• COPA Update: Compliance Not Required Until September 3, 2019

    San Francisco’s Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) became effective earlier this month but the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) has clarified that sellers of multi-family residential rental properties and certain vacant lots in San Francisco will not be required to comply until September 3, 2019 (90 days after the effective date). That date is the deadline for MOHCD to release a formal implementation program, including a list of “Qualified Nonprofits” that have been granted certain rights of first offer and first refusal under COPA.

    MOHCD has also confirmed that it will not require COPA compliance if a property owner has entered into a “binding contract for sale” prior to September 3, 2019. That term is not defined, but appears from the COPA legislation to include not only a binding purchase and sale agreement but possibly also other forms of contract, e.g., an option to purchase.

    Although not addressed in the legislation, MOHCD has also provided guidance for property owners that list property subject to COPA for sale prior to September 3, 2019, but have not entered into a “binding contract for sale” prior to that date. Under that scenario, the yet-to-be-identified Qualified Nonprofits must be given a right of first refusal (ROFR), but not a right of first offer. Because the ROFR would be the seller’s first contact with “Qualified Nonprofits” they would presumably have 30 days (rather than five days) to respond; however, that wasn’t specified by MOHCD. The ROFR process is summarized in our March blog post and this graphic.

    As reported in our May blog post, the San Francisco Apartment Association has stated that it believes the legislation is “illegal and unconstitutional,” and has indicated it plans to bring litigation against the City this year. We will be monitoring any legal developments surrounding the legislation.

  • Two Affordable Housing Measures Proposed for November Ballot

    Two affordable housing measures are currently proposed for the November 5, 2019 ballot: (i) City Charter and Code amendments to encourage certain 100% affordable and teacher housing projects by providing for a streamlined ministerial — i.e., no CEQA — approval process for qualified projects and (ii) an up-to $500 million affordable housing bond.

    Ministerial Review of 100% Affordable Housing and Teacher Housing Projects

    This measure, which is sponsored by Mayor Breed and Supervisors Brown, Safai, and Stefani, would effectively eliminate CEQA requirements and Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Board of Supervisors, and Board of Appeals review for qualified 100% affordable housing and teacher housing projects.

    This measure would:

    • Establish new definitions for 100% Affordable Housing and Teacher Housing projects that would include the following criteria: (i) at least two-thirds of a mixed-use project must be set aside for qualified housing; (ii) 140% of the Area Median Income (AMI) income maximum; (iii) priced for sale or rented at 80% of the median market price for the neighborhood; and (iv) for Teacher Housing, at least two-thirds of the units must be deed restricted for occupancy by at least one employee of the Unified School District or Community College District.
    • Create a streamlined ministerial approval process for qualified projects that comply with Zoning, Height, and Bulk Maps and objective standards of the Planning Code, including but not limited to permitted modifications under the City’s 100% Affordable Housing Bonus Program and State Density Bonus Law.
    • Eliminate the following for qualified projects (as applicable): (i) General Plan referral requirement; (ii) potential appeal to the Board of Appeals; (iii) Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approval of building alterations (with the apparent exception of individually landmarked buildings and provided that the Planning Department develops and applies similar objective criteria for review) and HPC review of project-related ordinances and resolutions; (iv) Arts Commission design review; (v) Board of Supervisors approval where otherwise required for certain City contracts, including ground leases, if between 55 and 99 years; (vi) potential Discretionary Review by the Planning Commission; (vii) Conditional Use authorization requirement (although not specified, presumably only for the residential component of the project); (viii) Inclusionary Affordable Housing requirements; and (ix) Priority Policy consistency findings requirements.
    • Limit Planning Department review to: (i) design review (aesthetic aspects only), which must be completed within 60 days, and (ii) implementation of to-be-adopted objective measures for the reduction of potential environmental impacts related to archeology, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, historic resources, water supply, and/or wind and shadow, as applicable to the project.
    • Disqualify otherwise eligible projects that would be: (i) on designated open space under the jurisdiction of the City Recreation and Park Department; (ii) in a zoning district that prohibits dwelling units; (iii) in a RH-1, RH-1(D), or RH-2 zoning district; or (iv) on the site of a designated historic building or building in a designated historic district if the project would require “any removal or demolition” of that building.
    • Authorize the Board of Supervisors to expand the scope of the streamlined ministerial approval process (by ordinance) to include “additional forms of housing”.

    Affordable Housing Bond

    This measure, which is sponsored by Mayor Breed and Supervisors Yee, Brown, Safai, Walton, and Stefani, would authorize the City to incur up to $500 million in bonded indebtedness to finance the development and improvement/preservation of affordable housing (and related costs) and to levy taxes to pay for the principal and interest on these bonds. Landlords would be permitted to pass through up to 50% of the resulting property tax increase to residential tenants. The related affordable housing programs would prioritize working families, veterans, seniors, and persons with disabilities (including but not limited to down payment assistance for San Francisco Unified School District educators and other middle-income working households).

    This measure is currently scheduled to be heard by the Budget and Finance Committee on June 6, 2019, during which a motion to refer the measure to the full Board for consideration on June 11, 2019, will be considered.

    We will continue to track these measures, which have not yet been submitted to the Department of Elections.

  • SB 50 Update: Vote Postponed to 2020

    The Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee announced that Senator Wiener’s SB 50 is now a two-year bill, which means that it will not be eligible for vote until January.   We will continue to track the status of SB 50 and any future amendments or successor legislation that may be introduced.

  • Senator Wiener’s SB 50 Moves Forward with Compromise Amendments

    On April 24, Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 50 passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee with bipartisan support, incorporating amendments that limit the bill’s scope. It is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 13. As previously reported, SB 50 mandates a combination of “equitable communities incentives” and a streamlined, ministerial approval process designed to promote housing production for qualifying projects on eligible sites. The amendments are part of a compromise agreement with Senator Mike McGuire and incorporate provisions from his previously competing measure, SB 4.

    As amended, SB 50 continues to require that local agencies grant certain “equitable communities incentives” when a project sponsor seeks to construct a residential development that meets specified criteria such as being a “transit-rich” or “jobs-rich” housing project, as defined in the legislation, and complies with tenant protection and other requirements. The incentives limit local agencies’ ability to impose density limits and minimum parking requirements on qualifying projects. For projects within 1/2 or 1/4 mile of a major transit stop, the legislation would also impose minimum height limits of 45′ and 55′ (four to five stories), respectively. The amendments to SB 50 would mandate these incentives only for the state’s largest 15 counties, all with a population of over 600,000. The legislation also exempts certain sites, including those with certain historic designations or that contain existing rental housing, or that are located in a very high fire severity zone or in a coastal zone and in a city with a population of under 50,000.

    For counties with populations of 600,000 or less, a qualifying project in a city with a population of over 50,000 and within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop would be eligible for different incentives, including an additional one story above the otherwise allowable height, and relief from maximum density and minimum parking requirements. There are additional exemptions related to historic district and floodplain designations.

    As before, the legislation delays implementation for designated “sensitive communities” to allow time for planning efforts directed at affordable multifamily housing.

    The legislation would also create a statewide streamlined ministerial process to convert vacant land and homes to multifamily buildings of up to four units. Qualifying conversions could not propose substantial exterior alteration and would be required to meet certain local land use controls such as height, setback, and lot coverage as they existed on July 1, 2019.

    SB 50 has a number of co-authors and early supporters, but continues to face opposition from some cities and counties, principally over loss of local land use control, and housing advocates concerned with gentrification and displacement.

  • Sellers Beware? San Francisco Adopts Community Opportunity to Purchase Act for Multifamily Properties

    Owners of multifamily residential properties in San Francisco will soon have to extend purchase offers to certain nonprofit organizations, before making or soliciting offers to sell those properties to anyone else—and will have to give those nonprofits the right to match any offer received from a potential buyer—under new legislation that is poised to become effective in June 2019.

    In the meantime, potential buyers and sellers of multifamily properties should familiarize themselves with COPA’s key provisions, which we covered here, and the applicable timelines, which we’ve illustrated in the downloadable graphic here.

    Community Opportunity to Purchase Act

    As we explained in a prior post, San Francisco Supervisor Sandra Fewer introduced the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) which would give “Qualified Nonprofits,” vetted by the City, both a right of first offer (ROFO) and right of first refusal (ROFR) over multifamily properties.  This applies to buildings (existing or under construction) of three or more units, as well as privately owned vacant lots where three or more units could be constructed.  On April 23, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the legislation, which the Mayor signed on May 3, the last possible day.

    What happens now? 

    Assuming the new legislation goes into effect (barring voter referendum or judicial intervention), it will raise significant legal and practical questions about buyers’ and sellers’ rights and obligations concerning multifamily properties in San Francisco.

    After the effective date of June 2, the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) will have 90 days to promulgate rules to implement COPA.  MOHCD must also screen potential Qualified Nonprofits—generally, established organizations that have demonstrated a commitment to and experience in providing housing to lower-income City residents—and following certification, must publish a list of Qualified Nonprofits on its website.  The legislation doesn’t give MOHCD a specific deadline to publish an initial list, which will presumably trigger the requirements for sellers to comply with the ROFO/ROFR process.

    Although COPA has been hailed by various low-income housing organizations, the San Francisco Apartment Association has stated in public comments that it believes the legislation is “illegal and unconstitutional,” and has indicated it may bring litigation against the City.  We will be monitoring any legal developments surrounding the legislation.

    What does COPA mean for multifamily transactions?

    For multifamily properties that are already in contract to be sold as of COPA’s effective date, the legislation “shall not be construed to impair” any such contract, or to affect property interests held by anyone other than the seller (including existing security interests, options to purchase, or rights of first offer or refusal).  However, for buyers and sellers that have engaged in preliminary negotiations but have not entered a formal purchase and sale agreement as of the effective date, these protections may not apply.

    COPA appears likely to affect a broad range of transactions in San Francisco, including not just asset sales but also certain corporate transactions and transfers in interests held by trusts.  (The Budget and Legislative Analyst’s report to the Board of Supervisors estimated that approximately 112 transactions valued over $5 million may have qualified under the terms of COPA in 2018, although it is unclear how closely this figure lines up with the range of transactions contemplated by the legislation).  In very general terms, the most likely immediate effects for sellers of covered properties may be transactional delays, and associated costs, especially as parties adjust to compliance with the new regime.  Additionally, sellers may face new liabilities, as COPA confers new private enforcement rights on Qualified Nonprofits and subjects sellers (and parties that have “colluded” with sellers) to monetary damages, possible civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees.

    COPA raises a number of significant questions (e.g., what exactly constitutes an “offer,” what is the standard for expressing a “desire to accept,” and in the context of a third-party offer, how to interpret whether it is on “materially different” terms than were offered to Qualified Nonprofits), some of which could be addressed in the MOHCD regulations.  The Washington D.C. programs on which COPA has been loosely modeled (the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act and District Opportunity to Purchase Act, or TOPA and DOPA respectively) have been the subject of numerous lawsuits and controversy since enactment in 1980.  San Francisco’s new legislation may prove to be similarly fraught, and it will be crucial for sellers and buyers to carefully consider the legal aspects of their proposed multifamily transactions as COPA begins to take shape.

     

  • The CASA Compact’s Response to the Bay Area Housing Crisis

    In 2017, the Metropolitan Transportation Committee (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) mobilized a task force of affordable housing advocates, private developers, local government officials, and other Bay Area leaders and experts to form CASA, or the Committee to House the Bay Area. CASA set out to identify a comprehensive policy response to the region’s housing crisis.

    In January of this year, the MTC and ABAG endorsed the CASA Compact, a 15-year plan that prioritizes what it calls the 3 Ps: the production, preservation, and protection of housing in the Bay Area. The Compact calls for the production of 35,000 housing units per year, which would include 14,000 units for lower-income households and 7,000 units for moderate-income households. To encourage production of new units, the Compact supports increasing density for residential projects near transit zones, expediting and streamlining the housing approvals process, and increasing the availability of publicly-owned land for affordable housing development.

    The preservation goal is 30,000 affordable units over the next 5 years, including 4,000 units that are identified as at-risk, largely through inclusionary housing fees and long-term affordability covenants.

    Housing protection would include protecting 300,000 lower-income households from displacement by mechanisms such as an annual cap on rent increases for the next 15 years, rental assistance and legal aid to low-income tenants, and a uniform “Just Cause Eviction Policy.”

    To implement the 3 Ps, the Compact would establish a regional housing entity responsible for financing projects, leasing land for development, and providing technical assistance to local residents and businesses. Funding for the initiatives would come from business, property, and sales taxes, including reforms to the State’s Proposition 13, tax increment funding, and multijurisdictional revenue-sharing agreements.

    The State Legislature is considering several bills that have been introduced this year to address the Compact’s priorities. Among them is SB5, or the Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Program, which would reallocate $200 million from 2020 to 2025, and $250 million from 2025 to 2029, from each county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) to eligible affordable housing projects. The proposed bill would designate at least half of its funding to streamline development of affordable housing projects that contain at least 50% affordable units through Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones and Housing Sustainability Districts. Other legislation includes SB50, which incentivizes affordable housing development near high-transit zones by providing concessions under the State’s Density Bonus Law and reducing the discretion of local agencies to deny affordable projects.

    Battle lines are predictably drawn, with many of the Bay Area’s smaller, suburban communities expressing opposition to the loss of local land use control and perceived disproportionate funding for larger cities. The chairs of the State Legislature’s two housing committees, Assembly Member David Chiu and Senator Scott Wiener, have both indicated a desire to move legislation forward to advance the principles of the Compact.

  • San Francisco’s Next Big Move in Maintaining Housing Affordability: Nonprofits’ First Right to Purchase Multi-Family Rental Properties

    Pending legislation introduced by San Francisco Supervisor Fewer would amend the City’s laws to give certain qualified non-profit organizations certified by the City (“Qualified Nonprofits”) the first right to purchase multi-family rental properties and certain vacant lots in San Francisco. 

    Highlights are as follows:

    • The legislation applies to any residential building with at least three rental units or a vacant lot zoned for at least three units.
    • Sellers subject to the new law would be required to notify all Qualified Nonprofits of the intent to sell before putting a qualifying property on the market.  Qualified Nonprofits would have five days to respond, triggering an obligation for the seller to provide information about building tenants.  Qualified Nonprofits would then have an additional 25 days to make an offer to purchase the building.  The seller could reject an offer made, and if no Qualified Nonprofit makes an offer, or if the seller rejects any Qualified Nonprofit offers, the seller could offer the building to the general public.
    • If a seller is prepared to accept an offer from a buyer other than a Qualified Nonprofit, then it would be required to give all of the Qualified Nonprofits the right of first refusal on the same terms and conditions and Qualified Nonprofits would have five days to accept or reject that offer (or 30 days if the seller is responding to an unsolicited offer).
    • Qualified Nonprofits would have the right to institute a civil action against any non-compliant sellers, with the potential for damages as specified in the legislation.
    • The legislation includes protection for existing tenants.  It also requires that a property purchased by a Qualified Nonprofit remain rent restricted, meaning that the value of all rents paid in the building could not exceed 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) and the gross household income of new tenants could not exceed 120 percent of AMI.
    • Certain sales would be excluded, including but not limited to transfers made under a mortgage, deed of trust, or deed in lieu of foreclosure and transfers between certain family members.  Seller incentives are also contemplated, which could include a partial City transfer tax exemption, if ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and federal tax benefits, if available.

  • GPS Monitoring Of Employees In California: Do You Know Where Your Employees Are? Are You Allowed To Know?

    With the advent of cost-effective GPS devices and smartphone tracking apps, employers may effectively monitor their workforce like never before. An employee’s distance traveled, sales routes, and productivity (among other things) can now be verified in real time, which is a seductive thought to most employers, to say the least. But there are things to consider before using tracking technologies to monitor employees, such as constitutional rights of privacy, state criminal statutes, union and labor issues, and good old-fashioned tort claims. In this article, we’ll review some legal considerations and provide some tips for navigating the evolving legal landscape of GPS tracking.

    In California, the right to privacy is an express constitutional right. Article I, Section I of the California Constitution provides that “[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” The California Constitution differs from the U.S. Constitution in this regard, even though a right to privacy has been extrapolated from various provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The fact that the California Constitution makes the right to privacy explicit requires employers to give serious consideration to privacy issues in the workplace before taking actions that might expose them to liability.

    The issue of GPS tracking of employees is less established, and employers have little formal guidance on what practices are permissible and what are not. A good starting point for analyzing potential GPS tracking practices is California Penal Code Section 637.7. That provision states: (a) No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person. (b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle. (c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency. (d) As used in this section, “electronic tracking device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals. (e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

    Section 637.7 thus makes it illegal to monitor the movements of any person, including a vehicle owned by that person, without their consent. Company-owned vehicles could presumably be monitored without the employee’s consent, as long as the owner of the vehicle (the company) consents. However, notifying employees of such tracking (and even obtaining their consent to such tracking) is the safest practice given the still-developing legal landscape with regard to this issue, and particularly in light of new privacy laws going into effect, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, discussed further below. Additionally, with regard to monitoring employees via smartphone apps or device tracking, providing clear notice and obtaining consent is generally considered best practices. (Although, it is subject to debate whether smartphone apps qualify as a “device” attached to the “telephone” for purposes of being subject to section 637.7.)

    In addition to the penal code, employers may be subject to civil tort claims for invasion of privacy based on their actions. A civil claim for intrusion into private affairs requires: (1) an intentional intrusion “into a place, conversation or matter as to which the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy”; (2) “in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.” In order for GPS tracking of employees to meet this standard, employees would need to have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their location that is intruded upon in a “highly offensive” manner. Arguably, employees should not have an expectation of privacy when using company-owned vehicles during business hours or for work purposes. However, whether GPS monitoring of such vehicles constitutes a violation of privacy would require considering various factors, including whether the employee uses that company-owned vehicle regularly, parks it at his or her house during non-work hours, or uses it for personal reasons during off-work hours, among other things.

    It is likely that monitoring the location of an employee during non-work hours or during the performance of non-work tasks – to say nothing of monitoring an employee’s own private vehicle – could be viewed as “highly offensive” to a reasonable person and a violation of an employee’s expectation of their privacy. Ultimately, determining whether any given practice constitutes an actionable violation of privacy requires a court to weigh various factors, including the nature and context of the alleged intrusion, as well as the reasonableness of the motives, purposes, and objectives for the disputed practice.

    Beyond statutory and tort liability, employers need to consider whether their employees belong to a union, or are subject to a collective bargaining agreement, some of which have specific provisions regarding privacy rights that might conflict with intended employer actions. Employers should review any provisions of such agreements that may apply to their workforce and ensure that GPS monitoring of employees is not specifically prohibited by the agreement and that the employer’s contemplated practices are consistent with the privacy rights set forth in the agreement.

    Finally, with the newly passed California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) going into effect on January 1, 2020, employers must consider the disclosure obligations and potential liability that come with GPS tracking of employees going forward. The CCPA gives California residents significant new data privacy access, disclosure, and deletion rights and does not distinguish between residents in their roles as consumers or employees (you can read more about the CCPA and how it will affect your business here). Thus, employees have the same rights as any consumer to request that a company (in this case, their employer) disclose how their personal information is being collected and used, and well as to obtain access to and/or deletion of that information. Because GPS tracking information collected about employees falls under the broad definition of “personal information” used in the CCPA, employers will be obligated to affirmatively disclose such collection practices at or before the point of collection, provide employees with a copy of that data upon request, and delete that data unless it is necessary to be maintained for a business purpose.

    In sum, before venturing into the wild west of GPS tracking, the safest course for employers implementing GPS tracking is to:

    1. Confirm there are no union issues raised by the tracking.
    2. Provide written notice and obtain clear prior written consent from employees that the employer is tracking vehicle movements (regardless of whether the vehicle is company-owned or privately owned).
    3. Limit tracking to strictly work hours and only for specific business purposes. The GPS should be shut off during personal hours or personal vehicle use.
    4. Develop and adopt a written policy regarding employee monitoring/tracking that sets forth the justifications and limits for GPS monitoring, how the information will be used and stored, and consequences for disabling the GPS.
    5. Limit access to the tracking information to personnel who have a clear business need to know that information.
    6. Store any tracking information securely, but in a manner that can be quickly accessed and provided in response to employee requests for personal information under the CCPA.

    The information in this article does not constitute legal advice with regard to the use of any GPS tracking or other employee monitoring practices. Please contact Data Privacy partners Scott Hall at shall@coblentzlaw.com or 415.772.5798 or Brandi Brown at bbrown@coblentzlaw.com or 415.772.5797 with specific issues or questions.

    Click here to download or print a PDF of this alert.

  • Supreme Court Issues Two Copyright Rulings

    The U.S. Supreme Court issued two rulings last week on copyright law. In both cases, they acted to resolve conflicts between the Circuits, following closely to statutory language.

    Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC.

    In the first ruling, Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC., the Court clarified the Section 411(a) registration standard for filing infringement actions. “Registration” in advance of an infringement provides the opportunity to seek damages for past infringement as well as the infringer’s profits. In Fourth Estate, the Court resolved a dispute among circuits, where the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits held that complete registration of a work was required, and the Ninth Circuit (along with the Fifth Circuit) held that receipt by the Copyright Office of a complete application satisfied the registration requirement (See Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp, 606 F.3d 612, 616-17, 621 (9th Cir.)).

    In Fourth Estate, the Court held that the only satisfactory reading of the Section 411(a) language “…no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made…” requires registration of the copyright.

    The Copyright Office has a procedure for “expedited registration,” which can be requested on the grounds that litigation is imminent. The expedited procedure generally speeds the registration process up from several months to a few weeks. But it’s not cheap: There is a special handling fee of $800.

    Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc.

    In Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., the Court held that the Copyright Act’s provision for a discretionary award of “full costs” means all costs enumerated in the law and does not allow courts to award costs beyond the categories provided in the general “costs” statute (28 U.S.C. Sections 1821 and 1920). This means that prevailing parties in copyright actions cannot recover non-taxable legal fees, such as expert witness costs. Writing for the Court, Justice Kavanaugh said: “Full costs’ are all the ‘costs’ otherwise available under law. The word ‘full’ operates in the phrase ‘full costs’ just as it operates in other common phrases: A ‘full moon’ means the moon, not Mars. A ‘full breakfast’ means breakfast, not lunch.”

    The Takeaway

    Owners of copyrighted content should think ahead and not wait to encounter infringement before applying to register works. When you create valuable content, you should have a regular registration program. Applying to register copyrights is fast and easy, and we’re always here to help.

    For further information, contact Coblentz’s Intellectual Property team.


    Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC    , 586 U.S. ___ (2019)
    Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019)

  • Update on SF Planning Department’s Streamlined Review Procedures for Development Projects

    In February, the San Francisco Planning Department issued the first quarterly performance report for implementation of its Process Improvements Plan, a program intended to overhaul the project review process.  The Plan first took effect in June 2018 in response to an Executive Directive from the Mayor’s Office to reduce approval timelines and remove administrative barriers to housing production.  According to the Department’s quarterly progress report, the Department met its deadline for two-thirds of Preliminary Project Applications (PPAs) and 79% of Project Applications, with approximately 48% of projects receiving a Plan Check Letter within 90 days.

    The Plan includes two main components.  First, for large projects, the Plan shortens the target review time for PPAs from 90 days to 60 days, and requires the Department to provide feedback to developers on the level of review required to obtain approval.  Second, the Plan includes a new Project Application, which consolidates the environmental and project information into a single document.  The new Project Application requires that project sponsors provide information earlier in the process regarding issues such as historic preservation, hazardous materials, and air quality.  The Planning Department expects this to facilitate early scoping of environmental review and entitlements.

    The Department is required to make a determination of completeness within 30 days following submittal of a Project Application.  Once the Project Application is deemed complete,  the Planning Department has  90 days to issue a Plan Check Letter to the developer documenting any open issues.  Pursuant to the Executive Directive, the Department must complete a streamlined environmental review of proposed housing projects within specified timeframes after a stable project description has been established.  If review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not required, the Department must render an entitlement decision within 6 months.  For housing projects, streamlined review for CEQA projects must meet new target timeframes of 9, 12, 18, and 22 months for, respectively, categorical exemptions, negative declarations, Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), and complex EIRs.  The Directive also calls for the issuance of all permits and other post-entitlement approvals required for commencement of construction on large-scale housing development projects within a year after submission of a complete application. The Department expects to launch a new online portal in the spring, which will allow developers to submit the Project Applications, payment, and other materials electronically.