density bonus

California Increases Density Bonus to 50%

| Mark Loper

Starting in 2021, residential projects in California with on-site affordable housing can get a density bonus of up to 50%.  Currently, under Government Code Section 65915—commonly known as the Density Bonus Law—the maximum bonus is 35%.  It is available for projects that include 11% very low income below market rate (“BMR”) units, 20% low income BMRs, or 40% moderate income BMRs.  Under a new law that flew somewhat under the radar during the last legislative session in Sacramento, a 50% bonus is available with increased affordability.  Specifically, 15% very low income, 24% low income, or 44% moderate income allow the full 50% bonus. The new state law, AB 2345, requires cities and counties to comply even if they have not yet updated local implementing ordinances.  This means starting January 1, 2021, all jurisdictions in California are required to process projects proposing up to 50% additional density as long as those projects provide the additional BMRs in the “base” portion of the project, unless the locality already allows a bonus above 35%. AB 2345 also lowered the BMR thresholds for concessions and incentives for projects with low income BMRs.  For background, in addition to waivers from development controls that preclude a project from achieving the density bonus it is guaranteed (with some narrow exceptions) in exchange for on-site BMRs, the Density Bonus Law allows sponsors to ask for “concessions and incentives” from zoning and development regulations that would make the project more expensive to construct.  Starting in 2021, projects with 17% low income BMRs can qualify for two concessions or incentives, and projects with 24% low income BMRs can qualify for three. Finally, density bonus projects within one-half mile of a major transit stop and with direct access to the stop may be able to avoid minimum parking requirements. All-Electric New Construction in San Francisco Starting in June 2021 On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a law mandating new construction projects be all-electric.  The building or project will need to use a permanent supply of electricity as the source of energy for all space conditioning including heating and cooling, water heating, pools and spas, cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances.  Gas or propane piping systems are not permitted from the point of delivery at the gas meter. The all-electric requirement takes effect on June 1, 2021.  Starting then, all new building or site permit applications will need to comply.  Sponsors should keep in mind there is currently a multi-month delay to file permits at the Department of Building Inspection (“DBI”), and should not wait until the last minute to get their building or site permits on file. There are two minor exceptions.  If it would be physically or technically infeasible to construct an all-electric building, DBI can grant modifications, but only to those portions of the building where infeasibility can be demonstrated, and the alternative design provides equivalent health, safety, and fire protection.  Importantly, financial considerations cannot be used to show infeasibility. Also, a restaurant is allowed to have gas facilities used exclusively for cooking equipment.  For permits filed through December 31, 2021, permits identifying a restaurant use will be allowed to have gas facilities.  After 2021, the exception is narrowed and DBI has to determine that the gas system is necessary for the specific restaurant using the space.  Identifying a specific restaurant tenant that early in the process will likely be a challenge for many new construction projects.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Mark Loper. 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.

Task Force

Task Force Recommends Fee and Permit Changes

| Tara Sullivan

There are few cities that have not been negatively impacted by COVID-19.  Since March, San Francisco and the surrounding cities have been largely shut down, with businesses opening in a staggered manner based on infection and death rates.  Nonessential office workers remain at home.  Seven months into this “new normal”, a number of studies and reports have been issued, analyzing the impact the virus has had on the local economy.  Without a doubt, San Francisco appears to have been hit particularly hard, as more and more companies are allowing employees to work remotely, many through July 2021.  The result is an empty business district and what appears to be an exodus of residents from the City.  The lack of office employees working and residing in the City has had a drastic effect on the economy.  A few key statistics:[1] 1% office vacancy rate in Q3 43% decline in sales tax receipts from April to June as compared to 2019 65% decrease in sales at restaurants and bars and consumer goods stores 50%+ storefronts are not operating as of August 2020 1% increase in online sales tax receipts Recognizing that the City was facing a looming financial crisis, Mayor Breed and Board President Yee convened a task force – the Economic Recovery Task Force – in the spring to advise the City and provide recommendations to support the recovery efforts from COVID-19.  Consisting of over 100 members, the Task Force received 1000 surveys and conducted an additional 900 interviews with residents and business owners in San Francisco.  The Task Force issued its final report on October 8th, listing 41 recommendations ranging from economic stimulus to safe reopening guidelines. Several of the recommendations focus on the real estate and construction industry.  Construction is a revenue-generator for San Francisco: in addition to bringing in permit and impact fees, statistics show that each $1 million spending in construction translates into approximately 5.93 jobs.  While a recession often leads to a significant slowdown in construction, San Francisco has not seen the resulting stoppage, largely due to projects that were already underway.  However, falling rents and sales prices, high construction costs, and broad economic uncertainty have resulted in developers unable to secure financing for their projects and a slowdown in development projects breaking ground. The Task Force makes the following recommendations relating to development in San Francisco: Focus on the major development projects and public infrastructure investments The Task Force recognizes that there are already many projects that could boost construction – ones that have already received approvals and/or been identified by the City.  The City recently underwent a major rezoning in Central SoMa, with several large projects approved.  In addition, there are several significant long-term projects underway on SF Port property.  Further, the City’s last 10-year Capital plan allocated $39 billion in investments from 2020-2029. The Task Force calls for the City to continue focusing on its major developments, such as the Shipyard, Mission Rock, Pier 70, Treasure Island, and Central SoMa, as these projects bring with them thousands of jobs and support for local business.  They also call for an update to the City’s Capital plan, focusing on projects that promote good state of repair for its buildings, right-of-way, public spaces, and other infrastructure assets.  If these projects can begin (or continue) construction within the next year, then it would provide needed jobs for the construction industry while developing spaces for the eventual reopening of the City. “Redesign” the building permit processes and consider an application fee “holiday” or reduction to incentivize permits The Task Force calls for the overhaul of the City’s permit processes – not a new idea but one that has gained traction over the past months.  The Task Force calls out DBI, Fire Department, SFPUC, and Planning, as agencies that should implement programmatic and regulatory changes to redesign the permitting process, increase transparency, make the permitting process as easy and affordable as possible, and to remove permitting and process requirements not directly related to health and safety. The Task Force also calls for an application fee “holiday” – a temporary reduction or elimination of fees – that would incentivize owners (both business and residential) and developers to pull permits and undertake construction projects. Allow for the deferral of Development Impact Fees Development Impact Fees are imposed on certain projects that will cause an increase in demand of public services, infrastructure, and housing.  Impact fees are imposed at project approval and collected at the issuance of the first construction document, often several years before a development receives its certificate of occupancy.  The City has implemented fee deferral programs before, most notably in 2010-2013 during the Great Recession, as well as 2019’s fee waiver for 100% affordable housing projects and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The Task Force recommends that the Planning Department develop another fee deferral program for a limited time that would allow developers to defer paying impact fees until each project receives the first certificate of occupancy, at the end of construction, rather than at issuance of first construction document.  This would help developers secure financing on projects that would likely not be able to break ground and pay impact fees otherwise. These three recommendations are a few of the 41 that address the financial impacts of COVID-19.  Any application fee reductions, impact fee deferrals, or other fee “holidays” will require legislation by the Board of Supervisors.  Application fees are imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections and audits, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication.  Simply put, the application fees charged go back into the City’s General Fund and are used to maintain City services and agency functions and for employee salaries.  According to the 2020-2021 City Budget, Planning experienced a decrease in application and permit volume of 10% – numbers that have likely increased due to COVID-19.  Reduction in applications results in a budget shortfall, impacting the City’s ability to review projects and permits.  Impact fees are

SoMa

Central SoMa Clean Up Legislation Moves Forward

| Melinda Sarjapur

Last week, the San Francisco Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of legislation that would “clean up” parts of the Administrative and Planning Code that were previously amended in connection with the Central SoMa Area Plan. The Central SoMa Area Plan was the result of a multi-year planning effort which rezoned much of a 230-acre area adjacent to downtown and surrounding the future Central Subway extension along 4th Street, which is scheduled to begin operating in 2021.  The Plan is anticipated to generate nearly 16 million square feet of new housing and commercial space, and over $2 billion dollars in public benefits. As described in the Planning Department’s staff report, this “clean up” legislation would correct “grammatical and syntactical errors, un-intentional cross-references and accidental additions and deletions,” associated with the original Plan legislation adopted in 2018.  However, there are also a few substantive amendments proposed, along with clean-up items that have the potential to affect pending and future development throughout the Plan area. Among other things, the legislation would: Require an operations and maintenance strategy for all required Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS) in the Plan area. This strategy would need to be approved by the Director of Planning prior to approval of a site or building permit for the associated project; Provide that the Central SoMa PDR requirement applies to projects that increase a building’s square footage by 20% and result in 50,000 gsf of office space along with new construction projects that result in 50,000 gsf of office space; Revise lot coverage requirements for residential uses in the Central SoMa SUD to reflect that all floor levels with residential space (including accessory residential spaces such as common rooms) would be limited to 80% lot coverage, except for floors whose only “residential” space is common lobbies and circulation. 100% lot coverage would be permitted at floors where residential units are located within 40 feet of a street-facing property line.  Further, projects with applications submitted on or prior to July 1, 2020 would be grandfathered from the proposed lot coverage amendments; Clarify and correct which sides of narrow streets in Central SoMa are subject to solar plane setback and bulk reduction sky plane requirements; Provide that buildings that are taller than would otherwise be allowed in a given height district are to follow the sky plane bulk reduction requirements of the height district that is most aligned with the height of the building; Require that funds collected through the BMR in-lieu fee from Central SoMa projects be spent in the greater SoMa area; Clarify that payment of an in-lieu fee for modifications or exceptions from open space requirements is only applicable where the exception or modification is granted to reduce the amount of open space provided, but not in cases where the exception is only related to design standards of the open space; Provide that funds collected through the Central SoMa Community Facilities fee can be spent in the greater SoMa area, and not limited to the Central SoMa Special Use District; Expand the types of infrastructure projects that can be funded through the Central SoMa Infrastructure Fee; Allow project sponsors to meet part of their usable open space requirements off-site at a greater distance from the principal projects than initially proposed, particularly by enabling projects to build open space under and around the I-80 freeway within the Central SoMa Special Use District; and Provide an exception allowing for certain retail to be provided in lieu of a portion of the PDR requirement in connection with development of a Key Site at the northeast corner of 5th and Brannan Streets. An additional amendment was initially proposed that would have expanded application of certain development impact fees in Central SoMa.  However, that amendment was removed from the legislation at the request of the Commission. This Central SoMa legislation will be introduced to the Board of Supervisors within the next few weeks.  It will then be held for 30 days before assignment to the Board’s Land Use and Transportation Committee for review and possible amendments, before it’s presented to the full Board for approval.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Melinda Sarjapur. The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

Costa-Hawkins

Prop. 21 – Another Attempted Costa-Hawkins Takedown

| Michael Corbett

This November, California voters will be asked for the second time in as many years to overturn statewide restrictions on rent control in the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (“Costa Hawkins”). The following provides a summary of Proposition 21, named by its proponents as the Rent Affordability Act (“Prop. 21”), and its potential implications for residential landlords and tenants in California. Prop. 10 and Costa-Hawkins Its predecessor, Proposition 10, was rejected by nearly 60% of voters in 2018. It would have repealed Costa-Hawkins and allowed local governments to adopt rent control on any type of rental housing.  Costa-Hawkins, passed in 1995, allows local governments to enact and use rent control, except on (a) housing that was first occupied after February 1, 1995, and (b) certain classes of housing units, such as condominiums, townhouses, and single-family homes.  Landlords protected by Costa-Hawkins are currently allowed to increase rent to market rates when a tenant vacates a unit. Prop. 21 If approved by voters, Prop. 21 would allow local governments to adopt rent control on housing units, except for (a) housing first occupied within the last fifteen (15) years and (b) units owned by natural persons who own no more than two (2) housing units with separate titles, such as single-family homes, condominiums, and certain duplexes, or subdivided interests, such as community apartment projects and stock cooperatives.  Prop. 21 would continue to allow local limits on annual rent increases to be more restrictive than the current statewide limit.  For vacancies where the previous tenant voluntarily vacated, abandoned or was lawfully evicted from a dwelling unit, Prop. 21 would impose, over the first three (3) years of a new tenancy, a combined rent increase cap of fifteen percent (15%) from the rental rate in effect for the immediately preceding tenancy.  This three-year rent increase cap would be in addition to any rent increases otherwise authorized by local law. Tenant Protection Act of 2019 Prop. 21 follows the January 2020 roll-out of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, which enacted a statewide rent control cap on annual rent increases of five percent (5%) plus the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index or ten percent (10%), whichever is lower.  The Tenant Protection Act of 2019, while considered to provide among the strongest state-implemented rent increase caps and renter protections in the country, does not affect vacancy decontrol, meaning landlords are currently able to set initial rents for new tenancies.  If passed, Prop. 21 would effectively foreclose the ability of landlords now protected by Costa-Hawkins to set initial rents at market rates if it would result in more than a fifteen percent (15%) increase from the prior tenant’s rental rate. Support of Prop. 21 Proponents of Prop. 21 contend that the measure would provide more financial security for renters, reduce homelessness, and help alleviate a statewide housing affordability crisis.  The Prop. 21 campaign is sponsored by the Aids Healthcare Foundation, and notable supporters include Senator Bernie Sanders, House Representative Maxine Waters, the California Democratic Party, and the ACLU of southern California. Opposition to Prop. 21 Opponents of Prop. 21 posit the proposed statutory changes would hurt renters by discouraging private sector builders from bringing more affordable housing units to market and diminish property values, resulting in less revenue for communities.  Californians for Responsible Housing is leading the campaign in opposition to this initiative, with other opponents including Governor Gavin Newsom, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, California NAACP State Conference, and Congress of California Seniors. Votes Needed to Pass For Prop. 21 to pass and become state law, greater than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast for this proposition must vote “yes”.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Michael Corbett. 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.

Letter From DBI Interim Director

Recently the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection sent a letter to it’s customers regarding permitting services.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is notifying you of this letter as a courtesy for being a client and friend of the firm.  Please contact us should you have any further questions. (DBI Letter)

Tax

Real Estate Tax Update

| Kevin H. Rose

Deadline to File Real Estate Tax Appeals for the 2020/2021 Tax Year For property owners that disagree with their property valuation for the 2020/2021 tax year, the deadline to file an appeal is Tuesday, September 15, 2020. For property located in other counties, owners should check with the local Assessment Appeals Board. Unfortunately, these appeals would relate to the property value as of January 1, 2020, so the economic impact of Covid-19 is not likely to be considered. If you have questions about this, please contact Kevin Rose at krose@reubenlaw.com. Commercial Properties May Lose Proposition 13 Protection After many years of planning and political maneuvering, the opponents of Proposition 13 have settled on a ballot initiative, Proposition 15 (also known as the “Split Tax Roll”), to drastically overhaul California’s property tax structure. Proposition 13 is California’s landmark law, embedded in the Constitution that protects owners from increases in real estate taxes in excess of two percent per year. As a compromise to help ensure passage, residential property would be exempt from the tax increase. The Basics If passed in this November’s general election, Proposition 15 would require commercial and industrial properties to be reassessed every three years at the full fair market value of the property, as determined by County Assessors. This new assessment would be used to calculate property taxes based on the statutory tax rate, which is also limited to 1% by Proposition 13 and would remain unchanged. There would be no limit on reassessment, so many property owners could experience significant increases in real property taxes. This would wipe out the ability of property owners to plan for stable property tax increases of no more than 2% per year, and authorize County Assessors to exercise their discretion in determining the “fair market value” of real estate. Residential property, including multi-family structures (apartments), is specifically excluded from reassessment, as is commercial agricultural property. Why Increase Taxes? The proponents of Proposition 15 argue that commercial and industrial properties are underassessed and avoid over $11 Billion in local property taxes, which should be used to support schools, local governments and affordable housing. Advocates cite an unnamed University of California study claiming that such reassessment of commercial property will have a “net positive benefit” on jobs and the California economy. There was little discussion in the findings about the potential impact on tenants of commercial properties due to higher rents and expense pass throughs, other than the deferment for properties with at least 50% small business occupancy, discussed below. The opposition argues that this is the first step in completely dismantling Proposition 13. The Process and Procedures for Reassessment Starting with the 2022-2023 tax year, each County Assessor would be tasked with reassessing commercial and industrial properties to determine the value for property tax purposes. This process would be phased in over two years. Proposition 15 requires the creation of a task force comprised of different interests to recommend the statutory and regulatory details for implementation. Taxpayers would be given a “reasonable” timeframe during which to pay any tax increases. Such time frame is not defined and would have to be determined by the Legislature. Proposition 15 imposes the burden of proof on the taxpayer with regard to any valuation disputes. Under current law, escape assessments (assessments for tax years later than the tax year the reassessment event occurred) or increased assessments due to change of ownership that are different than the purchase price require the Assessor to prove that the reassessment is justified. Property owners will likely be concerned that, due to political pressure to increase revenues, the Assessor will favor increases in value when there is any conflicting or disputed information. Local assessment appeal boards will almost certainly see a major increase in real estate tax appeals. Some Properties Worth $3M or Less May Be Excluded Small property owners are exempt from future reassessments if their property is worth $3 Million or less, but only after one reassessment under Proposition 15. This $3 Million threshold would be adjusted every two years for inflation, starting in 2025. This exception excludes “wealthy” property owners. This means if any owners of such low value property also own other property worth more than $3 Million, then the exception would not apply. The taxpayer has the burden of making this claim with the applicable County Assessor. The decision of County Assessors with regard to these exceptions are deemed to be final, and not subject to appeal to the local assessment appeals board, and judicial review of this exception is limited to “abuse of discretion.” Small Business Temporary Exception Properties that are used primarily (50% or more) for a small business, are exempt from reassessment, but only until 2025-2026. Small businesses are simply defined as businesses with less than 50 full time employees, provided that such business owns real property in California (not necessarily the same property) and is independently owned and operated. It is unclear if franchises are excluded, but it seems that the intent is to exclude franchise businesses from the exception. The Personal Property Tax Exemption As an incentive to the business community for support (apparently focusing on technology companies), up to $500,000 of tangible personal property and fixtures are exempt from taxation. This excludes airlines and boats. Also, small businesses (as defined above) would be fully exempt from taxation of personal property. Use of Funds and Administration Proposition 15 requires that all funds generated by these tax increases be distributed to community colleges (11%) and to school districts, charter schools and county offices of education (89%). There are complicated formulas and reporting requirements included as part of the administrative provisions. Each county and city is required to be compensated for additional costs incurred due to implementation of the reassessment requirements. Apparently, the payments are from the general fund, not the new tax revenues. The spending limitations in the California Constitution would not include any revenue generated by Proposition 15. The Fight While normally any proposed change to Proposition 13 would

online permits

DBI Changes to Permit Submittals and Process

| Gillian Allen

The Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and the Permit Center are temporarily limiting the types of permits that may be submitted online through the digital permit submission process to new 100% affordable housing projects, new permits for Development Agreement projects, and addenda and revisions for already submitted digital in-house review permits. They are working to retool the digital system and make workflow and process improvements to increase efficiency and integrate the system with DBI’s Permit Tracking System (PTS).  Trades permits will still be offered online—see details below. While they are improving the digital permitting system, DBI will continue to offer limited in-person services for paper applications and will continue to process digital permit applications that have already been submitted online.  If you submitted a permit application online, you will remain in the queue for permit processing or be asked to resubmit your permit application in paper.  Below are details on how they are handling specific permits. Over-the-Counter Permits Starting on Monday, August 17, 2020, DBI will no longer offer online permit submission for Over-the-Counter (OTC) projects.  All OTC projects will be processed in paper.  Below is a breakdown of how to submit in accordance with the type of project: OTC without plans: Starting August 17, 2020, they will no longer accept online permit applications for OTC without plans permits.  Customers can register through Eventbrite for drop-in permit services Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.  DBI currently offers 40 tickets per day for customers to drop in to get an OTC permit without plans.  This service is limited to two permits per customer per day. OTC with plans previously submitted online: Starting August 17, 2020, DBI will no longer accept online permit applications for OTC with plans permits.  Many customers have already applied online for an OTC permit with plans.  If you applied online for an OTC with plans permit, the Permit Center will contact you next week to offer you an appointment to submit your permit application in paper.  Appointments to drop off OTC with plans permit applications in paper are scheduled Monday through Friday from 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.  This service is limited to two permits per customer per appointment. Submitting new OTC with plans: If you have a new permit application for an OTC with plans permit, you will have the opportunity to make an appointment to drop off your permit application.  Calendar the appointment here. In-House Review Permits Larger and more complicated projects that are not eligible for OTC review are brought in house for review. If you previously submitted an in-house review permit application online, you will remain in the queue for permit processing. New 100% affordable housing projects, new permits for Development Agreement projects, and addenda and revisions for existing digital in-house permits can be submitted online here. Commercial projects: If you have a new permit application for an in-house review project, please email dbicustomerservice@sfgov.org with the following information about your project: Contact Information (applicant name, phone number and email) Property Address (block and lot or Assessor’s Parcel Number) Short description of the scope of work DBI will contact customers to begin the pre-screening process in the order received.  Note that DBI has received a large number of in-house review permit applications, so the queue for this is several weeks. Fire-Only Permits Starting August 17, 2020, DBI will no longer accept online permit applications for OTC fire-only permits.  If you are applying for a permit that requires Fire Department review only, you can drop off your fire-only permit application (Form 3 or 8) Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.  Customers can register through Eventbrite for fire-only permit drop-off.  SFFD/DBI currently offer 40 tickets per day for customers to drop in to get an OTC permit without plans or to drop off a fire-only permit application. Fire-Only Permits previously submitted on-line: If you submitted online for a fire-only permit prior to August 17, 2020, the Permit Center should have contacted you to offer you an appointment to submit your permit application in paper. Other Emergency Projects DBI will continue to accept permit applications for emergency projects.  Examples of emergency projects include damage to a building from a fire or flooding, compromised gas lines or sewers, foundation or structural issues or other serious issues affecting the habitability of a building.  If the permit you’re filing is in response to an emergency event at your property, please contact DBI at dbi.emergencyresponse@sfgov.org for assistance. Permit Pick-Up and Issuance Customers can drop in between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to pick up permits after DBI contacts you that your permit is ready for pick-up.  To complete the permit issuance process, payment is required and can be made online or you can forward a check to DBI.  When your permit is ready for issuance, you will receive an email invoice with information on how to pay online.  If you have questions or need help, please contact dbicustomerservice@sfgov.org for assistance. Trades Permits Trades permits (electrical, plumbing, mechanical and boiler-to-operate) are offered online using a contractor account or by emailing dbi.iprrequest@sfgov.org and are not available during drop-in times. If you have a DBI contractor account online, visit here to start the online permit process. If you don’t have an online contractors account, you can email DBI staff to file your trades permit. B license contractors filing trades permits and homeowners needing to file a permit can also email If you are a licensed contractor qualifying for online permit submission and would like to set up an online account, visit here to start the registration process. Trades Permits Forms: Permit to Operate Boiler Application Electrical Application Mechanical Application The Post Entitlement Team with RJR is available to answer any questions or help facilitate the steps above for your projects.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Manager – Permit Consulting 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. 

Planning

A Handful of San Francisco Planning Updates

| Chloe Angelis

Final Passage of UMU Office Legislation Back in February, we covered Supervisor Ronen’s proposal to substantially limit office uses within Urban Mixed Use (“UMU”) districts. You can revisit our prior update here. As originally introduced, the legislation would have prohibited office use on the upper floors throughout the UMU district (where currently permitted), and would have maintained exceptions for qualifying landmark buildings. The first version of the legislation also proposed allowing limited professional service, financial service, and medical service uses that serve the general public at the ground floor, but only with approval of a Conditional Use Authorization from the Planning Commission. The Board of Supervisors finally passed that legislation on August 11, 2020 with a major substantive change—limiting the prohibition of general office use to the Mission Area Plan portion of the UMU district. As approved, the legislation provides that in the Mission Area Plan portion of the UMU district, general office uses not in a landmark building are prohibited outright. Professional service, financial service, and medical service uses are prohibited above the ground floor, but are permitted on the ground floor with a conditional use authorization if primarily open to the general public on a client-oriented basis. Office uses within the UMU district that are not within the Mission Area Plan remain subject to the vertical controls that apply currently. And outside the Mission Area Plan, professional service, financial service, and medical service uses are permitted on the ground floor if primarily open to the general public on a client-oriented basis, and are permitted on upper floors subject to vertical controls. The final legislation can be reviewed here. Conditional Use Streamlining Ordinance In other San Francisco legislative news, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance on Tuesday in an effort to streamline the Conditional Use process for certain types of commercial uses. At that hearing, Supervisor Peskin also requested that the file be duplicated and sent back to committee to allow an opportunity for community groups to weigh in on the changes. Under the new ordinance, applications that are eligible for streamlining are entitled to a Planning Commission hearing within 90 days from the date the Planning Department deems the application complete and such projects would be calendared for approval via the Planning Commission’s consent calendar. Projects eligible for the program would also be eligible for a reduced application fee—at a rate of 50% of the otherwise applicable fee. The Planning Commission is entitled to a one-time extension of the 90-day hearing deadline. An extension cannot be for more than 60 days and can only be issued for one of the following three reasons: The Planning Director or the Director’s designee requests in writing that the item be removed from the Commission’s consent calendar; Any member of the Planning Commission requests that the item be removed from the Commission’s consent calendar; or Any neighborhood organization (included on a Planning Department neighborhood organizations list) submits a letter of opposition or written request that the item be removed from the Commission’s consent calendar. In order to qualify for the streamlining program, a project must comply with the following criteria: 1) propose non-residential use only; 2) be limited to interior or store-front work; 3) not involve a formula retail use; 4) not involve the removal of any dwelling units; 5) not propose the consolidation of multiple storefronts; 6) not seek additional off-street parking, or the expansion or intensification of hours of use, beyond those principally permitted; 7) not involve the sale of alcoholic beverages except for beer or wine sold in conjunction with a Bona Fide Eating Place; and 8) not seek to establish or expand an adult entertainment use, bar, drive-up facility, fringe financial service, medical cannabis dispensary, nighttime entertainment, non-retail sales and service closed to the public, a tobacco paraphernalia establishment, or a wireless communication facility. Projects within the Calle 24 Special Use District would also not be eligible for the streamlining program. New Application Fee Schedule On August 31, the Planning Department’s application fee schedule for 2020-2021 will go into effect. Application fees are adjusted annually based on the consumer price index. The 2020-2021 fee schedule preview is available here.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Chloe Angelis. 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.

Housing Entitlement

Oakland Entitlement Extensions, Is California Next?

| Justin A. Zucker

On July 27, 2020, Oakland City Administrator, Edward D. Reiskin executed Emergency Order No. 6 extending planning entitlements that have not expired as of March 9, 2020 (when Oakland’s COVID-19 Local Emergency was first declared), but are set to expire on or before August 1, 2022, by two (2) years. A project sponsor must submit a ministerial application and payment of the Administrative Extension Fee for an entitlement extension. Upon satisfaction of those requirements, the entitlement’s expiration date will automatically be extended by two (2) years. Emergency Order No. 6 does not cover entitlements eligible for extension under the city’s impact fee programs for Jobs/Housing, Affordable Housing, and Transportation and Capital Improvements. If this sounds familiar to you, it is. In the wake of the nation’s last recession, Oakland enacted an extension of all non-expired entitlements. At that time, Oakland was grappling with a continuing weak housing and credit market. Even prior to the pandemic, California was in the midst of a housing crisis. For years, demand has outpaced supply at all income levels. The economic fallout from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is ripping through the country. The extent of its lasting impacts are yet to be determined. To alleviate pressure in the housing sector exacerbated by the pandemic, State Senator Scott Wiener has introduced Senate Bill 281 (“SB 281”). SB 281 would automatically extend the period for expiration of a housing entitlement issued before and in effect on March 4, 2020, and expiring before December 31, 2021, by eighteen (18) months. A housing entitlement is defined as, among other things, a “legislative, adjudicative, administrative, or any other kind of approval, permit, or other entitlement necessary for, or pertaining to, a housing development project issued by a state agency” and “[a]n approval, permit, or other entitlement by a local agency for a housing development project.” In a nod to the ever-present threat of litigation and the weaponization of CEQA often employed to stymie housing projects, the bill’s authors include a tolling provision. If passed, the 18-month entitlement extension would be tolled during any time that the housing entitlement is the subject of legal challenge. The authors of SB 281 seek a statewide entitlement extension to avoid the significant cost and allocation of local government staff resources associated with addressing individual permit extensions on a case-by-case basis. This makes sense. Under Oakland’s entitlement extension, a project sponsor must submit an application that, while ministerial, still requires administrative resources to process. Having an automatic entitlement extension would reduce cities’ administrative burdens at a time when their limited funds are drying up and tax bases are shrinking. We will continue to monitor SB 281, and will update readers accordingly.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Justin A. Zucker. 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.

Affordable Housing

SB 1085 Emerges from Crucial Committee Vote

| Matthew D. Visick

SB 1085 Clarifies that Affordable Housing Fees Do Not Apply to Affordable or Density Bonus Units When Senator Nancy Skinner introduced Senate Bill 1085 (SB 1085) in February, the bill proposed numerous revisions to the state Density Bonus Law. Many were geared toward incentivizing the development of moderate-income rental housing, including a 35% density bonus for projects that provide at least 20% of the units affordable to moderate-income families, concessions, and reduced parking requirements. The bill also limited cities’ ability to deny requested concessions, limited parking ratios for certain senior housing projects, and allowed concessions for student housing projects. Of particular interest to developers with projects in San Francisco, SB 1085 clarified that “[a]ffordable housing impact fees, including inclusionary zoning fees, in-lieu fees, and public benefit fees, shall not be imposed on a housing development’s affordable units or bonus units.” SB 1085 was passed by the full Senate in late June, after which it moved to the Assembly. On July 30, the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development approved SB 1085 conditioned on Senator Skinner amending the bill to remove the incentives for development of moderate-income rental units. These amendments were encouraged by affordable housing advocacy groups that argued the incentives would cause a reduction in the supply of low-income and very-low income units. The prohibition on imposing Affordable Housing fees on affordable or Density Bonus units remains in the bill. The City of San Francisco imposes an Affordable Housing Fee on Density Bonus units. Many practitioners believe that the imposition of these fees on Density Bonus units is fundamentally incompatible with the Density Bonus Law. In April 2019, Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued an Opinion that bolstered this view, concluding that the imposition of a “public benefit fee” on Density Bonus units reduced the benefits that the Density Bonus Law is intended to promote, and was therefore invalid. While the Attorney General’s Opinion addressed fees imposed only on the Density Bonus units, most practitioners understood its reasoning would also preclude generally-applicable Affordable Housing fees that were being applied to Density Bonus units. SB 1085 would make it explicit that Affordable Housing fees cannot be applied to Density Bonus or affordable units. The Committee’s approval of SB 1085 with the language limiting fees could be interpreted as a promising sign, given that Assembly Member David Chiu, a former San Francisco Supervisor, chairs the Committee. The bill must be approved by the full Assembly and the full Senate by August 31 to make it to the Governor’s desk in 2020. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors remains opposed to the bill.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Matthew D. Visick. 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 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 56