FILE No.· 230764
SUBSTITUTED
7/11/2023
ORDINANCE N0.193-23
[Planning, Building Codes - Development Impact Fee Indexing, Deferral, and Waivers;
Adoption of Nexus Study]
Ordinance amending the Planning Code to 1) modify the annual indexing of certain
development impact fees, with the exception of inclusionary housing fees; 2) provide
that the type and rates of applicable development impact fees, with the exception of
inclusionary housing fees, shall be determined at the time of project approval; 3)
exempt eligible development projects in PDR (Production, Distribution, and Repair)
Districts, and the C-2 (Community Business) and C-3 (Downtown Commercial) Zoning
Districts from all development impact fees for a three-year period; 4) allow payment of
development impact fees, with the exception of fees deposited in the Citywide
Affordable Housing Fund, to be deferred until issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy; and 5) adopt the San Francisco Citywide Nexus Analysis supporting
existing development impact fees for recreation and open space, childcare facilities,
complete streets, and transit infrastructure and making conforming revisions to Article
4 of the Planning Code; amending the Building Code to allow payment of development
impact fees, with the exception of fees deposited in the Citywide Affordable Housing
Fund, to be deferred until issuance of the first certificate of occupancy and repealing
the fee deferral surcharge; affirming the Planning Department's determination under
the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the
General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and
making findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to Planning
Code, Section 302.
NOTE:
Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain Arial font.
Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics Times New Roman font.
Deletions to Codes are in strikethr-ough iffilics Times New Roman font.
Board amendment additions are in double-underlined Arial font.
Board amendment deletions are in strikethrough Arial font.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 1
Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Code
subsections or parts of tables.
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:
Section 1. Land Use and Environmental Findings.
(a) The Planning Department has determined that the actions contemplated in this
ordinance comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources
Code Sections 21000 et seq.). Said determination is on file with the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors in File No. 230764 and is incorporated herein by reference. The Board affirms
this determination.
(b) On July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission, in Resolution No. 21354, adopted
findings that the actions contemplated in this ordinance are consistent, on balance, with the
City's General Plan and eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. The Board
adopts these findings as its own. A copy of said Resolution is on file with the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors in File No. 230764, and is incorporated herein by reference.
(c) Pursuant to Planning Code Section 302, the Board finds that this Planning Code
amendment will serve the public necessity, convenience, and welfare for the reasons set forth
in Planning Commission Resolution No. 21354, and the Board incorporates such reasons
herein by reference. A copy of said resolution is on file with the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors in File No. 230764.
Section 2. Background and Findings.
(a) Article 4 of the Planning Code contains many of the City's development impact
fees. Under Planning Code Section 409, the Controller is charged with reviewing
development impact fees and adjusting the fees annually on January 1. The purpose of the
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page2
annual adjustment is to "establish a reasonable estimate of construction cost inflation for the
next calendar year for a mix of public infrastructure and facilities in San Francisco."
(b) Based on the adjustment factor, the Planning Department and the Development
Fee Collection Unit at the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) provide notice of the
annual adjustments. The Planning Department calculates the type and amount of any
applicable development impact fees no later than the issuance of the building or site permit fo
a development project. The Planning Department sends written or electronic notification to
the Development Fee Collection Unit at DBI.
(c) The Development Fee Collection Unit collects payment of all impact fees, which
are due and payable no later than issuance of the "first construction document" as defined in
Section 107 A.13.1 of the Building Code.
(d) For years, the City has relied upon the Annual Infrastructure Construction Cost
Inflation Estimate ("AICCIE") as the index for annual development fee adjustments, with the
exception of the lnclusionary Housing Fee that is subject to adjustment in Planning Code
Section 415 et seq. The City uses the AICCIE to forecast construction costs for the City's
two-year capital budget and the 10-year capital plan. Developed by the Office of the City
Administrator's Capital Planning Group, the AICCIE relies on past construction cost inflation
data, market trends, and a variety of national, state, and local commercial and institutional
construction cost inflation indices. Since 2010, the AICCIE has fluctuated between 3 percent
and 6 percent annually.
(e) The AICCIE is designed to ensure that the City budgets sufficient funding for
capital projects many years into the future. Because of this forward-looking budgeting
function, the AICCIE does not always reflect near-term trends in cost escalation. This can
create barriers to the economic feasibility of private development projects during economic
downturns. Additionally, the unpredictability of variable impact fee escalation can discourage
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 3
development and reduce the likelihood that the City will achieve key policy goals, like the
production of housing, growing the tax base, and creating jobs.
(f) It is reasonable to consider alternative indexing options. The Board finds that a 2
percent escalation rate would provide certainty and predictability for all parties involved in the
development impact fee process, including developers, City staff collecting fees, and City staff
budgeting and spending the fee revenue. Though the 2 percent escalation rate is lower than
AICCIE rates over the last decade, this flat rate will enable the fees to escalate along with
near term construction cost increases, while still providing predictability to third parties.
(g) To provide further certainty to project sponsors, it is reasonable to calculate the
types of applicable impact fees and the rates of those fees at the time the Planning
Commission or Zoning Administrator approves a development application, or for projects that
do not require such an approval, at the time the City issues the building permit. In addition, it
is reasonable to not escalate those fees between the time they are calculated and the time th
project sponsor pays the fees, which is most commonly just prior to the issuance of the first
construction document.
(h) While it is reasonable to provide certainty in the calculation of fees at the time of
project approval or building permit issuance, and not escalate the fees after they are
calculated, in some circumstances it may be appropriate to revisit the fee calculation,
especially in instances of prolonged delay or major revisions to a project. The Board finds
that it is reasonable to require recalculation of fees when a previously approved project is
modified, extended, or renewed.
(i) This ordinance does not modify any aspect of the lnclusionary Affordable Housing
Fee, set forth in Planning Code section 415 et seq.
U) Economic cycles create volatility in the building and construction industries,
negatively impacting the availability of financing and the viability of a range of development
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page4
projects. In addition to typical economic volatility, rising interest rates and high construction
costs have complicated the City's financial recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently,
the Development Fee Collection Unit requires payment of any applicable development impact
fees prior to the issuance of the first construction document. By giving project sponsors the
option to defer payment of impact fees, the City will help mitigate the financial hardships
caused by economic cycles generally, in addition to current market conditions. The Board
finds that allowing developers the option to defer payment of development impact fees to a
time no later than the first certificate of occupancy, as that term is defined in Building Code
107 A.13.1, is reasonable to allow project sponsors to obtain financing for development
projects that would otherwise be unable to proceed under adverse economic conditions.
(k) Rising interest rates and high construction costs have created challenges for
previously-approved projects to secure a complete financing package and initiate
construction. These adverse economic conditions are impacting PDR (Production,
Distribution, and Repair) and Retail projects in the PDR Districts, and hotel, restaurant,
entertainment, and outdoor activity projects in the C-2 and C-3 Districts, and delaying the job
opportunities and other community benefits associated with these developments. Waiving
development fees for these types of projects will allow those developments to proceed; such
short-term waivers will economically stimulate similar projects in the upcoming three-year
period. The Board finds that a limited and short-term fee waiver is reasonable to enable these
projects to proceed to construction and incentivize similar proposals.
(I) Pursuant to Planning Code Section 410, the Planning Department, the Office of
Resilience and Capital Planning, and the City Attorney's Office retained Hatch Consulting to
update the nexus analysis and level of service analysis for various existing development
impact fees. These studies were conducted prior to January 1, 2022, analyze the impacts to
public facilities created by new development, and calculate the nexus between the new
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 5
development and the need for new public facilities. The nexus studies calculate the potential
fees on a square footage basis. Consistent with the California Mitigation Fee Act,
Government Code Section 66000 et seq., the Board adopts the San Francisco Citywide
Nexus Analysis prepared by Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc., dated December 2021, and
the San Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis prepared by Hatch Associates
Consultants, Inc., dated December 2021, both of which are on file with the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors in File No. 150149.
(m) Additionally, on May 9, 2023 the Board adopted the Capital Plan Update for Fiscal
Years 2024-2033, on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 230265, which
details the City's capital improvement plan for the next decade. The Board incorporates this
plan by reference.
(n) This ordinance does not establish, increase, or impose a fee within the meaning of
Government Code Section 66001 (a).
( o) On July 19, 2023, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Building Inspection
Commission considered this ordinance in accordance with Charter Section D3. 750-5 and
Building Code Section 104A.2.11.1.1. A copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Building
Inspection Commission regarding the Commission's recommendation is on file with the Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 230764.
(p) No local findings are required under California Health and Safety Code Section
17958. 7 because the amendments to the Building Code contained in this ordinance do not
regulate materials or manner of construction or repair, and instead relate in their entirety to
administrative procedures for implementing the code, which are expressly excluded from the
definition of a "building standard" by California Health and Safety Code Section 18909(c).
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 6
Section 3. Article 4 of the Planning Code is hereby amended by revising Sections 401,
402,403, 406, and 409, to read as follows:
SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.
* * * *
F
"Final Approval. "For the purposes of this Section shall mean I) approval of a proiect 's first
Development Application, unless such approval is appealed; or 2) ifa proiect only requires a building
permit, issuance of the first site or building permit, unless such permit is appealed; or 3) if the first
Development Application or first site or building permit is appealed, then the final decision upholding
the Development Application, or first site or building permit, on the appeal by the relevant City Board
or Commission.
"First Certificate of Occupancy." Either a temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a
Certificate of Final Completion and Occupancy as defined in San Francisco Building Code
Section 109A, whichever is issued first.
****
SEC. 402. PROCEDURE FOR PAYMENT AND COLLECTION OF DEVELOPMENT
FEES.
(a) Collection by the Development Fee Collection Unit. Except as otherwise
authorized in Section 411.9, all development impact and in-lieu fees authorized by this Code
shall be collected by the Development Fee Collection Unit at DBI in accordance with Section
107 A.13 of the San Francisco Building Code.
(b) Required Department Notice to Development Fee Collection Unit Prier te
IssNtmee uflJNilding er Site Pemiit; Request to Record Notice of Fee.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 7
(1) Required Notice. When the Planning Department determines that a
development project is subject to one or more development fees or development impact
requirements as set forth in Section 402(e),_but in (ll'l)' C(lse no later th(ln prior to issu(lnce of the
4 1
building or site permit for (1 devel-opmentproject, the Department shall send written or electronic
notification to the Development Fee Collection Unit at DBI, and also to MOH, MTA or other
applicable agency that administers an applicable development fee or development impact
requirement, that:
(i) identifies the development project,
(ii) lists which specific development fees and/or development impact
1 O
requirements are applicable and the legal authorization for their application,
(iii) specifies the dollar amount of the development fee or fees that the
Department calculates is owed to the City or that the project sponsor has elected to satisfy a
development impact requirement through the provision of physical or "in-kind" improvements,
and
(iv) lists the name and contact information for the staff person at each agency
department responsible for calculating the development fee or monitoring compliance with
development impact requirement for physical or in-kind improvements.
(2) Amended Notices. The Department shall send an amended notice to the
Development Fee Collection Unit, and also to any department or agency that received the
initial notice, if at any time subsequent to its initial notice:
21 I
(i) any of the information required by subsection (1) above is changed or
modified, or
(ii) the development project is modified by the Department or Commission
during its review of the project and the modifications change the dollar amount of the
development fee or the scope of any development impact requirement.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 8
(3) Optional Recordation of Notice of Special Restrictions Prior to Issuance
of Building or Site Permit. Prior to issuance of a building or site permit for a development
project subject to a development fee or development impact requirement, the Department
may request the Project Sponsor to record a notice with the County Recorder that a
development project is subject to a development fee or development impact requirement. The
County Recorder shall serve or mail a copy of such notice to the persons liable for payment of
the fee or satisfaction of the requirement and the owners of the real property described in the
notice. The notice shall include:
(i) a description of the real property subject to the development fee or
development impact requirement,
(ii) a statement that the development project is subject to the imposition of the
development fee or development impact requirement, and
(iii) a statement that the dollar amount of the fee or the specific development
impact requirement to which the project is subject has been determined under Article 4 of this
Code and citing the applicable section number.
(c) Process for Revisions of Determination of Development Impact Fee(s) or
Development Impact Requirement(s). In the event that the Department or the Commission
takes action affecting any development project subject to this Article and such action is
subsequently modified, superseded, vacated, or reversed by the Board of Appeals, the Board
of Supervisors, or by court action, the building permit or building permit application for such
development project shall be remanded to the Department to determine whether the
development project has been changed in a manner which affects the calculation of the
amount of development fees or development impact requirements required under this Article
and, if so, the Department shall revise the requirement imposed on the permit application in
compliance with this Article within 30 days of such remand and notify the project sponsor in
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 9
writing of such revision or that a revision is not required. The Department shall notify the
Development Fee Collection Unit at DBI if the revision materially affects the development fee
requirements originally imposed under this Article so that the Development Fee Collection
Unit update the Project Development Fee Report and re-issue the associated building or site
permit for the project, if necessary, to ensure that any revised development fees or
development impact requirements are enforced.
(d) Timing of Fee Payments. All impact fees are due and payable to the
Development Fee Collection Unit at DBI at the time of, and in no event later than, issuance of
the "first construction document" as defined in Section 401 of this Code and Section
107 A.13.1 of the Building Code provided that a proiect sponsor may defer payment of the fee.
excluding any fees that must be deposited in the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund (Administrative
Code Section 10.100-49), to a later date pursuant to Section 107A.13.3 o{the Building Code.-+he
pr-eject spenser's eptien te deferpeyment of the fee te €1; k,,ter 6€1;tepursu€J;nt te Sectien 1()7A.13.3 of the
Building Cede expired en July 1, 2013 €J;nd is net €J;V€J;i/€J;hle unless €J;nd until the Be€J;rd o.fS'btfJervisers
r-e €1,Utherizes this dcferml eptien.
(e) Amount and Applicabilitv of Impact Fees. When the Planning Department determines
that a proiect is subiect to development impact fees established in the Planning Code, with the
exception of the Inclusionary Housing Fee as set forth in Section 415 et seq., the assessment shall be
based on the types of fees and the rates o{those fees in effect at the time of Final Approval. After Final
Approval, the City shall not impose subsequently established development impact fees or increase the
rate of existing fees on the development proiect, including annual inflation adiustments pursuant to
Section 409, except as provided in subsection (e){l)-(2) ofthis Section 402. The Planning Department
shall transmit the fee assessment to the Development Fee Collection Unit at DBI in accordance with
this Section 402.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 10
(1) Modification. Renewal. Extension for Projects. After the Final Approval, if a
development proiect requires a modification to, renewal. or extension of a previously approved
Development Application, the Planning Department shall reassess development impact fees pursuant to
subsection (e)(2). For the purposes of this subsection (e)(l ), a "modification" shall not include a
legislatively-authorized reduction or waiver of fees, including any waivers pursuant to Section 406.
(2) Amount o(Reassessment. For any development proiect that requires a
modification to. renewal. or extension pursuant to subsection {e)(l ). the Planning Department shall
reassess fees as follows:
(A) Modified Proiects. For proiects increasing Gross Floor Area of any use.
the Planning Department shall assess the new or increased Gross Floor Area by applying the types of
impact fees in effect at the time of Final Approval at the rates in effect at the time of modification. For
ro ·ects reducin Gross Floor Area the Plannin De artment shall assess the
effect at the time of Final Approval only on the remaining Gross Floor Area. If the modified proiect
would result in a new type of.fee or a different rate based on applicable thresholds in effect at the time
of Final Approval, the entire proiect square footage is subiect to the new type of.fee or different rate in
effect at the time of modification. The City shall refund fees. if any. without interest. based on the fees
in effect at the time of Final Approval.
(B) Renewal and Extended Proiects. For proiects receiving a renewal or
extension. the Planning Department shall reassess fees for the entire proiect 's Gross Floor Area based
on the type of.fees and rates of those fees in effect at the time of renewal or extension.
3 Pro ·ects A
roved Prior to E ective Date o Ordinance in Board File No. 230764.
For proiects that have obtained a Final Approval. but that have not yet obtained a first site or building
permit prior to the effective date of the ordinance in Board File No. 230764. the assessed types and
rates o[impact fees shall not be increased after that effective date, unless such proiect requires a
modification. extension. or renewal pursuant to subsection (e){l)-(2) of this Section 402. For proiects
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin. Mandelman. Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 11
that have obtained a Final Approval and a site or building permit prior to the effective date ofthe
ordinance in Board File No. 230764. the types and rate of.fees are those assessed at the time of site or
building permit issuance, subject to legislative reduction or waiver of.fees. unless such project requires
a modification, extension, or renewal pursuant to subsection (e)(l)-(2) ofthis Section 402.
(4) Applicability to Development Agreements.
(A) For projects subject to development agreements executed prior to the
effective date of the ordinance in Board File No. 230764, the Planning Department shall assess the
applicable fees pursuant to the development agreement and no later than the earlier of site or building
permit issuance.
(B) Except as may otherwise be agreed to by the parties. for a project subject to
a development agreement executed on or after the effective date of the ordinance in Board File No.
230764. the Planning Department shall assess the applicable fees at the earlier of site or building
permit issuance.
(C) The procedures set forth in subsection (e)(l )-(2) shall govern the
modification. renewal. or extension of a project subject to a development agreement.
(D) In the event ofa conflict between this Section 402(e) and the terms ofa
development agreement. the terms of the development agreement shall apply. unless the development
agreement is modified pursuant to the terms of that agreement.
SEC. 403. PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT FEE(S) OR SATISFACTION OF
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REQUIREMENT(S) AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL
PLANNING COMJIIISS!-ONREVIEW; RECOAIAIENDA.TJON CONCERNING
EFFECTIVENESS Of' FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM.
(a) Centlitien efAppHJMI. In addition to any other condition of approval that may
otherwise be applicable, the Department or Commission shall require as a condition of
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 12
approval of a development project subject to a development fee or development impact
requirement under this Article that such development fee or fees be paid prior to the issuance
of the first construction document for any building or buildings within the development project,
in proportion to the amount required for each building if there are multiple buildings, with an
option for the project sponsor to defer payment of 85 percent of the fees, or 80 percent of the
fees if the project is subject to a neighborhood infrastructure impact development fee, to prior
to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy btf3en agroeing le p€l)' a De·.•elepmen1 Fee Deferral
Surcharge en !he ameun1 ewed, as provided by Section 107 A.13.3 of the San Francisco Building
Code ("Fee Deferral Program"). The Fee Deferral Program shall not apply to fees that must be
deposited in the Citywide A([ordable Housing Fund (Administrative Code Section 10.100-49). Proiects
subiect to development agreements executed pursuant to Chapter 56 o(the Administrative Code shall
be eligible for the Fee Deferral Program. except as may otherwise be agreed to by the parties to the
development agreement. The Department or Commission shall also require as a condition of
approval that any development impact requirement imposed on a development project under
this Article shall be satisfied prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any
building or buildings within the development project, in proportion to the amount required for
each building if there are multiple buildings.
(b) Hearing 1e Review Ejfec1h1eness efFee De.fern,,/ Pre-gram. Under 107A.13. 3 efihe San
Ffflncisce Building Cede, !he ep#en 1e defer 1he p€lymen1 efdevelepmen1 fees expires en July 1, 2013
unless 1he Beard ofSupervisers ex1cnds !he Fee Def(!ff{J,/ ,Preg-ram. ,.Prier 1e #w July 1, 2013 expiffltien
dale, the Planning Cemmissien shall held a public hearing 1e r-e·.dew !he effeclivencss of #w Fee
Deferral Pregfflm, the ecenemy al large, and lvhe1her !he simula1i1.'e ejfec1s ef the Fee Deferfal
1.Pregram aro still necessary. Fe/le;ving the public hearing, !he Cemmissien shall fenvard a
rocemmendtltien 1e #w Bear-d efSblj3ervisers as 1e wliether the Fee Defern,,/ ,.Pregfflm slwuld be
cen#nued, medijied, er termina1cd.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 13
SEC. 406. WAIVER, REDUCTION, OR ADJUSTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.
****
(g) Waiver for Proiects in PDR Districts. In a PDR District, a development proiect that meets
the eligibility criteria in subsection (g)(l) of this Section 406 shall receive a waiver from any
development impact fee or development impact requirement imposed by this Article.
(1) Eligibility. To be eligible for the waiver in this subsection (g), the proiect shall:
(A) be located in a PDR District;
(B) contain a Retail Use or PDR Use and no residential uses;
{C) propose the new construction ofat least 20.000 square feet of Gross Floor Area and
no more than 200. 000 square feet of Gross Floor Area;
(D) be located on a vacant site or site improved with buildings with less than a 0.25 to 1
Floor Area Ratio as of the date a complete Development Application is submitted;
(E) submit a complete Development Application on or before December 31. 2026.
including any proiects that have obtained Final Approval prior to the effective date of the ordinance in
Board File No. 230764 that have not already paid development impact fees.
(2) Extent of Waiver. The waiver in this subsection (g) shall be limited to development
impact fees or development impact requirements for the establishment of any new Gross Floor Area of
PDR or Retail Use.
(3) Sunset. This subsection (g) shall expire by operation of/aw on December 31, 2026,
unless the duration of the subsection has been extended by ordinance effective on or before that date.
Upon expiration. the City Attorney shall cause subsection (g) to be removed from the Planning Code.
(h) Waiver for Projects in the C-2 and C-3 Districts. In the C-2 and C-3 Districts, a
development proiect that meets the eligibility criteria in subsection (h)(l) of this Section 406 shall
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 14
receive a waiver from any development impact fee or development impact requirement imposed by this
Article.
(1) Eligibility. To be eligible for the waiver in this subsection (h), the proiect shall:
(A) be located in a C-2 or C-3 District;
(B) contain any o(the following uses: Hotel. Restaurant. Bar. Outdoor Activity. or
Entertainment;
(C) submit a complete Development Application on or before December 31. 2026.
including any proiects that have obtained Final Approval prior to the effective date of the ordinance in
Board File No. 230764 that have not already paid development impact fees.
(2) Extent of Waiver. The waiver in this subsection (h) shall be limited to development
impact fees or development impact requirements for the establishment of any new Gross Floor Area of
the Hotel. Restaurant. Bar. Outdoor Activity. or Entertainment Use.
(3) Sunset. This subsection (h) shall expire by operation oflaw on December 31, 2026.
unless the duration ofthe subsection has been extended by ordinance effective on or before that date.
Upon expiration. the City Attorney shall cause subsection (h) to be removed from the Planning Code.
SEC. 409. CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT FEE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND
COST INFLATION FEE ADJUSTMENTS.
****
(b) Annual Development Fee Infrt1struet1111e Censtmetien Gest Inflation
Adjustments. Prior to issuance of the Citywide Development Fee and Development Impact
Requirements Report referenced in subsection (a) above, the Controller shall review the
amount of each development fee established in the Planning Code and, with the exception of
the lnclusionary Affordable Housing Fee in Section 415 et seq., shall adjust the dollar amount
of any development fee by two percent on an annual basis every January 1 based selely en #te
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 15
Annual Infrastructure Censtructien Gest Injlatien Estimate. The Office ef the City Administroter 's
Capital Planning Greup shallpuhlish tlw Annual Infe'astructure Censtructien Gest InjlBtien Estimate,
as appre·,•ed hy the City's Capital Planning Cemmittee, ne later than Nw,•en'lher 1 every year, witheut
further actien hy• the Beard efSupenlisers. Tl1-e Annual Injfflstructure Censtructien Gest Inflatien
Estimate shall he updated ne later than N-evemher 1 ~·cry year, in order to estahlish maintain a
reasonabl1:e estimate conservative connection between construction costs and development fees ef
censtructien cest i,efk,,tien for the next calendar year for a mix of public infrastructure and
facilities in San Francisco. The Capital Planning Greup fflfl,Y rely en past censtructien cest inflatien
dBta, market trends, and a 1Mriety e.f natienal, state, and local cemmercial and institutienal
censtructien cest i,efk,,tien indices in developing its annual estimates fer SBn Francisce. The Planning
Department and the Development Fee Collection Unit at DBI shall provide notice of the
Controller's development fee adjustments, including the Annual Infrastructure Censtructien Gest
Inflatien Estimate formula used to cakulate the adjustnwnt, and MOHCD's separate adjustment of
the lnclusionary Affordable Housing Fee on the Planning Department and DBI websites and t
any interested party who has requested such notice at least 30 days prior to the adjustment
taking effect each January 1. The lnclusionary Affordable Housing Fee shall be adjusted
under the procedures established in Section 415.S(b )(3).
Section 4. The San Francisco Building Code is hereby amended by revising Section
107 A.13, to read as follows:
107 A.13 Development impact and in-lieu fees.
107A.13.1 Definitions.
(a) The following definitions shall govern interpretation of this Section:
****
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 16
(10) "Neighborhood Infrastructure Seed Fund' shall mean the fund or funds
established by the Controller's Office for the purpose of collecting the 20 percent pre-paid
portion of the development fees intended to fund pre-development work on any neighborhood
infrastructure project funded by any of the -six neighborhood infrastructure impact development
fees listed in Subsection 107 A.13.13.1. In addition, third-party grant monies or loans may also
be deposited into this fund for the purpose of funding pre-development or capital expenses to
accelerate the construction start times of any neighborhood infrastructure project funded by
8 1
any of the -six_neighborhood infrastructure impact development fees listed in Subsection
107A.13.13.1.1
16 I
21 I
* * * *
107 A.13.2 Collection by Department. The Department shall be responsible for
collecting all development impact and in-lieu fees, including (a) fees levied by the San
Francisco Unified School District if the District authorizes collection by the Department, and
(b) fees levied by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, if the Commission's General
Manager authorizes collection by the Department, deferral of payment of any development
fee, and/or resolution of any development fee dispute or appeal in accordance with this
Section 107 A.13.
107A.13.3 Timing of development fee payments and satisfaction of development
impact requirements.
(a) All development impact or in-lieu fees owed for a development project shall be
paid by the protect sponsor prior to issuance of the first construction document; provided,
however, that the project sponsor may elect to defer payment of said fees under Section
107A.13.3.1.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 17
(b) Any development impact requirement shall be completed prior to issuance of the
first certificate of occupancy for the development project.
107 A.13.3.1 Fee deferral program; dev-elBpment fee defe"6l s1trch11rge. A project
sponsor may elect to defer payment of any development impact or in-lieu fee, excluding any
fees that must be deposited into the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund (Administrative Code Section
10.100-49), collected by the Department to a due date prior to issuance by the Department of
the first certificate of occupancy; provided, however, that the project sponsor shall pay 15
percent of the total amount of the development fees owed. excluding any fees that must be
deposited into the Citywide Affprdable Housing Fund (Administrative Code Section 10.100-49 ). prior
to issuance of the first construction document. If a project is subject to one of the -s-ix
neighborhood infrastructure impact development fees listed in Subsection 107 A.13.3.1.1, the
project sponsor shall pay 20 percent of the total amount of the development fees owed prior to
issuance of the first construction document. These pre-paid funds shall be deposited as
provided in Subsection 107 A.13.3.1.1 below. A project sponsor that has not obtained its First
Construction Document r-eeei·,•edpreject 8pproval prior to July 1, 2010 the Effective Date of the
ordinance in Board File No. 230764 and has not yet paid a development impact or in-lieu fee
may elect to defer payment under the provisions of this Section notwithstanding a condition of
approval that required the fee to be paid prior to issuance of a building er site permit the First
Construction Document.
This option to defer payment may be exercised by (.Jf submitting a deferral request to
the Department on a form provided by the Department prior to issuance of the first
construction document, and (2) agreeing te pay a Develepment Fee De-ferral Surcharge. This
deferral option shall not be available to a project sponsor who paid the fee prior to the
eperatbe Effective Date of July 1, 2010 the ordinance in Board File No. 230764; the project
sponsor's reapplication for a building or site permit after expiration of the original permit and
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 18 .
refund of the development fees paid shall not authorize the project sponsor to elect the
deferral option. The deferral eptien shall expire en Jtt1y 1, 2013 unkss the Beard efSuper.iisers
extends it.
107 A.13.3.1.1 Deposit of pre-paid portion of deferred development fees. If a
development project is not subject to one of the six neighborhood infrastructure impact fees
listed below, the pre-paid portion of the development fees shall be deposited into the
appropriate fee account. If there is more than one fee account, the pre-paid portion of the fees
shall be apportioned equally.
If a development project is subject to one of the six neighborhood infrastructure impact
development fees listed below, the entire 20 percent development fee pre-payment shall be
deposited in the appropriate neighborhood infrastructure impact fee account. These pre-paid
funds shall be dedicated solely to replenishing the Neighborhood Infrastructure Seed Fund for
that specific neighborhood infrastructure impact fee account. In no event shall a neighborhood
infrastructure impact fee specific to one Area Plan be mixed with neighborhood infrastructure
impact fees specific to a different Area Plan. If the 20 percent development fee pre-payment
exceeds the total amount owed for the neighborhood infrastructure impact fee account, the
remaining pre-paid portion of the 20 percent development fee pre-payment shall be
apportioned equally among the remaining applicable development fees.
The neighborhood infrastructure development fees subject to the 20 percent pre-
payment provision of this Subsection 107 A.13.3.1.1 are as follows: (1) the Rincon Hill
Community Infrastructure Impact Fee, as set forth in Planning Code Section 418.3(b )(1 ); (2)
the Visitacion Valley Community Facilities and Infrastructure Fee, as set forth in Planning
Code Section 420.3(b); (3) the Market and Octavia Community Infrastructure Fee, as set forth
in Planning Code Section 421.3(b); (4) the Balboa Park Community Infrastructure Impact Fee,
as set forth in Planning Code Section 422.3(b); (5) the Eastern Neighborhoods Infrastructure
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 19
Impact Fee, as set forth in Planning Code Section 423.3(b); and (6) the Van Ness and Market
Neighborhood Infrastructure Impact Fee, as set forth in Planning Code Section 424.3(b)(ii)..:_
and (7) the Central SoMa Infrastructure Impact Fee, as set forth in Planning Code Section 433.
Fee Dejefftl:l Surcharge. Except for any pre paid fees, all deferred develepwwnt fees remaining unpaid
shall be paid in full prier te issuance <'>f thejirst certificate efeccupaney at the end of the deferr-t1;l
peried. The Devclepment Fee Defcrffll Surcharge shall be paid when the defer-red fees are paid and
shall accrue at the Develepment Fee Defcfftl:l Surcharge Rate.
The Develepment .F'ee Deferral Surcharge Rate shall be calculated menthly hy the Unit as a
blended inter-est r-t1;te cemprised ef50% ~{the Treasur-er 's ;·ield en a standard twe year investment and
50% ef the latest updated },lonthly Earned Inceme Yield Rate fer t,lw City and Ceunty €>}San
Francisce 's Peeled Funds, as pested en the San Francisce Treasurer's website and 50% efthe Annual
Jefr-t1;structure Censtructien Gest Inflatien Estimate published hy the Office ef the City Administrater 's
Capital Planning Greup and B:ppre·,.ed hy· tlw City's Capital Planning Cemmittee censistent vdth its
ebligatiens under Sectien 409(h) ef the San Fr-t1;ncisce Planning Cede. The annual Infr-t1;structure
Censtructien Gest Injlatien Estimate shall be '7t-f)dated hy the Office ~fthe City Administrater 's Capital
Planning Gre'*fJ en an annual basis, in censultatien with the Capital ,Planning Cemmittee, with the
mix <'>fpublic inffflstructur-e and facilities in San Francisce. The Capital Planning Greup may rely en
past censtructien cest injlatien data, market trends, and a ·,·ariety e.fnatienal, state and lecal
San Francisce. Cemmencing en the cjfcctive date <'>}this erdinance, the Unit shall publish the
Develepment Fee Deferral Surcharge en tlw Department efBuilding Inspectien ~website at er near the
beginning efeach menth. The accrual of any deferred tlcvelepment fees begins en thefirst day that a
project spenser elects te defer develepment fees, but never later than immediately after issuance of the
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 20
first censtructien decument. The De11elopment F'ee Celkctien Unit shall caleulate thejinal
Development Fee Deferral Surcharge for indi·;id-ualprejects hy multiplying the tetal development fees
etherwise due prier te issuance efthe censtructien decument hy the Development Fee Deferfal
Surcharge Rate 8}' tlie actual day eeunt ef the entir-e De..,,elopment .F'ee D~l P-eried, which shall he
the number e.fdays between thepreject spenser 's ekctien te defer tefinalpaj'ment efthe deferred
de11elopment fees. The De,;elopment Fee Deferral Surcharge shall he appertiened ameng all
de·;elopment fee funds accerding te the r-atie efeach development fee as a percentage ef the tetal
de·;elopment fees ewed en the specific project.
* * * *
Section 5. Article 4 of the Planning Code is hereby amended by revising Sections
401A, 411A.1, 411A.6, 412.1, 412.4, 413.1, 414.1, 414A.1, 418.1, 420.1, 421.1, 422.1, 423.1,
424.1, 424.6.1, 424.7.1, 430,433.1, and 435.1, to read as follows:
SEC. 401A. FINDINGS.
(a) General Findings. The Board makes the following findings related to the fees
imposed under Article 4.
(1) Application. The California Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Section
66000 et seq. may apply to some or all of the fees in this Article 4. While the Mitigation Fee
Act may not apply to all fees, the Board has determined that general compliance with its
provisions is good public policy in the adoption, imposition, collection, and reporting of fees
collected under this Article 4. By making findings required under the Act, including the findings
in this Subsection and findings supporting a reasonable relationship between new
development and the fees imposed under this Article 4, the Board does not make any finding
or determination as to whether the Mitigation Fee Act applies to all of the Article 4 fees.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 21
(2) Timing of Fee Collection. For any of the fees in this Article 4 collected
prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the Board of Supervisors makes the
following findings set forth in California Government Code Section 66007(b): the Board of
Supervisors finds, based on information from the Planning Department in Board File No.
150149, that it is appropriate to require the payment of the fees in Article 4 at the time of
issuance of the first construction document because the fee will be collected for public
improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated
and for which the City has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to the final
inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy or because the fee is to reimburse the
City for expenditures previously made for such public improvements or facilities.
(3) Administrative Fee. The Board finds, based on information from the
Planning Department in Board File No. 150149, that the City agencies administering the fee
will incur costs equaling 5% or more of the total amount of fees collected in administering the
funds established in Article 4. Thus, the 5% administrative fee included in the fees in this
Article 4 do not exceed the cost of the City to administer the funds.
(b) Specific Findings. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the San Francisco
Citywide Nexus Analysis p-,.epared hy AECOA{ dated ,~larch 2014 ("Nexus Analysis"},- and the San
Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis ("Level of Service Analysis") p-,.epar-ed hy
datedA{ay, 2015, both on file with the Clerk of the Board in Files Nos. 230764150149 and 150790,
and adopts the findings and conclusions of those studies, specifically the sections of those
studies establishing levels of service for and a nexus between new development and five four
infrastructure categories: Recreation and Open Space, Childcare, Streetsctlf)e and ,.Pedestrian
In-frastructure, Bicyck In-fr-astructur-e, Complete Streets, and Transit Infrastructure. The Board of
Supervisors finds that, as required by California Government Code Section 66001, for each
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 22
infrastructure category analyzed, the Nexus Analysis and Infrastructure Level of Service
Analysis: identify the purpose of the fee; identify the use or uses to which the fees are to be
put. including a reasonable level of service; determine how there is a reasonable relationship
between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and
the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and determine how there is a
reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or
portion of the facility attributable to the development. Specifically, as discussed in more detail
in and supported by the Nexus Analysis and Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis the
Board adopts the following findings:
(1) Recreation and Open Space Findings.
(A) Purpose. The fee will help maintain adequate park capacity required to
serve new service population resulting from new development.
(B) Use. The fee will be used to fund projects that directly increase park
capacity in response to demand created by new development. Park and recreation capacity
can be increased either through the acquisition of new park land, or through capacity
enhancements to existing parks and open space. Examples of how development impact fees
would be used include: acquisition of new park and recreation land; lighting improvements to
existing parks, which extend hours of operation on play fields and allow for greater capacity;
recreation center construction, or adding capacity to existing facilities; and converting passive
open space to active open space including but not limited to through the addition of trails, play
fields, and playgrounds.
(C) Reasonable Relationship. As new development adds more employment
and/or residents to San Francisco, it will increase the demand for park facilities and park
capacity. Fee revenue will be used to fund the acquisition and additional capacity of these
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 23
park facilities. Each new development project will add to the incremental need for recreation
and open space facilities described above. Improvements considered in the Nexus Study are
estimated to be necessary to maintain the City's effective service standard.
(D) Proportionality. The new facilities and costs allocated to new developmen
are based on the existing ratio of the City's service population to acres of existing recreation and
open space a conservative estimate of its curFCnt recreation and epen space ctlpital expenditure to
dt#e. The scale of the capital facilities and associated costs are proportional to the projected
levels of new development and the existing relationship between service population and
recreation and open space inffflstrncture. The cost of the deferred maintenance required to
address any operational shortfall within the City's recreation and open space provision will not
be financed by development fees.
(2) Childcare Findings.
(A) Purpose. The fee will support the provision of childcare facility needs
resulting from an increase in San Francisco's residential and employment population.
(B) Use. The childcare impact fee will be used to fund capital projects related
to infant, toddler, and preschool-age childcare. Funds will pay for the expansion of childcare
slots for infant, toddler, and preschool children.
(C) Reasonable Relationship. New residential and commercial development i
San Francisco will increase the demand for infant, toddler and preschool-age childcare. Fee
revenue will be used to fund the capital investment needed for these childcare facilities.
Residential developments will result in an increase in the residential population, which results
in growth in the number of children requiring childcare. Commercial development results in an
increase of the employee population, which similarly require childcare near their place of
work. Improvements considered in this study are estimated to be necessary to maintain the
City's provision of childcare at its effective service standard.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 24
(D) Proportionality. The new facilities and costs allocated to new development
are based on estimated childcare demand generated by future development. existing serlice ffltie ef
the total number efinfants, toddler, andprescheelers needing care in Stm Fr-ancisce to the number ef
spaces available to serYe them. The total numbers e.fchildl"Cn reflect beth resident children and nen
r-esident childl"Cn a/San Francisco empleyees needing care. Capital costs required to provide these
childcare spaces to accommodate the new population are based on the City's cost of funding new
childcare facilities and assigned to new housing units and new non-residential development on a per-
square-foot basis. The scale of the capital facilities and associated costs are directly
proportional to the expected levels of new development and the corresponding increase in
childcare demands.
(3) Complete Streets Str-eetscape and Pedestrian lnjfflstructure Findings. -The
infrastructure cw.•ered by Pedestrian and Bicycle !nfr-astructure and Bicycle Infrastructure may be
referred to in certain Ar-ea Plans cellectlvely as "Cemplete Streets !nfr-astructure."
(A) Purpose. "Complete Streets" encompass sidewalk improvements, such as
lighting. landscaping. and safety measures, and sustainable street elements more broadly, including
bike lanes, sidewalk paving and gutters, lighting, street trees and other landscaping. bulb-outs, and
curb ramps. The primary purpose of the Complete Streets streetscape andpedestrian infrastructure
develepment impact fee is to fund capital investments in bicycle, streetscape.._ and pedestrian
infrastructure to accommodate the growth in street activity.
(B) Use. The streetscape inffflstructur-e Complete Streets fees will be used to
implement the Better Streets Plan (2010), on file in Board File No. 230764, including enhancement of
the pedestrian network in the areas surrounding new development - whether through
sidewalk improvements, construction of complete streets, or pedestrian safety improvements
- and development o{new premium bike lanes, upgraded intersections, additional bicycle parking, and
new bicycle sharingprogram stations.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 25
(C) Reasonable Relationship. New residential and non-residential development
brings an increased demand for new or expanded and improved Complete Streets infrastructure. This
relationship between new development, an influx of residents and workers, and a demand for complete
streets infrastructure provides the nexus for an impact fee. Complete Streets impact fees, imposed on
new development. fund the construction of new and enhanced complete streets infrastructure for the
additional residents and workers directly attributable to new development. New Glevelepment in &m
Pl'tmcisce ,viii increase the hul'den en the City's pedestrian infr-tlstl'uctur-e. Pee revenue will he used te
increase pedesfl'ian inffflSfl'ucturc rnpacity and facilities. Residential and cewunel'cial develepment will
add te the inaemental need fer strcetscape andpedesfl'ian infrasfl'ucture. Improvements considered in
this study arc estimated te he necessary,• te maintain the City's effecti·,•e service standard, reflecting the
City's investment te date.
(D) Proportionality. The fees allocated to new development are based on the
existing ratio of the City's service population to a conservative estimate of its current
streetscape andpedestrian Complete Streets infrastructure provision to date - in the form of
square feet of Complete Streets sidewalk per thousand service population units. The costs
associated with this level of improvement are drawn from the cost per square foot associated
with improving sidcv,1alk under the Department efl'tthlic W~rks' standard repaving and hulheuts cest
sfl'ucturc constructing Complete Streets elements based on data from the San Francisco Planning
Department. Department of Public Works, Public Utilities Commission, and Municipal Transportation
Agency. Due to the locational variation in the cost of building Complete Street elements. the fee
calculation includes a 20 percent markup for the downtown area. The scale of the capital facilities
and associated costs are directly proportional to the expected levels of new development and
the existing relationship between service population and pedestl'ian Complete Streets
infrastructure. The cost of the deferred maintenance required to address any operational
shortfall is not allocated to be funded by new development.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page26
(4) Bicycle ln:frastrHcture Findings. The infrastructure cevered hy Pedestrian and Bicycle
lnjfflstructur-e and Bicy•cle Inffflstructure may he referr-ed te in certain Area Plans celkctively as
"Cemplete Str-eets btfr-astructure."
(A) Purpese. Theprimarypurpese ofhicyele infr-astructure devel-epment impact fee is te
f1,t:nd capital imprevements te San Francisce 's bicycle inffflstrncture.
(B) Use. The bicycle fee will he used te implement the SF},{TA 's Bicycle Plan set forth in
the 2(}13 Bicycle Strategy. The fee will suppert develepment of new premium hike lanes, t,tpgraded
intersections, additional hicycleparldng, and ne·.v bicycle sharingpregram stations.
(C) Reasenahle Relatienship. New residential and cemmereial devel-epment in San
Francisco ','I/ill increase trips in San Francisco, of which a share will trw;e/ hy bicycle. Fee revenue ,viii
he used te fund the capital in.1estment needed for these bicycle facilities. Beth residential and
commercial de·.•el-epments result in an increased need for bicycle infr-astructur-e, as residents and
employees rely en bicycle infrastructure fer transpertatien, and te alleviate strain en ether
transpertatien medes.
(D) :..Prepertienality. The facilities and cests allecated te new develepment are based en
theprepertienal distrihutien efthe Bicycle Plan Plus im•estments between existing and new ser1;ice
pepulatien units. The scale efthe capital facilities and associated cests ar-e directly pr-epertienal te the
expected levels of new de·.·el-epment and the existing relatiensliip between se,.,,,ice pepulatien and
hiqcle facility demands.
(J.1.) Transit Infrastructure Findings. See Section 41 IA.
(A) Purpose. Transit Infrastructure funds will be used to meet the demand for transit capital
maintenance, transit capital facilities and fleet, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure generated by
new development in the City.
(B) Use. Transit Infrastructure fees will fund transit capital maintenance and transit capital
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 27
improve vehicle reliability to expand transit services. Revenues for capital facilities will be used for
transit fleet expansion. improvements to increase SFMTA transit speed and reliability, and
improvements to regional transit operators. Though the fees are calculated based on transit
maintenance and facilities, fee revenues may be used for pedestrian and bicycle improvements to
complement revenue from the Complete Streets fee. including Area Plan complete street fees.
(C) Reasonable Relationship. The Transit Infrastructure fee is reasonably related to the
financial burden that development projects impose on the City. As development generates new trips. the
SFMTA must increase the supply of transit services and therefore capital maintenance expenditures to
maintain the existing transit level of service. Development also increases the need for expanded transit
facilities due to increased transit and auto trips.
(D) Proportionality. The existing level of service for transit capital maintenance is based on
the current ratio of the supply of transit services (measured by transit revenue service hours) to the
level of transportation demand (measured by number of automobile plus transit trips). The fair share
cost of.planned transit capital facilities is allocated to new development based on trip generation from
new development as a percent of total trip generation served by the planned facility. including existing
development. The variance in the fee by economic activity category based on trip generation. and the
scaling of the fee based on the size of the development project, supports proportionality between the
amount of the fee and the share of transit capital maintenance and facilities attributable to each
development project.
(6J) Additional Findings. The Board finds that the Nexus Analysise.Y-and Level of
Service Analysis-establish that the fees are less than the cost of mitigation and do not include
the costs of remedying any existing deficiencies. The City may fund the cost of remedying
existing deficiencies through other public and private funds. The Board also finds that the
Nexus Analysise.Y-and Level of Service Analysis establish that the fees do not duplicate other City
requirements or fees. The Board further finds that there is no duplication in fees applicable on a
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 28
Citywide basis and fees applicable within an Area Plan. Moreover, the Board finds that these fees
are only one part of the City's broader funding strategy to address these issues. Residential
and non-residential impact fees are only one of many revenue sources necessary to address
the City's infrastructure needs.
SEC. 411A.1. FINDINGS.
* * * *
(i) Based en the ahevefindin:gs and the TSF ,\TexHS Study, the City determines that the TSF
satisfies the requiFCments efCa/.ifemia Gewrnment Cede Section f>(>()()J et seq. ("the ,\litigtl,tien F'ee
Act''), as follows:
(1) The purpose efthe TSF is te help meet the demands imposed en the City's
fl'ansportatien system by· new De·;elopment Prejects.
(2) F1,mdsfrem coUectien e:f the TSF will he HSe-d te meet the demand fer tr-ansit capitfit
maintenance, transit C6tpit€ll facilities andfleet, and pedestrian and hicyck infrastructure gener-ated by·
new development in the City.
(3) TheFC is a reasenahk relationship between theprepesed HSes of the TSF and the
impacts e:fDevelepment Prejects subject te tlw TSF on tlw fl'anspertfitien system in #w City.
(4) TheFC is a reasonahk relationship between the types e.fDe·,·elepment PrTJjects en which
the TSF will he imposed and the nee-d te fund fl'anspertfitien system impre·,·ements.
(5) TheFC is a reasonahk relationship between the amount ef tlw TSF te he imposed en
Development Projects and the impact on transit resulting from such prejects.
(i) More recently, the City adopted the San Francisco Citywide Nexus Analysis ("Nexus
Analysis") and the San Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis. both on file with the Clerk
of the Board in File No. 230764. The Nexus Analysis evaluated the TSF. in addition to other
transportation impact fees. In Section 401A. the Board adopted the findings and conclusions of those
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 29
studies and the general and specific findings in that Section, specifically including the Transit
Infrastructure Findings, and incorporates those by reference herein to support the imposition of the
.fees under this Section.
SEC. 411A.6. TSF EXPENDITURE PROGRAM.
As set forth in the +SF-Nexus &udy-Analysis, on file with the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors File No.150790 230764,+TSF funds may only be used to reduce the burden
imposed by Development Projects on the City's transportation system. Expenditures shall be
allocated as follows, giving priority to specific projects identified in the different Area Plans:
* * * *
SEC. 412.1. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS SUPPORTING DOWNTOWN PARK FEE.
* * * *
(b) Findings. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the San Francisco Citywide
Nexus Analysis prepared by AECOJ,{ dated },/arch 2014 ("Nexus Analysis"), and the San
Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis prepared by AECOJ,{ dated },/arch 2014, both
on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 150149 230764 and, under Section 401A, adopts
the findings and conclusions of those studies and the general and specific findings in that
Section, specifically including the Recreation and Open Space Findings, and incorporates
those by reference herein to support the imposition of the fees under this Section.
SEC. 412.4. IMPOSITION OF DOWNTOWN PARK FEE REQUIREMENT.
* * * *
(b) Amount of Fee. The amount of the fee shall be $2 per square foot (this fee amount
is increased annually per the Consumer Price Index and the cun·ently 6pplicabk fee is listed in the Fee
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 30
Register) of the Net Addition of Gross Floor Area of Office Use to be constructed as set forth in
the final approved building or site permit.
****
SEC. 413.1. FINDINGS.
****
(h) The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis fH't!lffli"Cal
by Keyser },/arsten Asseciates, Inc., dated Afay 2019 ("Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis"), which is on
file with the Clerk of the Board in Board File No. 190548, and adopts the findings and
conclusions of that study, and incorporates the findings by reference herein to support the
imposition of the fees under Section 413.1 et seq.
SEC. 414.1. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS SUPPORTING CHILDCARE
REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE AND HOTEL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
****
(b) Findings. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the San Francisco Citywide
Nexus Analysis prepared by AEC01~f dated A/arch 2014 ("Nexus Analysis"), and the San
Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis prepared by AECO:M dated A/arch 2014, both
on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 230764150149 and, under Section 401A, adopts
the findings and conclusions of those studies and the general and specific findings in that
Section, specifically including the Childcare Findings, and incorporates those by reference
herein to support the imposition of the fees under this Section.
SEC. 414A.1. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.
****
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 31
(b) Findings. In tuiep#ng Ot-d-inance I\To. 5(.) 15, t_Ihe Board of Supervisors reviewed the
San Francisco Citywide Nexus Analysis prepared by AECO-Af dated },larch 2(.)14 ("Nexus
Analysis"), and the San Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis prepared by AECO},f
daretLtf-ar-ch 2(.)14, both on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No.
15(.)149230764. The Board of Supervisors reaffirms the findings and conclusions of those
studies as they relate to the impact of residential development on childcare and hereby
readopts thejindings contained in Ordinance 5(.) 15, inchtding the General Findings in Section
401A(a) of the Planning Code and the Specific Findings in Section 401A(b) of the Planning
Code relating to childcare.
SEC. 418.1. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS SUPPORTING RINCON HILL COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENTS FUND AND SOMA COMMUNITY STABILIZATION FUND.
****
(b) Findings. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the San Francisco Citywide
Nexus Analysis prepared by AECO,M dated ,\{arch 2(.)14 ("Nexus Analysis"), and the San
Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis prepared by· AECOiH dated },larch 2(.)14, both
on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 15(.)149 230764 and, under Section 401 A, adopts
the findings and conclusions of those studies and the general and specific findings in that
Section, specifically including the Recreation and Open Space Findings and Complete Streets
findings, Pedestrian and Str-eetsctlpe Findings, and Bicyzde l,ifrastrncture Findings and incorporates
those by reference herein to support the imposition of the fees under this Section.
The Board takes legislative notice of the findings supporting the fees in former Plannin
Code Section 418.1 (formerly Section 318.1) and the materials associated with Ordinance No.
217-05 in Board File No. 050865. To the extent that the Board previously adopted fees in this
Area Plan that are not covered in the analysis of the 4four infrastructure areas analyzed in the
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 32
Nexus Analysis, including but not limited to fees related to transit, the Board continues to rely
on its prior analysis and the findings it made in support of those fees.
****
SEC. 420.1. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS SUPPORTING VISITACION VALLEY
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS FEE AND FUND.
****
(b) Findings. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the San Francisco Citywide
Nexus Analysis prcpal'Cd hy AECOM dared ,~faFCh 2014 ("Nexus Analysis"), and the San
Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis prepared hy AECO},f dared },larch 2014, both
on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 150149 230764 and, under Section 401A, adopts
the findings and conclusions of those studies and the general and specific findings in that
Section, specifically including the Recreation and Open Space Findings, P-edestrian and
Str-eetscape Complete Streets Findings, and Childcare Findings, and Bicycle I-1tfrastructure Findings
and incorporates those by reference herein to support the imposition of the fees under this
Section.
The Board takes legislative notice of the findings supporting these fees in former
Planning Code Section 420.1 (formerly Section 318.10 et seq.) and the materials associated
with Ordinance No. 3-11 in Board File No. 101247. To the extent that the Board previously
adopted fees in this Area Plan that are not covered in the analysis of the 4four infrastructure
areas analyzed in the Nexus Analysis, including but not limited to tees related to transit, the
Board continues to rely on its prior analysis and the findings it made in support of those fees.
SEC. 421.1. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE MARKET AND
OCTAVIA COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS FUND.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 33
* * * *
(b) Findings. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the San Francisco Citywide
Nexus Analysis pr-epaFed by AECOAI dt1ted },1a:rch 2{)14 ("Nexus Analysis"), and the San
Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis fJf'CfJt1Fed by•AECO},f datedAlt1rch 2{)14, t1nd
fhe T'Ft1nspertt1tien &stt1int1bility F'ee l1lexus Study (TSF ,\lexus Study~, dt1ted },lay, 2{)15, both on file
with the Clerk of the Board in Files Nos. 230764 15{)149 t1nd 15{)79{), and, under Section 401A,
adopts the findings and conclusions of those studies and the general and specific findings in
that Section, specifically including the Recreation and Open Space Findings, Pedestrian and
Streetscape Complete Streets Findings, Childcare Findings, Bicycle !nfr-astructuFC Findings, and
Transit Infrastructure Findings, and incorporates those by reference herein to support the
imposition of the fees under this Section.
SEC. 422.1. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF BALBOA PARK
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS FUND.
****
(b) Findings. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the San Francisco Citywide
Nexus Analysis prepaFed by AECO},f dt1ted },1a:rch 2{)14 ("Nexus Analysis"), and the San
Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis pr-epaFed by AECOAI dt1ted ,~larch 2{)14, and
the Trnnsperttltien &,,stainabUity,.Ci'eeNexus Study (TSF,Vexus Stud~, dt1tedAlay, 2{)15, both on file
with the Clerk of the Board in Files Nos. 230764 15{)149 and 15{)79{), and, under Section 401A,
adopts the findings and conclusions of those studies and the general and specific findings in
that Section, specifically including the Recreation and Open Space Findings, Pedestrian and
Stff!etscape Complete Streets Findings, Childcare Findings, Bicycle befrnstructuFC Findings, and
Transit Infrastructure Findings, and incorporates those by reference herein to support the
imposition of the fees under this Section.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 34
SEC. 423.1. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS SUPPORTING EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOODS IMPACT FEES AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS FUND.
* * * *
(b) Findings. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the San Francisco Citywide
Nexus Analysis prepBred by AEC01~/ dBted },/arch 2014 ("Nexus Analysis"), and the San
Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis prepBred by AECOi~f dBted }.larch 2014, Bnd
the Tnmspor4tttion SustBinBbility Fee Nexus Study (TSF}kxus Study), dated},/ay, 2015, both on file
with the Clerk of the Board in Files Nos. 230764 150149 Bnd 150790, and, under Section 401A,
adopts the findings and conclusions of those studies and the general and specific findings in
that Section, specifically including the Recreation and Open Space Findings, PedestriBn Bnd
Streetsc€lpe Complete Streets Findings, Childcare Findings, Bicyck lnfrT1:structure Findings, and
Transit Infrastructure Findings, and incorporates those by reference herein to support the
imposition of the fees under this Section.
SEC. 424.1. FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE VAN NESS & MARKET AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD INFRASTRUCTURE FEE AND PROGRAM
* * * *
(b) Neighborhood Infrastructure. The Van Ness & Market Residential SUD enables
the creation of a very dense residential neighborhood in an area built for back-office and
industrial uses. Projects that seek the FAR bonus above the maximum cap would introduce a
very high localized density in an area generally devoid of necessary public infrastructure and
amenities, as described in the Market and Octavia Area Plan. While envisioned in the Plan,
such projects would create localized levels of demand for open space, streetscape
improvements, and public transit above and beyond the levels both existing in the area today
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 35
and funded by the Market and Octavia Community Improvements Fee. Such projects also
entail construction of relatively taller or bulkier structures in a concentrated area, increasing
the need for offsetting open space for relief from the physical presence of larger buildings.
Additionally, the FAR bonus provisions herein are intended to provide an economic incentive
for project sponsors to provide public infrastructure and amenities that improve the quality of
life in the area. The bonus allowance is calibrated based on the cost of responding to the
intensified demand for public infrastructure generated by increased densities available
through the FAR density bonus program.
The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the San Francisco Citywide Nexus Analysis
prepared by· AEC0},1 dated 1~/arch 2014 ("Nexus Analysis"), and the San Francisco Infrastructure
Level of Service Analysis pr-cpared by AEC0!,1 dated !,{arch 2014, and the Tfflnspertatien
Sustainability Fee I'lexus Study (TSFl'lexus Study}, datcd!,{ay, 2015, both on file with the Clerk of
the Board in Files Nos. 230764 150149 and 150790, and, under Section 401A, adopts the
findings and conclusions of those studies and the general and specific findings in that Section,
specifically including the Recreation and Open Space Findings, ,.Pedestrian and StreetsetlfJe
Complete Streets Findings, Childcare Findings, Bicyiele Iefrastrueture Findings, and Transit
Infrastructure Findings, and incorporates those by reference herein to support the imposition o
the fees under this Section.
SEC. 424.6. 1. FINDINGS.
(a) General. Existing public park and recreational facilities located in the downtown
area are at or approaching capacity utilization by the population of the area. There is
substantial additional population density, both employment and residential, planned and
projected in the Transit Center District. This district, more than other parts of the downtown, is
lacking in existing public open space amenities to support population growth. The need for
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 36
additional public park and recreation facilities in the downtown area, and specifically in the
Transit Center District, will increase as the population increases due to continued office, retail,
institutional, and residential development. Additional population will strain and require
improvement of existing open spaces both downtown and citywide, and will necessitate the
acquisition and development of new public open spaces in the immediate vicinity of the
growth areas. While the open space requirements imposed on individual commercial
developments address the need for plazas and other local outdoor sitting areas to serve
employees and visitors in the districts, and requirements imposed on individual residential
developments address the need for small-scale private balconies, terraces, courtyards or
other minor common space such as can be accommodated on individual lots, such open
space cannot provide the same recreational opportunities as a public park. In order to provide
the City and County of San Francisco with the financial resources to acquire and develop
public park and recreation facilities necessary to serve the burgeoning population in the
downtown area, a Transit Center District Open Space Fund shall be established as set forth
herein. The Board of Supervisors adopts the findings of the Downtown Open Space Nexus Study
the San Francisco Citywide Nexus Analysis ("Nexus Analysis"), on file with the Clerk o(the Board in
File No. 230764. in accordance with the California Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code
Section 66001 (a) onfik v1dth the Cl-erk o.fthe BoaFd in Fik Ne. __ _
(b) Transit Center District Open Space Impact Fee. Development impact fees are
an effective approach to mitigate impacts associated with growth in population. The proposed
Transit Center District Open Space Impact Fee shall be dedicated to fund public open space
improvements in the Transit Center District Plan Area and adjacent downtown areas that will
provide direct benefits to the property developed by those who pay into the fund, by providing
necessary open space improvements needed to serve new development.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 37
The Planning Department has calculated the fee rate using accepted professional
methods for calculating such fees. The calculations are described fully in the Nexus Analysis.
De;1mto,vn Open Space 1\Texus Study, San Francisce Planning Department, Case .\Te. 2007.0558U on
file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 230764.
The proposed fee, in combination with the Downtown Park Fee established in Section
412 et seq., is less than the maximum justified fee ameunt as calculated by tlw Devmtovm Open Space
Nexus Study is supported by the Nexus Analysis. While no project sponsor would be required to
pay more than the maximum amount justified for that project as calculated in the Nexus
Study, the Transit Center District Open Space Fee is tiered such that denser projects are
assessed higher fees because it is economically feasible for such projects to pay a higher
proportion of the maximum justified amount. The proposed fee covers impacts caused by new
development only and is not intended to remedy existing deficiencies. The cost to remedy
existing deficiencies will be paid for by public, community, and other private sources as
described in the Dewntewn Open Space 1\Texus Study Nexus Analysis and the Transit Center
District Plan Program Implementation Document. Impact fees are only one of many revenue
sources funding open space in the Plan Area.
SEC. 424.7. 1. FINDINGS.
(a) General. New development in the Transit Center District Plan area will create
substantial new burdens on existing streets and transportation systems and require the need
for new and enhanced transportation services and improvements to rights-of-way for all
modes of transportation. The downtown is a very dense urban environment with limited
roadway capacity and is already substantially congested and impacted by existing patterns of
movement. To accommodate the substantial growth anticipated in the Transit Center District
Plan Area, public transit investments must be made, circulation patterns adjusted, and limited
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 38
right-of-way space reallocated such that trips to and through the area are primarily made by
public transit, walking, bicycling, and carpooling and such that these modes are enabled to
maintain or improve efficiency and attractiveness in the face of increasing traffic congestion.
The Transit Center District Plan identified necessary investments and improvements to
achieve these modal objectives and ensure that growth in trips resulting from new
development and population increase in the Plan area does not degrade existing services.
The San Francisco Citywide Nexus Analysis ("Nexus Analysis"). Tronsit Center District Pl:an
Tronsportation 1Vcxus Study, Stm Fmncisco Pl:anning Dep€1rtment C€lse No. 2007. 0558U on file with
the Clerk of the Board in File No. 230764, calculated the proportional share of the cost of
these improvements attributable to new growth based on accepted professional standards.
The investments and improvements identified in the Transit Center District Plan and allocated
in the nexus study are distinct and in addition to improvements and services related to the
Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF) imposed by Section 411 et seq. Whereas the TIDF
funds improvements to SFMTA Municipal Railway public transit services and facilities to
provide sufficient capacity required to serve new development, the Transit Center District
Transportation and Street Improvement Fee covers impacts of new development in the
District on regional transit services and facilities that are distinct from and in addition to the
need for SFMTA public transit services, and that will not funded by the TIDF, including
necessary improvements to area streets to facilitate increases in all modes of transportation
due to development, including walking, bicycling, and carpooling, and to regional transit
facilities, including the Downtown Rail Extension and downtown BART stations. The Board
finds that there is no duplication in these two fees. To provide the City and County of San
Francisco and regional transit agencies with the financial resources to provide transportation
facilities and street improvements necessary to serve the burgeoning population of downtown
San Francisco, a Transit Center District Transportation and Street Improvement Fund shall
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 39
established as set forth herein. The Board of Supervisors adopts the findings of the Do;vntmvn
Open Sptwe 1\fcxus Study Nexus Analysis, in accordance with the California Mitigation Fee Act,
Government Code Section 66001 (a) onfik with the Ckrk efthe Boc[;r-d in File l\le. __
_
(b) Transit Center District Transportation and Street Improvement Impact Fee.
Development impact fees are an effective approach to mitigate impacts associated with
growth in population. The proposed Transit Center District Transportation and Street
Improvement Impact Fee shall be dedicated to public transportation and public street
improvements in the Transit Center District Plan Area and adjacent downtown areas that will
provide direct benefits to the property developed by those who pay into the fund, by providing
necessary transportation and street improvements needed to serve new development.
The fee rate has been calculated by the Planning Department based on accepted
professional methods for the calculation of such fees, and described fully in the Nexus Analysis,
mnsit Center District TPc[;nsporfc[;tion and Street Improwmwnt i"'lexus Study. Sc[;n Francisco ,_Planning
Depar4ment. Case l"le. 2007. 0558U on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 230764.
The proposed fee established in Sections 424.7 et seq., is less than the maximum
justified fee amount as calculated by the Transit Center District Transportation and Street
Improvement Nexus Study Nexus Analysis necessary to provide transportation and street
improvements to increasing population in the area. While no project sponsor would be
required to pay more than the maximum amount justified for that project as calculated in the
Nexus Study, the Transit Center District Transportation and Street Improvement Fee is tiered
such that denser projects are assessed higher fees because it is economically feasible for
such projects to pay a higher proportion of the maximum justified amount. The proposed fee
covers only the demand for transportation and street improvements created by new
development and is not intended to remedy existing deficiencies. The cost to remedy existing
deficiencies will be paid for by public, community, and other private sources as described in
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 40
the Transit Center Disffict Transpertation and Street !mpFevement I\fexHS Study Nexus Analysis and
the Transit Center District Plan Implementation Document. Impact fees are only one of many
revenue sources necessary to provide transportation and street improvements in the Plan
Area.
SEC. 430. BICYCLE PARKING IN LIEU FEE.
****
(b) Amount of Fee. The amount of the in lieu fee shall be $400 per Class 2 bicycle
parking space. This fee shall be adjusted pursuant to Sections 409 and 41 O of this Code.
****
SEC. 433.1. PURPOSE-AND FINDINGS.
****
(b) Findings. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the San Francisco Citywide
Nexus Analysis prepared by· AECOJ,f dated }.larcli 2014 ("Nexus Analysis"), and the San
Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis prepared byAECOJ,f datedJ,larch 2014, and
the Transpertatien Sustainability Fee .7'lexHS Study (TSF NeXHS Study), dated },lay, 2015, both on file
with the Clerk of the Board in Files Nos. 230764150149 and 150790, and, under Section 401A,
adopts the findings and conclusions of those studies and the general and specific findings in
that Section, specifically including the Recreation and Open Space Findings, Pedestrian and
Streetsrnpe Complete Streets Findings, Childcare Findings, Bicycle befr-asffflcture Findings, and
Transit Infrastructure Findings, and incorporates those by reference herein to support the
imposition of the fees under this Section.
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 41
SEC. 435. 1 PURPOSE-AND FINDINGS SUPPORTING UNION SQUARE PARK,
RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE FEE.
* * * *
(b) Findings. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the De1,Ynte,vn San FF<:mcisce
Park, Recrootien, and Open Space Develepment Impact Fee Nexus Study, propar-ed hy Haus,=ath dated
April 13, 2012 San Francisco Citywide Nexus Analysis ("Nexus StudyAnalysis"}, on file with the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 230764180916. In accordance with the California
Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Section 66001 (a), the Board of Supervisors adopts the
findings and conclusions of that study, and incorporates those findings and conclusions by
reference to support the imposition of the fees under this Section.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after
enactment. Enactment occurs when the Mayor signs the ordinance, the Mayor returns the
ordinance unsigned or does not sign the ordinance within ten days of receiving it, or the Board
of Supervisors overrides the Mayor's veto of the ordinance.
Section 7. Scope of Ordinance. In enacting this ordinance, the Board of Supervisors
intends to amend only those words, phrases, paragraphs, subsections, sections, articles,
numbers, punctuation marks, charts, diagrams, or any other constituent parts of the Municipal
Code that are explicitly shown in this ordinance as additions, deletions, Board amendment
additions, and Board amendment deletions in accordance with the "Note" that appears under
the official title of the ordinance.
Section 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word
of this ordinance, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 42
invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of the ordinance. The
Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word not declared invalid or
unconstitutional without regard to whether any other portion of this ordinance or application
thereof would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 9. No Conflict with Federal or State Law. Nothing in this ordinance shall be
interpreted or applied so as to create any requirement, power, or duty in conflict with any
federal or state law.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAVID CHIU, City Attorney
By:
/s/ Giulia Gualco-Nelson
GIULIA GUALCO-NELSON
Deputy City Attorney
n:\legana\as2023\2300035\01689589.docx
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Dorsey, Stefani, Safai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 43
City and County of San Francisco
Tails
Ordinance
City Hall
I Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
File Number:
230764
Date Passed: September 05, 2023
Ordinance amending the Planning Code to 1) modify the annual indexing of certain development impact
fees, with the exception of inclusionary housing fees; 2) provide that the type and rates of applicable
development impact fees, with the exception of inclusionary housing fees, shall be determined at the
time of project approval; 3) exempt eligible development projects in PDR (Production, Distribution, and
Repair) Districts, and the C-2 (Community Business) and C-3 (Downtown Commercial) Zoning Districts
from all development impact fees for a three-year period; 4) allow payment of development impact fees,
with the exception of fees deposited in the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund, to be deferred until
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy; and 5) adopt the San Francisco Citywide Nexus Analysis
supporting existing development impact fees for recreation and open space, childcare facilities,
complete streets, and transit infrastructure and making conforming revisions to Article 4 of the Planning
Code; amending the Building Code to allow payment of development impact fees, with the exception of
fees deposited in the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund, to be deferred until issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy and repealing the fee deferral surcharge; affirming the Planning Department's
determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the
General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and making findings of
public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to Planning Code, Section 302.
July 24, 2023 Land Use and Transportation Committee - RECOMMENDED AS COMMITTEE
REPORT
July 25, 2023 Board of Supervisors - PASSED ON FIRST READING
Ayes: 10 - Chan, Dorsey, Engardio, Mandelman, Melgar, Peskin, Ronen, Safai,
Stefani and Walton
Noes: 1 - Preston
September 05, 2023 Board of Supervisors - Fl NALLY PASSED
City and County of San Francisco
Ayes: 10 - Chan, Dorsey, Engardio, Mandelman, Melgar, Peskin, Ronen, Safai,
Stefani and Walton
Noes: 1 - Preston
Pagel
Printed at 12:00 pm on 9/6/23
File No. 230764
London N. Breed
Mayor
City and County of San Francisco
Page2
I hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance was FINALLY PASSED on
9/5/2023 by the Board of Supervisors of the
City and County of San Francisco.
/. Angela Calvillo
Clerk of the Board
Date Approved
Printed at 12:00 pm on 9/6/23
