housing

Objective Standards for Housing Projects – The Next Battleground?

| 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.

neighborhood

City Extends Entertainment Zone to Outer Neighborhoods

| Tara Sullivan

On December 10th Mayor Breed and Supervisor Mandelman introduced BOS File No. 241197, an ordinance that would create the Cole Valley Entertainment Zone. Buoyed by the success of the Entertainment Zones that occurred downtown, this is an acknowledgment that there are other parts of San Francisco that have yet to recover from the pandemic-related downturn. As a refresher, entertainment zones enable restaurants and bars in designated areas to sell alcoholic beverages to go for outdoor consumption during events and activations. The establishment of entertainment zones stems from the Mayor’s Roadmap to San Francisco’s Future, which has supported a series of entertainment initiatives designed to bolster Downtown’s economic recovery. Sanctioned under SB 76, authored by Senator Scott Wiener, entertainment zones are designed to support the sustainability of local bars and restaurants and boost neighborhood economic activity by permitting restaurants and bars to sell alcoholic beverages to go for outdoor consumption during special, permitted events. So far, there have been three events (in two Entertainment Zone areas) that have taken advantage of this legislation: Oktoberfest on Front (Street) on September 20th and Nightmare on Front Street on October 31st, along with the recent Winter Wonderland Tree Lighting Ceremony on November 30th at Thrive City (Chase Center). All of these have been deemed a success, bringing in thousands of people and increasing sales by anywhere from 700-1,500%. The proposed legislation makes a tweak to the definition of an “Entertainment Zone Event” by removing the requirement of an ABC license or permit to allow the sale and consumption of alcohol to be served outdoors. Moving forward, only local authorization is needed to hold an “Entertainment Zone Event,” with only licensed establishments that hold an ABC permit allowed to sell alcohol. This will greatly reduce the amount of paperwork needed to put on an Entertainment Zone Event. Cole Valley is a small neighborhood district that spans three blocks from Frederick Street to Parnassus Avenue. Intimate in nature, it does feature several bars and restaurants, and the neighborhood has undertaken several street-specific events, like the Cole Valley Night Fair on December 5th. It is not a neighborhood that draws many nighttime patrons, largely due to its location and family-oriented population. However, it is located along a Muni line and sits between the Haight and Inner Sunset neighborhoods, so it is a good case study for this type of economic initiative. It is anticipated that the proposed entertainment zone will be effective as early as March 2025, allowing for nighttime and weekend events along Cole Street in the spring. The entertainment zone program has so far proved to be a success in larger, more commercially-oriented areas. Cole Valley is an interesting choice for the first of this expanded concept, but if successful, can demonstrate how other neighborhoods in the city such as the Inner Sunset, which has held several night markets in 2024, can utilize the concept to help attract patrons during times that are otherwise pretty quiet. Cole Valley’s businesses all support the proposed Entertainment Zone and, if successful, will be great to see how this concept is utilized in other neighborhoods throughout San Francsico.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner, Tara Sullivan. The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient. Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein. Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm. We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law. We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

CEQA

Court Broadens Applicability of CEQA Infill Exemption

| Thomas P. Tunny

Readers no doubt are aware of the CEQA Infill Exemption, one of the most common CEQA exemptions used for projects in San Francisco and the Bay Area. In an important opinion published on November 18, the Sixth District Court of Appeal interpreted key terms in the Infill Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Class 32 categorical exemption) to broaden its application, in particular “in-fill development” projects that meet specified criteria, including being “substantially surrounded by urban uses.” In doing so, the Court upheld a lower-population city’s use (King City) of the exemption for a Grocery Outlet project near Highway 101. (Working Families of Monterey County, et al. v. King City Planning Commission (Best Development Group, LLC, Real Party in Interest) (2024) ___ Cal.App.5th ___.) The project at issue was a Grocery Outlet store in a single-story building with surface parking on a 1.6-acre lot located within 1,000 feet of Highway 101. The parcel’s General Plan land use designation was Highway Service Commercial (HSC) and its zoning designation was Highway Service District (H-S). It was surrounded on two sides by commercial buildings, on the third side by sheriff’s department buildings, and on the fourth side by a cemetery. An environmental assessment submitted by the project developer in support of the project’s permit applications (for a CUP, architectural review, monument sign permit, and landscaping permit) concluded the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, or otherwise, and that it qualified for the CEQA Guidelines Class 32 exemption for in-fill development. The City’s Planning Commission agreed on all counts, and its decision approving the project entitlements and exemption was upheld by the City Council, which did the same on administrative appeal. The Petitioners, a union, sought to have the court narrow the infill exemption by arguing the project was not located in an “urbanized area,” as defined in CEQA Section 21071(a) (population 100,000 or more) or CEQA Guidelines Section 15387 (population 50,000 or more). Petitioners also alleged the project did not meet the definition of an “infill site,” as defined in CEQA Section 21061.3, since the project site was not previously developed for “qualified urban uses.” The court refused to take the bait and turned to traditional rules of statutory construction to discern the meaning of these key terms. Finding the language of the exemption arguably ambiguous, the court looked to the findings of the Natural Resources Agency and the Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) in establishing the exemption. Their statements of regulatory intent showed no indication that the regulators intended to limit the Class 32 categorical exemption for infill development to projects that meet the criteria set forth in the statutory definitions of “infill site,” “urbanized area,” and “qualified urban uses”. Citing OPR directly, the court concluded, with a flourish, “The term ‘infill development’ refers to building within unused and underutilized lands within existing development patterns, typically but not exclusively in urban areas. Infill development is critical to accommodating growth and redesigning our cities to be environmentally- and socially-sustainable.” This broad definition will allow the Infill Exemption to be used in areas that may not meet specific definitions of “urban”, but as a matter of common sense are clearly “urbanized”. This decision is important because it reinforces and even broadens the applicability of the Infill Exemption in both typical urban areas and smaller cities.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner, Thomas P. Tunny. 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.

Preliminary Election Results: Correction on Measures L & M

| Kaitlin Sheber

Measure L: Additional Business Tax on Transportation Network Companies and Autonomous Vehicle Businesses to Fund Public Transportation – Failed* With preliminary election results showing 56.88% voter approval, it would seem voters passed Measure L, but the Measure has failed due to a provision in Measure M discussed below. Measure L would have placed a permanent additional tax on transportation network companies and autonomous vehicle businesses to support Muni transportation services and fare discount programs, titled the “Ride-Hail Platform Gross Receipts Tax.” The Measure would impose the tax specifically on businesses that provide passenger service for compensation and receive more than $500,000 in gross receipts. The tax rates range between 1% and 4.5% of gross receipts. The Controller estimates annual revenue from the measure at approximately $25 million. Measure M: Changes to Business Taxes – Passed Measure M proposed to modify several existing taxes in the City, including the Gross Receipts Tax, Homelessness Gross Receipts Tax, Overpaid Executive Gross Receipts Tax, Business Registration Fee, and the Administrative Office Tax on Payroll Expenses. In general, the Measure is expected to cut taxes for many small businesses and shift more tax burden onto medium, large, and wealthier businesses through a variety of changes. Preliminary election results show that Measure M was approved by 69.73% of voters so far. As discussed above, Measure M contained a provision to render Measure L null and void in the event it obtained more votes. With preliminary results showing Measure L with 201,074 votes in favor and Measure M with 228,038 votes in favor, Measure L is expected to fail. *Corrected from original publication on November 13, 2024.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney, Kaitlin Sheber. 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.

Preliminary Election Results Show New Rules Coming to SF

| Kaitlin Sheber

On November 5th of last week, voters took to the polls to cast their ballots in an election with several measures that will affect businesses and City Commissions. With preliminary election results available, below is an overview of some of the key results. Proposition 33: Local Government Residential Rent Control – Failed Prop 33 sought the statewide repeal of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 (“Costa-Hawkins”), which restricts the ability for local jurisdictions to impose rent control. Proponents for the proposition argued that repeal of Costa-Hawkins would allow jurisdictions to expand rent control, while opponents argued it would freeze construction of new housing and effectively reverse dozens of new state housing laws. Preliminary election results show 60.8% of voters voted no on Prop 33, keeping Costa-Hawkins in place and delivering a resounding rejection of stricter rent control. Measure D: City Commissions and Mayoral Authority – Failed Measure D proposed to limit the total number of commissions in the City of San Francisco to 65, while also giving the Mayor sole authority to appoint and remove City department heads. The Measure would also have given the police chief the sole authority to adopt rules governing the conduct of police officers. Preliminary election results show that 56.39% of voters voted no on Measure D, maintaining the current number of commissions in the City. Measure E: Creating a Task Force to Recommend Changing, Eliminating, or Combining City Commissions – Passed Also aimed at commission reform within the City, it appears that Measure E won out over Measure D, with preliminary election results showing 52.05% voter approval. Measure E asked voters to decide whether the City should create a task force to make recommendations by February 1, 2026 on ways the City could change, eliminate, or consolidate commissions to improve the administration of City government. Measure L: Additional Business Tax on Transportation Network Companies and Autonomous Vehicle Businesses to Fund Public Transportation – Passed With preliminary election results showing 56.88% voter approval, it looks like voters have passed Measure L, which places a permanent additional tax on transportation network companies and autonomous vehicle businesses to support Muni transportation services and fare discount programs, titled the “Ride-Hail Platform Gross Receipts Tax.” The Measure will impose the tax specifically on businesses that provide passenger service for compensation and receive more than $500,000 in gross receipts. The tax rates range between 1% and 4.5% of gross receipts. The Controller estimates annual revenue from the measure at approximately $25 million. Measure M: Changes to Business Taxes – Passed Measure M proposed to modify several existing taxes in the City, including the Gross Receipts Tax, Homelessness Gross Receipts Tax, Overpaid Executive Gross Receipts Tax, Business Registration Fee, and the Administrative Office Tax on Payroll Expenses. In general, the Measure is expected to cut taxes for many small businesses and shift more tax burden onto medium, large, and wealthier businesses through a variety of changes. Preliminary election results show that Measure M was approved by 69.73% of voters so far.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney, Kaitlin Sheber. 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.

San Francisco Building Department Updates

| 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.

San Francisco Empty Homes Tax Struck Down at Trial Court

| Alex Klein

Last week, the San Francisco Superior Court struck down the City’s “Empty Homes Tax” which was set to be collected for the first time starting in April 2025 for the 2024 tax year. As stated in a message on the San Francisco Treasurer and Tax Collector’s website, the agency is evaluating the court’s decision and its effect on the upcoming collections and will “expect to have more information in the coming weeks.” Adopted by San Francisco voters with the passage of Measure M, during the November 2022 general election the Empty Homes Tax aimed to add residential housing stock back into the local rental market by imposing a tax on owners of certain multifamily buildings for keeping rental units vacant for 182 or more days each tax year. The Empty Homes Tax would have applied broadly to most multifamily property owners in the City whose properties had vacant units with limited exemptions for 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofits, governmental entities, and the owners of residential buildings with two or fewer units. The tax would have been calculated based on the vacant units’ square footage. For the 2024 tax year, a minimum tax of $2,500 would have been assessed for vacant units with less than 1,000 square feet and up to $5,000 would have been assessed for vacant units with greater than 2,000 square feet. Tax rates imposed under the Empty Homes Tax were set to increase annually over the next few years. The present litigation was brought in February of 2023, shortly after the passage of Measure M, by a handful of property owners in the City affected by the Empty Homes Tax, in addition to the various interested real estate organizations including the San Francisco Apartment Association and the San Francisco Association of Realtors. In their complaint challenging the Empty Homes Tax, Plaintiffs argued that the Empty Homes Tax violated the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that the tax amounted to the City compelling property owners to rent their property, an action the United States Supreme Court and California’s First Appellate District have held is a Taking. Yee v. City of Escondido (1992) 503 U.S. 519; Cwynar v. City & Cty. Of S.F. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 637, 658. The tax, plaintiffs argued, sought to “achieve indirectly the very result that the Constitution and state law prohibit…” by “coerc[ing] owners to rent their units by severely penalizing those who exercise their rights to keep units vacant…” (Complaint pg.5.) Plaintiffs also argued that Prop M was preempted by the Ellis Act which prohibits public entities from compelling owners of residential real property to offer their accommodations for rent or lease. Cal. Gov. Code § 7060(a). As Plaintiffs highlighted in their motion for summary judgment, the “compulsion” prohibited by the Ellis Act extends to the imposition of financial or other penalties for declining to rent residential units. See Bullock v. San Francisco (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1072. In addition to arguing that Plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the tax before paying it under protest, the City argued in its motion for summary judgement that Plaintiffs had mischaracterized Prop M as requiring property owners to rent their units or pay the Empty Homes Tax. Rather, the City argued, property owners merely needed to ensure that their rental units were “occupied, inhabited, or used,” or that they fell within one of Prop M’s vacancy exclusion periods. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement, Pg. 16. The Court has yet to publish its decision granting summary judgment for Plaintiffs. It is certainly possible that the City will appeal the decision, which will create uncertainty over the future of the Empty Homes Tax.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney, Alex Klein. The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient. Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein. Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm. We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law. We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

SRO

SRO Hotel Deadline Alert

| 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. 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.

downtown

Fee Waiver Possible for Downtown Conversions

| 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. 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.

BOI Reports

New Federal Business Filing Requirement Starting in 2024

| Alex Klein

Starting in 2024, many business entities will be required to comply with the Corporate Transparency Act (the “FCTA” or the “Act”).  Enacted in 2021 to enhance corporate transparency and combat tax fraud, the FCTA requires all “reporting companies” to submit Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) reports to the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) by December 31, 2024.  (31 U.S.C. § 5336(a)(11)(A).) I.  What are reporting companies? For the purposes of the FCTA, a “reporting company” is defined as any corporation, limited liability company (“LLC”), or other similar entity that is (a) created either domestically by filing with the jurisdiction’s secretary of state or under the laws of a foreign county, and (b) registered to do business in any state. There are, however, numerous carve-outs from the above definition, including certain highly regulated financial intuitions, nonprofit entities, political organizations, and certain business entities already subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission such as banks.  In addition, the Act also excludes “large operating companies,” defined as entities with an operating presence at a physical office in the United States and employing more than 20 employees on a full-time basis in the US that demonstrated gross receipts exceeding five million ($5,000,000) dollars in their previous federal income tax returns. II.  What needs to be reported? BOI reports must identify each reporting company’s beneficial owner or owners.  The FCTA defines “beneficial owners” as any person or entity that either exercises substantial control over the business entity or who owns or controls a twenty-five (25%) percent interest in the company.  (31 U.S.C. § 5336 (a)(3)(A).)  This definition does, however, exclude minors, creditors, and other discrete classes from the reporting requirement. BOI reports must include each beneficial owners’ full legal name, date of birth, current residential or business address, and either a unique identifying number from an acceptable identification document or a FinCEN identifier.  (31 U.S.C. § 5336 (b)(2)(A).)  Either a valid United States passport, a valid driver’s license, a nonexpired identification document issued by a state, local government, or Indian Tribe, or, if the individual does not have one of these forms of identification, a foreign passport would be acceptable forms of identification. In addition, BOI reports must also disclose some information about the business entity itself, including its full legal name, trade name, the current address of the company’s principal place of business, its jurisdiction of formation, and its taxpayer identification number.  Upon request and after submitting the BOI report to FinCEN, beneficial owners will be issued a FinCEN identifier. BOI reports may be filed by anyone a reporting company authorizes to file the report on its behalf, including employees, owners, or third-party service providers such as attorneys or accountants.  The person responsible for filing the BOI report will need to certify that the information provided is accurate and complete. III.  Deadlines and the BOI Reporting Process Reporting companies must file a report containing their beneficial ownership information through FinCEN’s website.  Companies must file their BOI reports by the following deadlines to comply with the FCTA: Domestic reporting companies formed prior to January 1, 2024, are required to file an initial BOI report by January 1, 2025. (31 U.S.C. § 5336 (b)(5).) Companies formed this year (i.e. after January 1, 2024) will be required to file a BOI report within ninety (90) days of receiving actual or public notice of the company’s creation or registration, whichever is earlier. Once a report has been filed, FinCEN will provide a confirmation receipt.  Reporting companies will need to update their reports in the event any beneficial ownership changes occur, such as a sale of the business or an owner’s death. IV.  Penalties for Noncompliance Intentional misrepresentation of BOI information or intentional failure to provide complete or updated BOI information on a BOI report could result in criminal or civil penalties.  (31 U.S.C. § 5336 (h)(3)(A).)  Continued reporting violations may result in five hundred dollar ($500) daily penalties until those violations have been remedied.  An FCTA violation may result in fines up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and up to two (2) years imprisonment. The FCTA does, however, also contain a safe harbor provision exempting some reporting companies who submit BOI reports containing inaccurate information and voluntarily submit corrected reports to FinCEN.  (31 U.S.C. § 5336 (h)(3)(C).)   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney, Alex Klein. The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient. Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein. Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm. We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law. We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

1 2 3 … 55