor area) ranges from $10 to $20 with the residential development in-lieu fee ranging from $12,000 to $22,000.

On July 13, 2022, the Zoning Update Committee held a hearing on the proposed ZIP. At that hearing, no action was taken by the Zoning Update Committee. An economic analysis of the ZIP is being prepared and will be reviewed and analyzed at the next scheduled Zoning Update Committee hearing on August 24, 2022.

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. We will continue to track this significant rezoning and community planning effort as it moves forward.

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

November Ballot Measure Seeks to Increase Affordable Housing Production

June 27, 2022June 27, 2022 | Melinda Sarjapur and Daniel Frattin

The “Affordable Homes Now” measure submitted in March by a coalition of labor and housing advocates, has successfully collected the 52,000 signatures required to qualify for San Francisco’s November 2022 ballot. Citing a study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, the measure describes San Francisco’s four-year average to permit multifamily residential buildings as “one major obstacle to the goal of increasing affordable housing.” The measure attributes soaring housing costs to the difficulty many small businesses and essential service providers have with hiring and retaining workers, resulting in high turnover among public school and community college teachers. Finally, it notes that the lack of a “large, stable, and productive construction workforce” is a further constraint on housing production, driving delays, cost overruns, and safety incidents.

Affordable Homes Now takes aim at these issues with a program to bolster and expedite the production of local affordable housing by providing streamlined, ministerial approval for the following types of development:

“100% Affordable Housing Projects,” in which (a) all residential uses are restricted as affordable housing with a maximum overall average income of 120%, and (b) maximum sales or rental prices do not exceed 80% of median market rents or sales for the neighborhood, as determined by the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (“MOHCD”). To provide for the “missing middle” that is not served by existing affordable housing programs, households earning up to 140% of AMI would be eligible for residency, so long as they comply with the overall average affordability requirements above. Qualifying projects may include non-residential use at the ground floor, and those accessory to and supportive of on-site housing;
“Increased Affordable Housing Projects,” which contain 10 or more units, and agree to provide on-site affordable units in an amount that is 15% greater than otherwise required under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program or local HOME-SF density program. For example, a project subject to a 21.5% on-site requirement under the Inclusionary Program would be required to make 24.7% of its units affordable under the Affordable Homes Now measure. In a 100-unit project, the total number of affordable units would increase from 22 to 25; and
“Educator Housing Projects,” as currently defined in Planning Code Section 206.9. Among other criteria, this includes providing all residential units as deed-restricted for the life of the project for occupancy by at least one employee of the San Francisco Unified School District (“SFUSD”) or San Francisco Community College District (“SFCCD”); providing at least 4/5^ths of all units as affordable to households with income ranging from 30%-140% of AMI, with the overall average of 100% AMI across all units, and the remaining 1/5^th of all units affordable up to a maximum 160% AMI.

To protect historic buildings, recreational resources, prevent tenant displacement or development that would conflict with certain zoning standards or preexisting uses, the measure would not apply to Projects that:

Remove or demolish historic landmarks, contributory buildings to a designated historic district, or Category I or II “significant” buildings under Article 11 of the Planning Code;
Are located on Recreation and Parks Department property;
Are located on sites not zoned for residential use;
Demolish, remove, or convert any residential units, movie theaters, or nighttime entertainment use; or
Include non-residential uses that require Conditional Use Authorization under the Planning Code.

Similar to the statewide SB-35 legislation which took effect in 2018, qualifying Affordable Homes Now projects that meet objective zoning standards would receive streamlined processing and be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Such projects would require no discretionary approvals by City Boards, commissions, or officials, and would not be subject to Discretionary Review. Associated building permits and other city permits necessary for construction would also receive streamlined, ministerial processing.

Projects qualifying under this measure could also utilize State Density Bonus Law to increase residential density, in which case any waivers, concessions or incentives would be considered consistent with objective zoning standards. However, for projects that do not utilize State Density Bonus Law, the measure would allow for administrative waivers or reductions from certain development standards including residential density; ground floor ceiling height; rear yard setback; dwelling unit exposure; loading; parking and open space.

Affordable Homes Now projects would not be required to submit for a Preliminary Project Assessment before filing a formal development application. Following submission of a complete development application, the City would have approximately six to nine months to approve qualifying projects, depending upon the number of residential units they contain.

Finally, the measure aims to attract a larger, more stable, and skilled construction workforce by setting minimum labor standards for Affordable Homes Now projects. These standard scale up based on the size of a project:

10+ units – All workers must be paid at least the applicable prevailing wage.
40+ units – In addition to the prevailing wage requirements, contractors that will employ construction craft employees for 1,000 or more hours are (a) required to provide medical insurance or make an $11.90/hour contribution to Healthy San Francisco per hour worked up to a weekly maximum of $476 and participate in state-approved apprenticeship programs; or (b) use contractors that are a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement that requires participation in a state-approved apprenticeship program. If no apprentices are available, projects may move forward without delay. The labor requirements are to be monitored through San Francisco’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement, with contractors and subcontractors required to submit monthly reports confirming compliance with the above standards. Failure to submit a monthly report is subject to a $10,000 fine per month for each month the report is not provided, as well as fines of $200 per worker per day employed in contravention of Affordable Homes Now requirements.

The Affordable Homes Now Initiative is proposed by a coalition of labor and housing advocates, including the Nor Cal Carpenters Union; Housing Action Coalition; Habitat for Humanity; Greenbelt Alliance; YIMBY Action; SPUR; and Grow SF. It is backed by Mayor London Breed; Senator Scott Weiner; and Supervisor Matt Dorsey. The 52,000 signatures gathered to place the measure on the ballot represent more than 10 percent of registered San Francisco voters.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorneys Melinda Sarjapur and Daniel Frattin.

Berkeley Adopts New Zoning Ordinance

March 2, 2022 | Tara Sullivan

On December 1, 2021, the City of Berkeley adopted a new Zoning Ordinance (Title 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code), the first major revision of the City’s Zoning Ordinance since 1999. The revision process originated from a 2016 City Council referral which asked the Planning Department to undertake structural revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. As with many zoning codes, Berkeley’s Zoning Ordinance was needlessly long and repetitive, had inconsistent formatting and definitions, and outdated policies and practices. Each of the 25 zoning districts in the city had its own land use table that listed permitted uses and permit requirements, resulting in different lists of uses and disparate treatment of similar uses across zoning districts. There were no area/geographic maps and there were few figures to illustrate concepts and regulations. This led to inaccurate interpretations, inconsistent applications, and anger towards city planners. It was not a “user-friendly” zoning code.

Berkeley undertook a two-phase approach to its Zoning Ordinance: this first update – Phase 1 – improves the formatting, language, and organization of the current code. It is easier to read, understand and administer. Phase 2 will undertake substantive changes to zoning regulations and processes.

The new Zoning Ordinance provides the following improvements:

New format and Writing Style. The entire ordinance was re-formatted, with new numbering and titles. A new style guide was created, laying out specific word choices (ex: “addition” should be called “expansion”; a “lot” is now called a “parcel”), grammatical and spelling rules, and establishes Plain English Guidelines as the new writing style.
Consolidated Land Use Tables. Former chapters and sections were combined. There are now three Land Use Tables – Residential, Commercial, and Industrial, consolidating all 25 districts. For example, all 10 commercial districts are under a single chapter. This will help remove inconsistencies in application and allow easy comparison among districts.
New Maps and Figures. The old ordinance relied on narrative descriptions of geographic areas and subzones. There were few illustrations. The new Zoning Ordinance has maps of each area, eliminating long narrative descriptions, and includes updated figures and diagrams to illustrate items such as Floor Area Ratio and measurement methods.
Eliminates Repetitive Language. In addition to eliminating repetitive land use controls, administrative procedures have been consolidated. This removed discrepancies and technical errors due to punctuation or word choice.
Introduces a List of “Consent Changes”. Minor but non-substantive changes were included in this update. Clarification of ambiguous terms, updated legal requirements, and codification of existing interpretations and practice were made, resulting in a clearer more comprehensive document.

The new Zoning Ordinance took effect on December 1, 2021. Pending projects that have been deemed complete or received Zoning approval on or before November 30^th will be reviewed using the “legacy” Zoning Ordinance. Pending projects or those that were deemed incomplete as of December 1^st will be reviewed under the new Zoning Ordinance.

Berkeley is currently working on updates to their Housing Element and developing Objective Design Standards, both of which were identified as needing updating during the Phase 1 analysis. These efforts are ongoing. RJR will continue to track these efforts and provide updates.

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

Planning Commission Considers Changes to Group Housing

February 23, 2022 | Melinda Sarjapur

On February 10th, the San Francisco Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend its approval (with modifications) of two proposed ordinances that could bring big changes for Group Housing citywide.

In mid-December 2021, Supervisor Peskin introduced two ordinances at the Board of Supervisors. The first (Board File No. 211299, “Planning Code – Group Housing Definition”), which is co-sponsored by Supervisors Walton and Mandelman, proposes to amend the definition of Group Housing under the San Francisco Planning Code (the “Planning Code”).

Under the current Zoning provision of the Planning Code (and pursuant to a previous Zoning Administrator interpretation), Group Housing rooms can include a limited cooking facility, which is defined as having a small counter space, a small under-counter refrigerator, a small sink, a microwave, and a two-ring burner. Further, Group Housing rooms must be rented out for a minimum of seven days, and Group Housing developments do not have minimum square footage requirements for building common spaces and amenities. On-site below-market-rate/inclusionary Group Housing rooms can be offered as either rental or ownership tenure.

However, Supervisor Peskin’s legislation proposes the following changes to the Group Housing definition:

Individual and limited cooking facilities would no longer be allowed in Group Housing rooms.
Group Housing rooms would need to be rented out for at least 30 days, rather than 7.
Group Housing would require at least 0.25 square feet of common space for every square foot of private space (including bedrooms and individual bathrooms). At least half of the required common space would need to be devoted to a communal kitchen, with one kitchen for every 20 Group Housing rooms. Student housing and 100% affordable housing would have an exception to this requirement.
On-site inclusionary Group Housing rooms would no longer be permitted as ownership units.

The second ordinance (Board File No. 211300, “Planning Code, Zoning Map – Group Housing Special Use District”), proposes to create a new Group Housing Special Use District, generally covering the Chinatown and Tenderloin neighborhoods, within which new Group Housing rooms would be prohibited.

After three hours of hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of both ordinances to the Board of Supervisors, with the following proposed modifications:

To the Group Housing Definition Legislation:

Increase the common space requirement for Group Housing to 0.5 square feet of common space for every square foot of private space (instead of the proposed 0.25 sf);
Require at least 1 kitchen within 15% of the common space (instead of the proposed 50%);
Revise the minimum number of kitchens to be at least 1 communal kitchen for every 15 Group Housing rooms (instead of the proposed 20);
In addition to Student Housing and 100% Affordable Housing, also exempt units protected under Section 41.3 of the Hotel Conversion Ordinance from common space requirements;
Exempt organizations such as Family House from the common space requirements;
Allow academic institutions to provide limited cooking facilities in Group Housing rooms;
Define the metrics for communal kitchen requirements;
Exclude the single-room occupancy (“SRO”) aspect from this specific legislation with the intent to continue discussions on SRO controls in the future; and
For the Planning Department to consider establishing a Working Group to further discuss Group Housing intent, best practices, and future legislation.

To the Group Housing SUD Legislation:

Revise the proposed SUD to exempt Student Housing and 100% Affordable Housing projects; and
Exclude the SRO aspect from this specific legislation with the intent to continue discussions in the future.

It remains to be seen which, if any, of the Commission’s proposed modifications will be incorporated into these ordinances, which will come before the Board’s Land Use and Transportation Committee at an unknown future date.

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

Supervisor Safai Introduces Competing Fourplex Legislation

December 8, 2021December 8, 2021 | Sabrina Eshaghi

On November 30, 2021, Supervisor Ahsha Safai introduced legislation that would allow up to four units on lots zoned RH-1(D), RH-1, and RH-2 with the addition of affordable housing for moderate-income families. This competes with Supervisor Rafael Mandelman’s fourplex legislation, which would allow up to four units in all RH zones without any affordability requirement. Supervisor Safai’s legislation takes a different approach that would require at least one deed-restricted middle-income housing unit in order to build a fourplex. Safai’s legislation would also allow exceptions to certain Planning Code requirements, provide priority processing, and eliminate 311 notice and discretionary review.

Specifically, the legislation would create what it calls the Affordable Housing Incentive Program, which would apply to lots that are (1) located in the RH-1(D), RH-1, or RH-2 districts, (2) within one mile of a major transit stop, and (3) no smaller than 2,500 square feet. In addition, the project cannot be subject to any other density bonus programs and any existing “protected” units, which includes rent controlled or affordable housing units, must be replaced.

Under the Program, one affordable housing unit is required to allow up to three units per lot and two affordable units are required to allow up to four units per lot. The affordable housing units must be provided at 110% of the area median income (“AMI”) for rental units, or 140% AMI for owned units. Currently, these income levels for a single person household translate to $102,600 and $130,550, respectively. At the 110% AMI level, base rent for a one-bedroom unit would be limited to $2,713 and $3,010 for a two-bedroom unit. The affordable units are also subject to certain size requirements.

In exchange for the affordable housing, the Program allows a variety of Code modifications and shorter processing times. For example, lots in the RH-1(D) and RH-1 zoning districts are currently limited to a height of 35 feet, but the Program would generally allow up to 40 feet. In addition, projects under the Program would be entitled to reduced rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, and open space requirements. The Planning Director may also grant minor exceptions from Code requirements to allow building mass to appropriately shift to respond to surrounding context when the proposed modification would not substantially reduce or increase the overall building envelope. Likewise, the provisions of the Residential Design Guidelines related to “building scale and form” and “building scale at the mid-block open space” would not apply.

To provide more certainty in the approval process, the Program requires projects to be approved within 180 days of submittal of a complete project application, unless an environmental impact report is required. It also eliminates 311 neighborhood notification and discretionary review. Instead, the only opportunity to appeal would be through the associated building permit.

The legislation is currently in a mandatory 30-day holding period before any Planning Commission or Board Committee hearings can take place. Meanwhile Supervisor Mandelman’s legislation has already advanced from the Planning Commission and is awaiting a Land Use Committee hearing date. It remains to be seen what version of the fourplex legislation will make it to the full Board.

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