• San Francisco Finally Poised to Adopt Central SoMa Plan

    [Originally posted on March 23, 2018, updated on April 11, 2018]

    Following more than six years of planning and public outreach, the City initiated the formal approval process for the Central SoMa Plan (Plan) at the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission on February 27 and March 1, respectively. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and Planning Commission held informational hearings on the Plan on March 21 and March 22, respectively. The HPC also considered initiation of the formal landmark designation process for certain buildings and districts identified during the Plan process. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the EIR and approvals on May 10, with the Board considering the legislation thereafter.

    The Planning Commission’s approval package is over 600 pages, and the modifications proposed to the current land use controls are extensive. The summary below highlights some of the key changes proposed in the draft documents and describes those very generally. Please see the implementing legislation for specific language and details.  As evidenced by Commissioner comment at the March 22 hearing, there is continued focus on the jobs/housing balance in the Plan area, with possible changes to increase the number of potential housing sites.

    Plan Overview

    The Plan area is an approximately 230-acre site that runs roughly from 2nd Street to 6th Street, and from Market Street to Townsend Street, excluding certain areas north of Folsom Street that are part of the Downtown Plan. Very broadly, the Plan and implementing legislation would increase height and density and streamline zoning controls for certain properties. In exchange for this upzoning, the legislation would impose increased community benefits requirements, as described below. The legislative package includes amendments to the General Plan (including adoption of the Plan), Planning Code, Administrative Code, and Zoning Maps. The City’s analysis concludes that the Plan area has development capacity for up to 40,000 jobs and 7,000 housing units, and will generate about $2 billion in development impact fees.

    Key Zoning Controls

    Under the new zoning controls, the predominant new base zoning district would be Central SoMa Mixed Use-Office (CMUO). The CMUO zoning would largely replace relatively restrictive zoning districts with more flexible, mixed-use zoning. Certain subareas would remain principally designated for residential, PDR or other non-residential uses. The Plan area would also be subject to a Special Use District overlay (SUD). Some of the major SUD controls are: designating the largest sites (over 30,000 square feet) South of Harrison Street as predominantly non-residential, imposing new and replacement PDR requirements on certain larger sites, designating areas where nighttime entertainment is principally or conditionally permitted, and imposing active ground floor use requirements, including requiring “micro-retail” units of 1,000 square feet or less, and limiting formula retail uses. The SUD also extends the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) program to historic buildings and 100% affordable housing sites in the Plan area, and requires purchase of TDRs from the Plan area or the Downtown’s C-3 Districts for a portion of the FAR (between 3.0:1 and 4.25:1) for certain large (over 49,999 square feet) non-residential projects.

    Current height limits in the Plan area are generally 85 feet or less, with heights up to 130 feet allowed on some parcels close to the Downtown Plan area. Under the Plan, in certain areas (generally near the Caltrain Station, along 4th Street, and adjacent to the Downtown Plan area and Rincon Hill), height limits are proposed up to 130-160 feet, subject to bulk controls to encourage building sculpting. A limited number of these parcels are proposed for towers 200-400 feet in height.

    Exactions and Public Benefits

    The Plan and its implementing legislation include detailed requirements regarding public benefits, urban design, streetscape and other key controls, including an “urban room” concept that encourages building area up to the sidewalk edge and a height equivalent to the width of the street. “Skyplane” (performance-based and setback) controls would apply to building heights beyond the base urban room. The controls also seek to limit the impact of the major towers through separation requirements and floorplate limits.  Projects proposing more than 50,000 square feet of most non-residential uses (except PDR) are required to provide privately owned public open space (POPOS) or pay an in-lieu fee, similar to the Downtown C-3 Districts. The Plan and zoning controls also address sustainability (for example, through living roof, solar photovoltaic, thermal systems and greenhouse gas-free electricity requirements), as well as streetscape improvements and other strategies to limit parking and enhance pedestrian, bicycle and transit conditions. These include, for example, banning or limiting curb cuts, prioritizing on-site loading, and capping residential parking at 0.5 spaces per unit, and office parking at one space per 3,500 square feet.

    The implementing legislation for the Plan also includes new development impact fees and taxes to fund proposed community benefits, including community facilities, transit, affordable housing, and open space. These exactions would be imposed by tier (Tier A 15-45 feet, Tier B 50-85 feet, and Tier C 90 feet or more). The Planning Department staff report includes a draft Public Benefits Program that summarizes the sources and uses of development impact fees and taxes generated by new development in the Plan area. Pages 18-21 include a fee analysis for prototypical non-residential and residential development, with the applicability and amount varying by Tier, and in some cases by square footage and other criteria. In addition to existing City-wide fees, the new development impact fees and taxes proposed for most Plan area projects include the Central SoMa Community Infrastructure Fee, the Central SoMa Community Services Facilities Fee, and participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD). As explained above, TDR and POPOS requirements would also apply to certain non-residential projects.

    Changes Proposed in Planning Department Staff Report

    The Planning Department staff report for the April 12 hearing makes two recommended changes to address public and Commissioner comments regarding the jobs-housing balance. First, the zoning would be revised to allow two larger sites that were previously anticipated as primarily commercial to become primarily residential, resulting in approximately 640 additional units. Second, several additional sites would be designated Central SOMA Mixed Use Office, which is expected to yield another approximately 600 units, for a combined increase of over 1,200 units from what was originally proposed in the Plan.

    We will continue to monitor the proposed legislation and implementing documents through the approval process.

  • Assemblyman Chiu Unveils AB 3037 Community Redevelopment Proposal

    Assemblyman David Chiu has unveiled his long-promised legislation to establish a modified version of the state’s former redevelopment program, aimed at creating major state funding for affordable housing, transit, and other infrastructure. Chiu introduced AB 3037 as placeholder legislation on February 16 and amended it on March 19. Committee hearings began on April 11.

    When redevelopment agencies were eliminated in 2011, cities and counties lost approximately $1 billion in annual funding for affordable housing. Following on the heels of major state housing legislation passed in 2017, AB 3037 would allow cities and counties to establish new agencies (each, a “redevelopment housing and infrastructure agency”) to capture tax increment within designated geographic areas for affordable housing, transit priority projects and other specified infrastructure and community facilities. The legislation attempts to address critiques of former redevelopment agency spending abuses by adding auditing and other accountability measures. The state would also agree to repay any property tax losses to local school districts.

    Key features of the legislation include:

    • A requirement for state (Strategic Growth Council) consent that establishment of the local agency would further statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals.
    • Department of Finance review and approval based on specified standards, including state fiscal capacity and consistency with a to-be-negotiated tax revenue cap.
    • Housing preservation and development requirements, including implementation of anti-displacement policies, and dedication of at least 30% of the available increment to affordable housing.
    • Detailed auditing and record keeping, with major fines for non-compliance.
    • Authority to issue bonds to finance housing or infrastructure projects.

    We will continue to track this legislation as it moves through Committee hearings.

  • Farewell to Costa-Hawkins Agreements for On-Site Affordable Rental Units in SF

    San Francisco wasted no time implementing AB 1505, which authorizes localities to adopt ordinances requiring developers to provide on-site inclusionary affordable housing units in rental projects, provided that there is an alternative means of compliance such as in-lieu fees or off-site inclusionary rental units.  As explained in our prior post on 2017’s 15-bill housing package, AB 1505 supersedes case law that deemed on-site inclusionary rental unit requirements an impermissible form of rent control under the state Costa-Hawkins Act.

    Previously, project sponsors proposing on-site inclusionary units in rental projects were required to enter into Costa-Hawkins Agreements.  Those agreements state that the inclusionary rental units are being provided in exchange for a development bonus, modification of zoning standards, or direct financial contribution from the City.  Last month, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance sponsored by Supervisors Peskin and Kim to implement AB 1505, effectively eliminating Costa-Hawkins Agreements and simplifying the process for providing on-site inclusionary rental units in new development projects.  Mayor Farrell signed the ordinance on February 23, and it becomes effective March 25.

    According to the Planning Department’s January staff report to the Planning Commission, some code-compliant projects have been unable to provide on-site inclusionary rental units because they could not demonstrate the prerequisites for a Costa-Hawkins Agreement.  Most large-scale development projects need one or more exceptions from Planning Code development standards and so meeting the prerequisites has not been an issue, but Costa-Hawkins Agreements added an extra step to the entitlement process.  That step has been eliminated.  As mandated by AB 1505, the legislation would still permit developers to elect the fee or off-site options for rental projects, and it would not require on-site rental units.

  • Local Implementation of Senate Bill 35

    The San Francisco Planning Director issued a Bulletin in December 2017 explaining how SB 35 will be implemented locally now that it is effective, as of January 1, 2018. Among other things, the Bulletin includes a new ministerial Planning Code exception process for qualifying 100% affordable housing projects.

    As explained in our prior SB 35 post, the bill creates a temporary (until January 1, 2026) streamlined, ministerial — i.e., no CEQA — approval process for certain housing projects in localities that fall short on regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) production goals or fail to provide specified annual housing production reports. San Francisco has not met its RHNA goal for affordable housing below 80% AMI; therefore, projects proposing at least 50% of the residential units at 80% AMI or below qualify, so long as all other eligibility criteria are met. The Bulletin and our prior SB 35 posts contain more information about that criteria, including compliance with prevailing wage and workforce requirements.

    State Density Bonus projects are treated differently under SB 35, as explained in our prior SB 35 post. When application of the State Density Bonus Law results in an inconsistency with “objective zoning and design review standards,” that inconsistency is excused for purposes of applying SB 35. However, for other projects, a required Planning Code exception (e.g., rear yard exception) would typically disqualify the project from SB 35 processing because that project would not be consistent with all applicable objective zoning standards.

    The Bulletin addresses this issue, at least for certain 100% Affordable Housing Projects (as defined under Planning Code Section 315) that are not State Density Bonus projects under Planning Code Sections 206.5 or 206.6. The Bulletin provides that such projects “will be considered to be consistent with the objective controls of the Planning Code” and thus eligible for SB 35 processing — notwithstanding a requested Planning Code exception(s) — so long as (i) the 100% Affordable Housing Project is otherwise eligible for SB 35 and (ii) the requested Planning Code exception(s) is equal to or less than the Planning Code modifications automatically granted to a 100% Affordable Housing Bonus Project under Planning Code Section 206.4, which relate to rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, off-street loading, off-street parking and open space requirements, provided that certain criteria are met.

    To illustrate, a 100% Affordable Housing Project that meets the applicability criteria under Planning Code Sections 315 and 206.4 could provide common usable open space in an inner courtyard without meeting Planning Code Section 135(g)(2) requirements related to the heights of adjacent walls and still potentially be eligible for SB 35 processing under the Bulletin — even if the project is not a 100% Affordable Housing Bonus Project or a State Density Bonus project.

  • State Grants Two Year CEQA Streamlining Extension for “Environmental Leadership Projects”

    On October 6, 2017, Governor Brown approved Assembly Bill (AB) 246, extending certain CEQA litigation streamlining provisions under the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (the Act) for two years. The Governor may now certify projects as eligible for streamlining until January 1, 2020.  Projects that are certified for streamlining have until January 1, 2021 to complete the CEQA process and obtain project approval.

    The Act provides three key litigation streamlining benefits to qualifying projects:

    1. All judicial challenges to an EIR certification or related project approvals, including “any potential appeals,” must be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings (i.e., the administrative record) for the EIR with the court. Pub. Res. Code § 21185.  Absent such streamlining, CEQA litigation can last for two years or more with appeals;
    2. The schedule for preparation of the administrative record is shortened and the record must be prepared by the lead agency, eliminating the petitioner’s ability to elect to prepare it; and
    3. The lead agency must certify the record within 5 days of its approval of the project (rather than 60 days after filing the petition under the normal CEQA process).

    Qualifying Projects:

    Three types of projects can qualify as an Environmental Leadership Project: (1) a clean renewable energy project that generates electricity exclusively through wind or solar; (2) a clean energy manufacturing project; or (3) a “residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural, entertainment, or recreational use project.”

    Project sponsors must submit a detailed application to the Governor demonstrating that the project meets eligibility criteria for streamlining, such as achieving a LEED gold rating or better and enhancing transportation efficiency metrics. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21180  (Guidelines available here).  Upon receipt and review, the Governor has the discretion to certify the project after making findings, including that the project will “result in a minimum investment of $100,000,000 in California upon completion of construction”; generate “high-wage, highly skilled jobs that pay prevailing wages and living wages and provide construction jobs and permanent jobs”; and not produce any net additional greenhouse gas emissions.

  • Environmental Justice Element Now Required for California’s General Plans

    As of January 1, 2018, California’s cities, counties, and charter cities are required to either adopt an Environmental Justice Element in their General Plan or integrate Environmental Justice policies and goals into the elements of their General Plan “upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently.” Gov. Code Sec. 65302(h)(2).

    The new Environmental Justice element differs from other General Plan elements because it applies to jurisdictions with “disadvantaged communities” (defined below) and requires those jurisdictions to “[i]dentify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity.” The element also requires jurisdictions to develop policies that promote participation in public decision-making and to prioritize programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities. Gov. Code Sec. 65302(h)(1)(A), (B), (C).

    Many of the Environmental Justice element’s requirements include topics that are already found in other General Plan elements. For example, the Office of Planning and Research 2017 General Plan Guidelines state that promoting transit-oriented development, locating residential zones away from industrial sites and pollution emitters, and promoting bike and pedestrian connectivity in disadvantaged communities are all policies that satisfy various statutory requirements.

    The statute defines a “disadvantaged community” as (1) an area designated by the California Environmental Protection Agency under Health & Safety Code Sec. 39711 (mapped here) or (2) a low-income area “that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.” Gov. Code 65302(h)(4)(A). A “low-income area” has “household incomes at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income . . . ” or is an area designated by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Gov. Code 65302(h)(4)(C); Health & Safety Code 50093.

    California currently has two municipalities that have adopted Environmental Justice Elements: Jurupa Valley and National City. Even though both elements predate the Environmental Justice element statute, and therefore do not clearly meet all its requirements, the Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines cite the policies in both elements extensively and hold them up as models.

     

  • Dude, Where’s My Car? San Francisco’s New Gross Floor Area Definition Furthers Sustainable Transportation Goals

    The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering minor modifications to the Planning Code definition of Gross Floor Area. The Planning Department characterizes these changes as “good government” measures to clarify the Code and further the City’s sustainable transportation goals.

    The proposed changes count floor area dedicated to accessory or non-accessory parking as Gross Floor Area, except for: (1) required car-share parking, (2) required off-street loading, and (3) accessory parking within the amount principally permitted as accessory and located in a “Basement Story” (detailed below). Other exemptions from Gross Floor Area’s definition, such as uninhabitable attic space, fire escapes, and mechanical areas, remain unaffected.

    The most noteworthy change is incentivizing car-share spaces in new developments by excluding them from Gross Floor Area that would count toward the FAR calculation. This is in keeping with the City’s Transportation Sustainability Program and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program (examined in an earlier post), which aim to, among other things, reduce car traffic and promote higher transit ridership. Indeed, this change tracks closely with prior legislation from earlier this year that excluded car-share spaces provided as part of a development project’s TDM Program from the definition of Gross Floor Area. Together, the prior legislation and this recent change expand the types of car-share spaces that are excluded from the definition of Gross Floor Area.

    Additional minor, mostly clarifying changes include:

    • Inclusion of floor space in accessory buildings in C-3 districts in the definition of Gross Floor Area;
    • Exclusion of required off-street loading spaces from the definition of Gross Floor Area for all districts, not just C-3 districts;
    • Removal of extraneous references to C-3 districts where distinguishing C-3 districts from all other zoning districts is unnecessary;
    • Replacement of “underground,” with “Basement Story,” a defined term, to clarify that floor space dedicated to accessory parking that does not exceed the amount principally permitted as accessory and that is located in a Basement Story is not included in the definition of Gross Floor Area.

    The ordinance was unanimously recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission and was assigned to the Board’s Land Use and Transportation Committee under the 30-day rule on October 20th.

  • Governor Brown Signs Major Housing Package Into Law

    On September 29, 2017, Governor Brown signed into law a 15-bill housing package.  A few of the key components, including approval streamlining, are summarized below.  The housing package did not include AB 915, which would have authorized the City and County of San Francisco to impose local inclusionary requirements on bonus units created under the State Density Bonus Law. San Francisco adopted legislation in August that imposes inclusionary housing requirements on bonus units in the form of a fee, and the Legislature’s failure to pass AB 915 creates uncertainty about its enforceability.

    Multi-Family Housing Approval Streamlining

    SB 35 creates a temporary (until January 1, 2026) streamlined, ministerial (i.e., no CEQA) approval process for certain housing projects in localities that fall short on regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) production goals or fail to provide certain annual housing production reports.  To qualify, a project must be a multifamily “infill” development that is consistent with “objective zoning and design review standards.”  Our prior SB 35 post contains more information about other eligibility criteria, including compliance with prevailing wage requirements.  SB 35 now also includes workforce requirements that will be phased in over time.

    SB 35 creates targeted streamlining based on the type of RHNA shortfall:

    • If the shortfall is for households earning 120% or more of Area Median Income (AMI), a project providing 10% of units affordable to households earning below 80% AMI may be eligible for streamlining, unless a higher inclusionary percentage applies in that locality.
    • If the shortfall is for households earning below 80% AMI, then a project providing 50% of units affordable to households earning below 80% AMI may be eligible for streamlining, unless a higher inclusionary percentage applies in that locality.

    State Density Bonus Law projects are treated differently under SB 35. As explained in our prior post, that law provides for additional density and other concessions, incentives or waivers of development standards for certain housing projects with on-site affordable housing units. When application of the State Density Bonus Law results in an inconsistency with “objective zoning and design review standards,” that inconsistency is excused for purposes of applying SB 35. For example, if rear yard requirements are waived for a density bonus project, the project would be deemed consistent with that requirement for purposes of SB 35.

    Affordable Housing Funding

    SB 2 creates a permanent source of funding for affordable housing and is projected to generate as much as $250 million per year by imposing a $75 fee on recorded documents for many real estate transactions. SB 3 places a housing bond onto the ballot in November 2018, which, if passed by California voters, would authorize the issuance of $4 billion in housing bonds, some of which would be earmarked for veterans.

    Inclusionary Housing Requirement “Fixes”

    AB 1505 authorizes localities to require on-site inclusionary affordable housing units in rental projects, superseding the Court of Appeal’s 2009 decision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, which determined that such requirements were invalid under the Costa-Hawkins Act as an impermissible form of rent control.

    AB 1505 also gives the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) the authority to intervene if a new local inclusionary housing ordinance requires more than 15% of rental units to be affordable to low-income households in localities that fall short on the production of above moderate-income (120% AMI) units.  HCD may require an economic feasibility study to establish that the inclusionary ordinance does not “unduly constrain” housing production.  It may reduce the inclusionary requirement to 15% if the economic feasibility study is inadequate for one or more specified reasons (e.g., if it was not prepared by a qualified entity).

  • Action Required to Maintain DMCA Safe Harbor Protection

    Parties that operate websites may enjoy immunity from copyright liability for the infringing posts of their users under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). The DMCA offers a “safe harbor” from copyright infringement liability for Internet service providers where the provider establishes and publicizes in its website Terms of Use, a process for responding to claims of copyright infringement.

    As part of the DMCA immunity process, service providers must designate and register with the U.S. Copyright Office, an agent to receive notifications of claimed copyright infringement. The U.S. Copyright Office has implemented a new online agent designation system, and all previously paper-filed agent designations will expire on December 31, 2017. Companies that wish to continue to enjoy DMCA safe harbor protections must re-register by filing a new agent designation electronically via the Copyright Office’s new DMCA web portal.

    You can register (or re-register) your Agent to Receive Notice of claimed copyright infringements on the U.S. Copyright Office website, at the following link: https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/. You will first need to create a DMCA Designated Agent Registration Account that will be used to log into the system, and then follow the prompts to register your agent information. There is a government fee of $6.00 for up to 10 domains. Registration is good for 3 years, from the date an agent designation is first made, or when it is amended or updated.

    Please note also that accurate contact information for your designated DMCA agent must be available on your website, and is often included as part of a Terms of Service disclosure.

    Posted on: October 17, 2017 Tags: Categories: Publications

  • Assessing Drone Industry Successes & Challenges as the FAA’s Small Commercial Drone Rule Turns 1

    By Scott C. Hall.

    The Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA’s”) Part 107 rule for small commercial drone operation, effective as of August 2016, has now been up and running for over a year. In light of this milestone, the FAA recently took the opportunity to highlight various successes resulting from the rule and to promote continuing drone innovation and operations. Yet, while much progress has been made in commercial drone use over the past year, an honest assessment also requires acknowledging that there are still many obstacles to overcome, and much work to do, to fully realize the benefits of commercial drone operation in the U.S.

    One particularly notable success for the drone industry has been the important role played by drones in supporting emergency response and rescue efforts in connection with recent natural disasters, including Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma. In addition to the use of drones by media outlets to provide news coverage of otherwise inaccessible areas affected by the hurricanes, the FAA issued well over 100 specific authorizations – sometimes within hours of a request – to drone operators performing time-sensitive search and rescue missions or assessing damage to roads, bridges and other critical infrastructure in disaster areas. FAA Administrator Michael Huerta commented on the role of drones in the wake of recent hurricanes as a “landmark in the evolution of drone usage in the country.”

    However, despite these beneficial uses of drones in emergency response situations, not all drone news in connection with recent hurricanes and other natural disasters has been positive. As in years past, drones made news this year for interfering with emergency responders fighting wildfires in California. Because helicopters and other aircraft supporting critical emergency response efforts can easily collide with drones – causing potentially significant damage, injury, and even death – emergency response aircraft must often remain grounded if unauthorized drones are spotted in the area. This significantly impairs the ability of emergency responders to do their jobs. Unauthorized drone use also threatened to impede efforts of the U.S. National Guard, Marines and Coast Guard to rescue and recover individuals in hurricane disaster zones. In fact, these incidents caused the FAA to officially warn on its website that flying a drone in or near a disaster area may violate federal, state, or local laws and ordinances, and that unauthorized drone operators may be subject to significant fines if they interfere with emergency response operations. Thus, while drones are playing an increasingly important role in disaster response, continued misuse of drones has also complicated rescue and response efforts in various respects.

    The FAA also touted the continued expansion of commercial drone use across a variety of industries, including insurance, news and media, construction, mapping and surveying, and infrastructure inspection, among others. According to the FAA, uses of drones for scientific research, emergency response, and government infrastructure improvements are also rapidly expanding. Additionally, several companies, including Amazon, Domino’s Pizza, 7-Eleven and Flirtey, have attempted to spark consumer excitement for drones in recent months by demonstrating the potential for drone delivery of food and other consumer products.

    At the same time, however, many in the industry lament the fact that the U.S. still seems to be years away from integrating commercial drone deliveries and other innovative drone uses into the regulatory regime, even while such uses are moving forward in other countries.  Indeed, the FAA has stated that – putting aside isolated publicity stunts – it does not believe that regulations for delivery drones will be ready until at least 2020, even while countries in Africa are currently benefitting from drone delivery systems transporting items such as blood and life-saving emergency supplies on a daily basis.

    In addition to regulatory hurdles, part of the delay in drone innovation in the U.S. may be attributable to ongoing public skepticism regarding drones due to reported misuse of drones and their perceived potentially harmful impacts on safety and privacy.  For example, according to some reports, while 75% of consumers expect drone deliveries by 2021, only 44% said they liked the idea of drone delivery. Thus, despite the undeniable increase in commercial drone use over the past year under Part 107 – and the inevitable continued expansion over the next few years – fully realizing the many potential benefits and services drones can provide must still await slow regulatory and lawmaking processes and gain greater public acceptance of anticipated uses.

    Ultimately, the FAA acknowledges that Part 107, as it exists currently, isn’t the end of the story – it’s the starting point. By 2021, the FAA estimates there could be as many as 1.6 million small drones in commercial operation throughout the country. There is still a lot to be done to realize the full commercial potential of drones, much of which will require increasingly complex drone operations (and correspondingly sophisticated laws and regulations), including for flights over people, operations beyond line-of-sight, delivery of goods, and even transportation of people. But, if commercial drone operations are to successfully accommodate the predicted increase in the number of commercial drones and expand on pace with expected innovations in the technology, it will require the coordination of many actors, including lawmakers at federal, state and local levels, drone manufacturers and operators, and greater acceptance by the public at large, to achieve.

    Posted on: September 25, 2017 Tags: Categories: Publications