Legislative Analysis Archives

California Passes New Law to Spur Housing

September 20, 2023September 20, 2023 | Melinda Sarjapur

Last week the California Legislature passed SB-423, new law introduced by Senator Scott Weiner to spur statewide housing production.

SB-423 extends and expands SB-35 (Weiner, 2017), which allows streamlined, ministerial processing for housing developments in cities that haven’t met their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) goals. Qualifying SB-35 projects must also meet certain criteria, including on-site affordability and labor requirements, and comply with local objective zoning standards.

SB-35 has been celebrated by housing development advocates statewide over the past six years for unlocking the potential to develop thousands of new homes. According to an August 2023 report issued by the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation, SB-35 spurred applications for construction of more than 18,000 new units in California between 2018 and 2021, 62% of which were 100% affordable.

SB-423 extends the original term of SB-35 by decade, to January 1, 2036.

It also makes a number of significant tweaks to SB-35, including:

Extending into the Coastal Zone. Previously, SB-35 did not apply to property within California’s Coastal Zone, which is a band of land that extends approximately 840 miles along California’s coast. SB-423 removes this exemption, allowing SB-35 to apply within the Coastal Zone beginning January 1, 2025, except for certain environmentally sensitive or hazardous locations, or areas not zoned for multifamily housing. Qualifying developments would still require a Coastal Zone Permit, but the public agency must approve it if they determine the development is consistent with objective zoning standards, which may be modified through state density bonus law.
Shortening San Francisco’s Reporting Period. SB-35 applies to cities that aren’t meeting their RHNA housing production goals either for low- or above-moderate income categories, which is typically determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) every four years. However, SB-423 singles-out the City of San Francisco, requiring analysis of its RHNA goal progress (and SB-35 eligibility under each income category) every year. As of the most recent assessment, San Francsico was meeting RHNA goals for above-moderate income housing, but not low-income housing. As a result, SB-35 projects in the City must currently provide 50% of units affordable to low-income households. However, if moving forward San Francisco falls below above-moderate income housing targets in an annual review period, projects could instead qualify for SB-35 by providing 10% of on-site units as affordable. Local Inclusionary Program requirements would still apply, but affordable units under SB-35 would count toward the local requirements.
Tying Application to Housing Element Compliance. SB-423 extends application of SB-35 to Cities that have failed to adopt a compliant housing element as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), even if they’re currently meeting RHNA goals.
Altering Affordability Requirements. SB-423 amends the affordability requirements for rental units in 10% jurisdictions, requiring such units to be affordable to households making 50% of the area median income, instead of the current 80%. The legislation also includes an alternate definition for “affordable rent” for developments that dedicate 100% of their units, exclusive of manager’s units, to lower income households.
Clarifying Interaction with Local Inclusionary Programs. It specifies that if a local BMR program requires units that are restricted as affordable to AMI tiers higher than those required by SB-35, the units meeting SB-35 thresholds will satisfy the local program requirements for higher-income units.
Amends Labor Standards. It requires projects over 85 feet in height, regardless of unit count, to utilize a skilled and trained workforce. Further, on projects with 50 or more units, contractors and subcontractors with construction craft employees must meet specified apprenticeship program and health care expenditure requirements.
Allowing the State to Approve Development on State Property. It authorizes the California Department of General Services, at its discretion, to act in the place of the local government, at its discretion, in order to approve SB-35 projects on property owned by or leased to the state.
Creating New Noticing Requirements. Requires local governments to hold a public meeting within 45 days of receiving a notice of intent to submit an SB-35 application for projects proposed in a census tract designated as a moderate- or low-resource area, or an area of high segregation and poverty.
Limiting the Scope of Local Review. Expressly states that cities cannot request studies, information or other materials that are not related to determining whether the development is consistent with the objective standards, nor can they require compliance with any standards necessary to receive a post-entitlement permit before the issuance of the project’s entitlement.

SB-423 is now on Governor Newsom’s desk along with a long list of other new bills passed just before the end of the legislative session. The Governor has until October 14^th to sign or veto the bill. Unless vetoed, it will take effect on January 1, 2024.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner Melinda Sarjapur.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient. Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein. Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm. We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law. We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

State Law Would Limit HOA Assessments for Affordable Units

September 6, 2023September 6, 2023 | Jay Drake

Assembly Bill 572, introduced by Assembly Member Matt Haney of San Francisco, would place a cap on assessment increases a condominium homeowners association (HOA) could impose on a deed-restricted affordable unit, subject to certain exceptions. AB 572 would amend California Civil Code 5605, part of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, to prohibit an increase of the HOA regular assessment for a deed-restricted affordable unit that is more than 5% greater than the preceding year’s regular assessment, or that is greater than the annual percentage change in cost of living, whichever is larger. The maximum increase for a deed-restricted affordable unit would be 10% greater than the preceding year’s regular assessment. The “percentage change in the cost of living” would be determined using the Consumer Price Index for the region where the project is located. The limitation would not apply to a development where 30% or more of the units are deed-restricted affordable units.

Civil Code Section 5605 already provides that an HOA board of directors may not impose a regular assessment that is more than 20% greater than the regular assessment for the HOA’s preceding fiscal year without the approval of a certain number of the HOA members. The proposed amendment to Section 5605 would extend this existing rule by further limiting such increases as applied to deed-restricted affordable units.

Under current state law, there is no difference between the assessments paid by affordable and market-rate units. Having one group of owners pay more and subsidize another group of owners who receive the same benefits and services is not allowed.

It may be well-intentioned, but AB 572 is somewhat controversial and opposed by some industry groups for a few reasons.

This new law could result in the affordable units paying less than the market-rate units for the same services and benefits. This disparate treatment could breed resentment from the market-rate owners, who were not part of the original approval of the project and imposition of affordable housing requirements, yet could be burdened with the responsibility of paying a disproportionate share of assessments and subsidizing the affordable units in the project. This could be viewed as unfair to the market-rate unit owners.

This new law is also seen by some as designating affordable unit owners as a separate class of homeowners, which could create inequities and sow division among the residents of the community.

There is also concern that in order to avoid any controversy, an HOA might decide to cap all increases in HOA assessments at an artificially low amount in order to keep the assessments the same for all units. This could result in an HOA reducing services and deferring necessary maintenance, and could also result in large special assessments down the road to make up for insufficient HOA funds.

AB 572 is currently processing in the State legislature. We will continue to monitor and report back if the bill passes and becomes law.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner Jay Drake.

Legislation Aimed at Impact Fee Reform Nears Final Approval

August 24, 2023 | Kaitlin Sheber

Last month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed on first reading Impact Fee Reform legislation aimed to make development more predictable, easier, and financially feasible. The legislation complements the proposed BMR and impact fee changes our office previously reported on and will:

Reinstate the fee deferral program;
Escalate development impact fees by 2% each January;
Allow projects to lock in the type and rate of impact fees to be paid;
Waive development fees for a narrow category of projects; and
Adopt a nexus analysis that was completed in December 2021.

The Impact Fee Reform legislation is a part of the City’s efforts at recovery from the pandemic and is meant to supplement efforts to accomplish the policy goals outlined in the updated Housing Element that was adopted earlier this year. Inclusionary housing development impact fees are specifically excluded from the scope of the legislation, so would not be affected.

Below is a brief summary of the changes proposed by the legislation:

Fee Deferral Program

The legislation would reinstate and modify a Fee Deferral Program that expired in 2013 to allow project sponsors to defer 80%-85% of total development impact fees, except inclusionary affordable housing fees. For projects that opt to defer fees:

Generally, projects subject to a neighborhood infrastructure impact development fee would be required to pay 20% of the total amount of development fees owed prior to issuance of the first construction document;
For projects not subject to a neighborhood infrastructure impact development fee, project sponsors would be required to pay 15% of the total amount of development fees owed prior to issuance of the first construction document.

The remaining percentage of fees must be paid before issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. To obtain deferral, the project sponsor must submit a deferral request to DBI on a form provided by DBI before issuance of the first construction document. Fee deferral is not available to project sponsors that pay the fee before the effective date of the legislation. Projects subject to a development agreement would be eligible for fee deferral, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

Development Fee Indexing

The legislation would replace and simplify the current method of annual fee escalation with a 2% escalation rate every January 1st.

Development Fee Assessment

The legislation proposes to freeze the rates of development impact fees as follows:

Additionally, the legislation institutes new procedures for assessing development impact fees when a development project requires a modification, renewal, or extension.

Development Impact Fee Waivers for Certain Projects

The legislation would also waive development impact fees for certain projects. Eligible projects that obtain a final approval before the effective date of the ordinance that have not already paid development impact fees are eligible for waiver. Waiver under the legislation is set to expire on December 31, 2026.

Projects in Production, Distribution, and Repair (“PDR”) Districts:

Within PDR Districts, projects that meet the following requirements are eligible for waiver from development impact fees related to establishing new PDR or retail use:

Located in a PDR District;
Contain a retail or PDR use and no residential uses;
Propose new construction of at least 20,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) and a maximum of 200,000 square feet of GFA;
Located on a vacant site or site improved with buildings with less than a 0.25:1 Floor Area Ratio on the date a development application is submitted; and
Submit a complete development application on or before December 31, 2026.

Projects in C-2 and C-3 Districts

Within C-2 and C-3 Districts, projects that meet the following requirements are eligible for waiver from development impact fees related to establishing hotel, restaurant, bar, outdoor activity, or entertainment use:

Located in a C-2 or C-3 District;
Contain hotel, restaurant, bar, outdoor activity, or entertainment use; and
Submit a completed development application on or before December 31, 2026.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Kaitlin Sheber.

Legislation to Overhaul Residential Building & Zoning Standards

August 21, 2023August 22, 2023 | Tara Sullivan

On June 29^th, the San Francisco Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of Mayor Breed’s proposed legislation titled “Housing Production” (BOS File No. 23-0446). The legislation amends the Planning Code to encourage housing production by focusing on the controls that mainly apply to Residential and Neighborhood-Commercial Districts. This legislation is proposing significant and far-reaching changes that will greatly change how residential projects are developed, for the better.

First, the legislation proposes to reduce the number and type of projects that require Planning Commission hearings. The major changes are below:

Eliminate Conditional Use Authorization (“CUA”) / Planning Commission Hearing / Neighbor Notice

The legislation also proposes to modify some of the more basic building standards that apply to most properties in the city: setbacks, open space, and lot area requirements. If passed, these changes would be the most radical to residential projects in decades. A summary of the significant changes are below.

Required Rear Yard (Section 134)

Lot Size (Section 121, 121.1)

Front Yard/Setback (Section 132)

Usable Open Space (Section 135)

There are several other changes proposed, but the above are the most far-reaching. The legislation is currently awaiting a hearing at the Land Use & Transportation Committee, which may happen once the Board of Supervisors returns from their summer recess. As with any legislation, changes may occur before it is finally passed, but it is expected to pass largely as-is.

Reuben, Junius, & Rose, LLP will continue to monitor this legislation and provide an update once passed.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner Tara Sullivan.

2023 California Legislation – Summer Recess Update

August 15, 2023August 15, 2023 | Justin A. Zucker

The California legislature reconvened yesterday, after taking a summer recess. As previously reported, this year’s legislative session is packed full of pending bills with far reaching changes to land use controls and local controls of such. In this update, I provide the status of bills introduced related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State Density Bonus Law, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), parking, and housing policies. Bills previously reported in 2023 Legislation at a Glance – Part 1 or Part 2 and not discussed below failed to leave their house of origin and advance to their second house.

CEQA:

Many of the previously reported CEQA bills have failed to advance out of their house of origin. There are, however, some CEQA bills advancing through their second house to note, including:

AB 1307 (Wicks and Luz Rivas) Residents’ Noise Not A Significant Effect. This bill, which appears to be in response to the University of Berkeley People’s Park project hang up, would amend CEQA to clarify that for residential projects, noise generated by the unamplified voices of residents is not a significant effect on the environment. A mirror bill, AB 1700(Hoover) failed to advance.
AB 1449 (Alvarez) 100% Affordable Housing Exemption. This bill would, until January 1, 2033, exempt 100% affordable housing projects from CEQA. While there are other tools available to make 100% affordable housing projects ministerial and not subject to CEQA, e.g., SB 35 (2017, Weiner), there are no workforce standards tethered to AB 1449.
AB 356 (Mathis) Aesthetics Not a Significant Effect. This bill would extend the current regulation, set to sunset January 1, 2024, that aesthetic impacts are not considered significant effects on the environment for housing projects involving the refurbishment, conversion, repurposing, or replacement of an existing building.
SB 393 (Glazer) CEQA Litigation Underwriting Disclosures. This bill would require, upon request, a petitioner of an action attacking a project’s CEQA compliance to identify every person or entity that contributes in excess of $10,000 to the costs of the action.

State Density Bonus Law:

AB 1287 (Alvarez) Additional Density Bonus. This bill would allow up to an additional 50% density bonus for projects that (1) maximize the very low income, low income, or moderate-income units permitted under the current State Density Bonus Law and (2) provide up to 15% additional moderate-income units. A bonus up to 38.75% can be obtained by providing 10% very low-income units. 100% affordable projects would be eligible to receive five incentives or concessions. Previously, this bill was to modify the State Density Bonus Law to supersede the California Coastal Act of 1976 and up to six incentives or concessions for certain projects, but those provisions were removed.

AB 323 (Holden) Restricting Use of For-Sale Units as Rentals. This bill has progressed intact; it would prohibit a developer from offering a for-sale unit constructed pursuant to a local inclusionary zoning ordinance to a purchaser that intends to rent the unit to families of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income families, unless the developer can prove that none of the applicants for owner-occupancy can qualify for the unit. Any violation would be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $15,000.

ADUs:

All but one of the bills previously reported on pertaining to ADUs (AB 1661) have left their house of origin and are advancing through their respective second house. The bills that advanced include:

AB 1033 (Ting) ADU Condominiumization. This bill would allow a local jurisdiction to permit condominiumization and sale of ADUs separate from the primary residence.
AB 1332 (Carillo) Pre-Approved ADU Plan Sets. This bill would require jurisdictions, by January 1, 2025, to develop a program for the preapproval of ADUs plans. Initially six sets of preapproved plans were to be prepared, but as amended, no amount to be published is set.
AB 976 (Ting) No Owner-Occupancy Requirement. This bill would make permanent an existing prohibition to imposing an owner-occupancy requirement on an ADU that sunsets January 1, 2025.
SB 477 (Committee on Housing) ADU Chapter. This bill would create a new Government Code chapter to house state ADU regulations. It has been amended to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Parking Controls:

All three bills relaxing parking controls previously reported on have advanced to their second house:

AB 1317 (Carrillo) Unbundled Parking for Residential Property. This bill would require landlords to “unbundle” parking costs from rent for leases or rental agreements for residential property in Alameda, Fresno, Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Shasta, and Ventura counties, commencing or renewed on or after January 1, 2025.
AB 1308 (Quirk-Silva) Parking Requirements for Single-Family Homes. This bill would prohibit a local jurisdiction’s ability to increase the applicable minimum parking requirements of a single-family residence as a condition of approval to remodel, renovate, or add to a single-family residence.
AB 894 (Friedman) Shared Parking. This bill would provide a pathway to activate underutilized parking (as defined) as shared parking spaces with other users, which would count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement.

Housing Policies:

While several previously reported housing bills have failed to advance, several have made it on to their second house, including:

AB 1485 (Haney) State Intervention in Actions Involving Violations of Housing Laws. This bill would grant the Attorney General an unconditional right to intervene in any lawsuit filed over a potential violation of an enumerated list of state housing laws, including, among others, the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and the Density Bonus Law. This bill was amended to allow both the Attorney General and the Department of Housing and Community Development to intervene.

AB 1633 (Ting) Housing Accountability Act Protection Extended to CEQA Review. This bill would expand the Housing Accountability Act’s definition of “disapprove the housing development project” to include any instance when a local agency fails to issue an exemption, fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, or certify an environmental impact report or another comparable environmental document. This bill was amended to include a sunset date of January 1, 2031.

SB 423 (Weiner) SB 35 Extension and Expansion. This bill would extend SB 35 (2017, Weiner), which is currently set to expire January 1, 2026, and expand its applicably as previously discussed. While the bill has remained intact, SB 423 has been amended with significant additions as follows:

Limited Duration. Initially, SB 423’s extension was to be permanent but has since been limited to sunset January 1, 2036.
Labor Standards. Skilled and trained workforce provisions are required for projects having habitable space above 85 feet in height.
Local Enforcement. The bill would allow localities to take administrative action or sue a construction contractor for failure to comply with the ordinance’s workforce standards.
Community Engagement. In areas designated as either a moderate resource area, low resource area, or an area of high segregation, a public meeting must be held before application submittal to provide an opportunity for the public and local government to comment on the project.

AB 1218 (Lowenthal) SB 330 Amendments. This bill would tweak SB 330 (2019, Skinner) by extending the protected unit demolition and replacement controls, which currently only apply to housing development projects, also to projects that are not considered housing developments. This bill would also place the restrictions on demolition of protected units and replacement requirements into a separate provision that will apply permanently, which otherwise would become inoperative on January 1, 2030.

We will continue to track these import pieces of legislation. September 14, 2023, is the last day for each house to pass bills. October 14, 2023, is the last day for Governor Newson to sign or veto bills timely passed by the legislature. Please stay tuned later this fall for a repeat of last year’s 2022 Housing Legislation Round-Up with a summary of relevant 2023 legislation signed into law. If you have any questions regarding any of the pieces of proposed legislation, please reach out to me.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Justin A. Zucker.

Summer SF Legislation Roundup

August 9, 2023August 9, 2023 | Melinda Sarjapur

Below is a round-up of some items introduced before the Board of Supervisor’s summer recess, which will run from July 31^st to September 4^th.

Update to Ordinance That Would Expand Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses

In early June, Mayor Breed and Supervisors Engardio, Dorsey, and Melgar introduced an ordinance aimed at reducing zoning restrictions to allow more types of commercial use on the ground floor of certain neighborhood commercial and residential districts.

For an in-depth overview of this legislation, see our June 22^nd update.

On July 25^th, the Mayor substituted an amended version of this legislation. It has been assigned to the Land Use and Transportation Commission, where it will likely be heard in the early fall.

Changes in the updated version appear minor, and include:

allowing formula retail restaurants with conditional use authorization at the ground floor in the Mission Street Formula Retail Restaurant Subdistrict;
retaining the flat prohibition on formula retail pet supply stores or restaurants in the Geary Boulevard Formula Retail Pet Supply Store and Formula Retail Eating and Drinking Subdistrict;
correcting the summary description of maximum number of eating and drinking uses that would be allowed in the Mission Street NCTD to 197 (from 179); and
clarifying that formula retail and restaurant controls would be amended in certain residential districts, as well as commercial districts.

A Tweak to Prop X

Section 202.8 of the Planning Code, enacted by voters in 2016 as “Prop X”, limits projects that would convert Production, Distribution, and Repair (“PDR”) uses, Institutional Community uses and Arts Activities uses in certain Eastern Neighborhoods Plan areas and Central SoMa.

With limited exemptions, Prop X imposes specific replacement requirements for projects that would convert building space where the prior use was:

a PDR use of at least 5,000 square feet;
an Institutional Community use of at least 2,500 square feet; or
an Arts Activities use.

On July 25^th, Supervisor Dorsey introduced an ordinance that would create an exemption from Prop X replacement requirements for projects proposing change of use from one of the listed uses above to another listed use, or to new Institutional Education uses, in areas zoned SALI, MUO, SLI, MUG or MUR as of July 1, 2016. This could allow for a more efficient change of use process, encouraging continued use of buildings.

This legislation would require a supermajority vote (i.e., 8 members) of the Board to pass, and has been assigned under the Board’s 30-day rule to the Land Use and Transportation Committee for review.

Vacant Storefront Fee Waivers

Currently, owners of vacant or abandoned commercial storefronts are required to register the storefront with the Department of Building Inspection (“DBI”) within 30 days of a vacancy or abandonment, pay an annual registration fee, and to renew the registration annually.

On July 25^th, Mayor Breed introduced an ordinance that allows the Director of DBI to waive the annual registration fee for storefronts that comply with City and state law, do not contribute to blight as defined by the Administrative Code, and are ready for occupancy and being offered for sale, lease, or rent.

This ordinance has been referred to the Building Inspection Commission for comment and recommendation.

Reduction of Entertainment Permit Requirements

On July 25^th, Mayor Breed introduced an ordinance that could reduce entertainment permit requirements citywide, encouraging a sector that will draw in locals and tourists alike.

The ordinance, which has been referred to the City’s Small Business Commission for review, would do the following:

waive the initial license and filing fees through June 30, 2025, for certain Entertainment Permits for current or former holders of Just Add Music Permits;
waive initial license and filing fees for Entertainment Permits for applicants who are newly eligible to apply for those permits due to recent Planning Code amendments;
eliminate masked ball permits;
require applicants for Arcade, Ancillary Use, billiard and pool table, Place of Entertainment, Limited Live Performance, Fixed Place Outdoor Amplified Sound, and Extended-Hours Premises Permits to submit a new Permit application and filing fee if their existing application has not been granted, conditionally granted, or denied within 12 months of its submission;
authorize the Entertainment Commission Director to issue billiard and pool table permits without a hearing, and allow them to be suspended or revoked under the standards that apply to other Entertainment Permits;
eliminate the requirement that applicants for Place of Entertainment Permits disclose criminal history information regarding certain individuals connected with the applicant business;
narrow the categories of new criminal charges, complaints, or indictments brought against a Place of Entertainment Permittee or its employees or agents that the Permittee must report, to only those charges, complaints or indictments that could be grounds for suspension of the Permit; and
allow the Entertainment Commission Director to require an applicant for a Limited Live Performance Permit to propose a Security Plan if necessary to protect the safety of persons and property or provide for the orderly dispersal of persons and traffic, to make compliance with the Security Plan a condition of the Permit, and to require revisions to the Security Plan as necessary.

Decline in Value Tax Appeals are Due Soon

Tax bills are in the mail for the 2023/2024 tax year. Many commercial owners have experienced a decline in income and property value due to reduced occupancy and rental rates. Some residential neighborhoods have also declined in value. The good news is that there is the possibility for some temporary real estate tax relief. Property owners have the right to file decline in value appeals (also referred to as Prop. 8 appeals) to account for such market conditions. The deadline for properties located in San Francisco is September 15, 2023. Alameda County’s deadline is also September 15, 2023. Contra Costa County and San Mateo County give a bit more time – November 30, 2023 is their deadline. (Deadlines are taken from each County’s website.)

If you would like more information about a real estate tax appeal, contact Kevin Rose at krose@reubenlaw.com.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Melinda Sarjapur.

LA Court Weighs In on the Builder’s Remedy

July 26, 2023July 26, 2023 | Sabrina Eshaghi

Until now, the notorious “builder’s remedy” had not been tested in court, leaving developers with serious questions about how it works and whether it’s worth potential legal challenges from unamenable cities. Recently, however, a superior court in Los Angeles referenced the builder’s remedy in a ruling that implied the remedy is available in the City of La Cañada Flintridge. This case, and others that are still in the pipeline, will have significant implications for developers who have filed builder’s remedy projects, or are considering doing so, as well as for cities across the state.

Builder’s Remedy

According to the HCD’s Housing Element Review and Compliance Report (as of 7/24/23), only 33 out of 109 Bay Area jurisdictions have adopted fully compliant Housing Elements. As discussed in our previous e-update, the deadline for Bay Area cities and counties to revise housing elements has passed, and those that remain noncompliant have opened themselves up to builder’s remedy projects.

The builder’s remedy is a mechanism in the Housing Accountability Act that prohibits any city that has not adopted a compliant housing element by the required deadline from applying its general plan and zoning standards to reject certain housing development projects. To qualify for the builder’s remedy, a project must provide either 20% of the units as affordable to 80% AMI households (low-income), or 100% of the units as affordable to 120% AMI households (moderate-income).

Because the builder’s remedy has never been tested in court, there is uncertainty about how the builder’s remedy applies in practice and how cities will process these projects. Many cities that failed to adopt compliant housing elements have openly defied state law by stating that the builder’s remedy doesn’t apply to them or by passing an ordinance banning builder’s remedy projects.

La Cañada Flintridge Case

Southern California jurisdictions were required to adopt their updated Housing Element by October 15, 2021. The City of La Cañada Flintridge adopted its Housing Element on October 4, 2022, which was determined to be inadequate by HCD. On February 21, 2023, the city adopted an amended Housing Element, which HCD again found to not be in substantial compliance with state law.

While stopping short of confirming HCD’s finding and determining whether the substance of the city’s Housing Element complied with state law, the court found that the Housing Element is not in compliance with state law because the city missed mandatory deadlines. Specifically, the city failed to adopt a Housing Element within 120 days of the deadline and was therefore subject to the penalty requiring it to complete its rezoning within one year of the statutory deadline-i.e., by October 15, 2022- instead of the three years otherwise permitted. Because the city’s challenged Housing Element was not adopted until February 21, 2023, and the Housing Element had still not been certified by HCD, the court was required to find that the city’s Housing Element will not be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law until the required rezoning is complete. This appears to put to rest the idea that a city can avoid all the consequences of failing to obtain HCD certification by “self-certifying” its own Housing Element.

Although the city argued that the timelines under the Housing Element Law are purely directory, the court disagreed and confirmed that the timelines are mandatory. In making that finding, the court looked to the penalties that apply for missing the deadlines and confirmed “there are at least two significant penalties for failing to timely adopt a housing element. First, there is the rezoning penalty…that is the subject of this litigation…Second, the HAA contains [the] builder’s remedy that limits a city’s ability to deny a development for low-cost housing unless its housing element…is in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law.” To our knowledge, this is the first time a court has opined on or directly referenced the builder’s remedy by name.

The court did not issue an explicit declaration that the builder’s remedy applies in the city because the organization that filed the lawsuit, Californians for Homeownership, did not have legal standing without a pending project. Nevertheless, the judge seemed to signal that a developer with a pending project may be able to obtain such a declaration.

The court’s acknowledgment of the builder’s remedy is a positive sign for those with a pending builder’s remedy project. According to the Real Deal, the president of the California Association of Realtors said in a statement, “For far too long, certain cities and counties have treated compliance with state housing laws as optional. This decision sends a clear message: complying with these laws is not optional.”

As discussed in our previous e-update, other housing advocacy groups have also filed lawsuits against jurisdictions that are out of compliance with the Housing Element Law. We will continue to keep you updated as decisions are issued in these cases.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Sabrina Eshaghi.

SF’s Proposed BMR and Impact Fee Changes

July 12, 2023July 12, 2023 | Mark Loper

Late last month, Supervisors Peskin and Safai introduced long-awaited legislation lowering San Francisco’s affordable housing requirements for certain approved and proposed projects, as well as reducing impact fees. This week’s alert summarizes the proposal as it currently stands.

Changes for pipeline projects

Sponsors of projects with 25 or more units that were or are approved before November 1, 2023 and have not received a first construction document (usually the architectural addendum)—so-called “pipeline projects”—are allowed to apply for a lower affordable housing obligation, additional time to obtain a site permit, and changes to density bonus law compliance.

The affordable rates are proposed to be reduced across the board as follows:

Affordable housing fee. 16.4%, for both ownership and rental projects. If the project is in an area with a specific affordable housing fee, the applicable percentage is 54.5% of the rate for rental projects in the area or 16.4%, whichever is higher.
On-site. 12% for both ownership and rental projects, with 8% for low-income, 2% moderate-income, and 2% middle-income. For projects in areas with specific on-site BMR requirements, the rate is 54% of the rate for rental housing projects in that area or 12%, whichever is higher.
Off-site. 16.4%, for both ownership and rental projects. If the project is in an area with specific off-site BMR requirements, the applicable percentage is 54.5% of the rate for rental projects in the area or 16.4%, whichever is higher.

Project sponsors can also request an extension of performance periods for their projects up to May 1, 2029. The legislation does not require the City to extend all performance periods to May 2029, though. The current practice is for three-year extensions starting on the date of City approval.

The legislation has two “use it or lose it” provisions. First, the City needs to grant the request for reduced affordable rates by November 1, 2026. Because the deadline is not the date that the request is submitted to the City but the date of City approval, sponsors should make sure to apply comfortably before the end of the deadline. Also, sponsors need to get a first construction document—as noted above, usually the architectural addendum—on or before May 1, 2029.

Finally, density bonus pipeline projects are allowed to request modifications to the number and type of concessions, incentives, and waivers, as well as the number of affordable units. This recognizes that density bonus projects may need to adjust their compliance with the density bonus law if the project’s on-site affordable unit count decreases.

As noted above, sponsors must ask for a reduction; the changes do not apply automatically. Most projects will be approved by City staff administratively, assuming the Planning Commission agrees to delegate its authority. The legislation also would allow staff to extend the time to get a site permit, instead of going to the Planning Commission. Projects proposing “significant modifications” need to go to the Planning Commission, though. This includes projects whose unit count would change by more than 20%, floor area would change by more than 10%, and whose unit typology would change from dwelling units to group housing.

Projects entitled between November 2023 and November 2026

The ordinance would also reduce the affordable housing requirements for non-pipeline projects entitled between November 1, 2023 and November 1, 2026. The rates are proposed as follows:

Affordable housing fee. 20.5%, for both ownership and rental projects. If the project is in an area with a specific affordable housing fee, the applicable percentage is 68% of the rate for rental projects in the area.
On-site. 15% for both ownership and rental projects, with 10% for low-income, 2.5% moderate-income, and 2.5% middle-income. For projects in areas with specific on-site BMR requirements, the rate is 68% of the rate for rental housing projects in that area.
Off-site. 20.5%, for both ownership and rental projects. If the project is in an area with a specific off-site requirement, the applicable percentage is 68% of the rate for rental projects in the area.

These projects also have a “use it or lose it” provision: their first construction document needs to be received within 30 months of entitlement approval or approval on appeal, whichever happens later, and building permit approval for projects that do not require discretionary entitlements.

Permanent affordable housing changes

The ordinance would make a third and permanent change to San Francisco’s affordable requirements:

Affordable housing fee. For projects with 25 or more units, 27% for condos and 24.5% for rental projects.
On-site. 15% for projects with 10-24 units. For projects with 25 or more units, 20% for condos and 18% for rentals. Condos need to be 10% low-income, 5% moderate income, and 5% middle income. Rentals need to be 10% low-income, 4% moderate-income, and 4% middle-income.
Off-site. For projects with 25 or more units, 27% for condos and 24.5% for rentals. Condos need to have 12% low-income, 7.5% moderate-income, and 7.5% middle-income. Rentals need to have 12.5% low-income, 6% moderate-income, and 6% middle-income.
UMU and Divisadero NCT. Different Affordable requirements would apply to UMU and the Divisadero NCT.

Starting in 2028, the on-site percentage would increase by 0.5% annually, up to a maximum of 26% for condo projects and 24% for rentals.

Impact fee reductions until November 2026

The ordinance also proposes to reduce most development impact fees by 33%, so long as the fees are assessed by November 1, 2026, and the project gets a first construction document within 30 months of entitlement approval or approval on appeal, whichever happens first, or building permit approval for projects that do not require discretionary entitlements. Pipeline projects need to receive a first construction document by May 1, 2029.

The schools fee—which is imposed by SFUSD and outside of the jurisdiction of the City itself—would not be reduced. And any Community Facilities Districts (aka Mello-Roos assessments) will continue to apply to qualifying projects in areas such as Central SOMA and the Transit Center District.

We will continue to track this important piece of legislation and its eventual implementation. In the meantime, please reach out to us with any questions about whether your project qualifies for a reduction and how to properly ask for and receive a reduction in a project’s affordable housing requirement.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner Mark Loper.

Proposed Legislation to Expand Allowed Commercial Uses

June 22, 2023June 22, 2023 | Chloe Angelis

In the latest effort to ease longstanding zoning restrictions and encourage new business activity in San Francisco, Mayor Breed (along with Supervisors Engardio, Dorsey, and Melgar) have introduced legislation to expand the types of uses permitted in Neighborhood Commercial Districts (“NCDs”), streamline the change of use process in Eastern Neighborhood Mixed Use Districts, and incorporate numerous other Planning Code changes aimed at filling retail vacancies throughout the city.

Unlike a number of other recently proposed changes, this legislation would not limit the amendments to Downtown. Instead, it focuses on neighborhood commercial corridors and on expanding permissible uses and streamlining the change of use process for certain use types across the city. With retail vacancies in San Francisco as high as 14.8%,[1] any change that allows more categories of business to occupy empty commercial storefronts in more zoning districts would be a welcome policy change.

The 92-page ordinance has yet to be heard by the Planning Commission or the Land Use and Transportation Committee, so a lot could change between now and final passage, but here is a summary of some of the more meaningful changes proposed:

Professional Services Uses: Arguably the most substantive and exciting change is a proposal to eliminate the distinction between Retail Professional Services and Non-Retail Professional Services. Currently, Non-Retail Professional Services include businesses that provide services to other businesses, like accounting, legal, insurance, advertising, and consulting offices. Retail Professional Services cover uses primarily open to the general public—in other words, offices where a member of the public can walk in to talk to a lawyer, travel agent, or accountant. As drafted, the legislation would principally permit all types of Professional Services Use (both retail and non-retail types), within all NCDs and Chinatown mixed use districts. This opens up the possibility of office-type uses operating in ground and upper-level spaces in neighborhood commercial corridors throughout the city.
Section 311 Notice: The proposed ordinance would eliminate Section 311 notice for change of use projects in Eastern Neighborhoods Mixed Use Districts—doing away with the possibility of a discretionary review hearing for those projects. 311 notice would still apply to formula retail and substantial construction projects in those districts.
Legalization of Existing Outdoor Activity Areas: The proposed ordinance would allow business owners citywide to legalize an Outdoor Activity Area via a building permit, provided the Zoning Administrator or Planning Staff determines that the outdoor space has been operating (mostly continuously) for the last 10 years. No Conditional Use (“CU”) Authorization would be required for these legalizations, but a building permit would need to be filed within one year from when the proposed ordinance becomes effective.
Flexible Retail Uses: Previously limited to properties in Districts 1, 4, 5, 10 or 11 and zoned NCD, NCT or NCS, the legislation proposes to allow Flexible Retail Uses citywide. Flexible Retail Uses are defined as the combination of at least two of the following uses: Arts Activities, Limited Restaurant, General Retail Sales and Services, Professional Services, and Trade Shop.
Formula Retail in Residential Districts: The legislation would allow Formula Retail uses in RH and RM districts with approval of a CU.
Special Use District Controls: A number of proposed amendments ease controls on eating, drinking, and entertainment uses within Special Use Districts (“SUDs”). Here are a few highlights:
- Allow new Restaurant, Limited Restaurant, and Bar uses on the first story in the Jackson Square SUD, with approval of a CU.
- Allow a Music Entertainment Facility in the Mission Alcohol SUD to serve alcohol with an ABC Type 90 license.
- Non-Formula Retail Restaurants and Limited Restaurants would be principally permitted within the Taraval Street Restaurant Subdistrict (i.e., no CU for these uses).
- Permit Financial Service and Limited Financial Service uses with approval of a CU in the Chestnut Street Financial Service Subdistrict.
- Allow new Liquor Establishments with approval of a CU in the Haight Street Alcohol Restricted Use Subdistrict.
Expedited CU Review: The legislation would allow Nighttime Entertainment and Non-Retail Sales and Services uses (including Professional Services) (that meet other eligibility criteria) to be eligible for the Community Business Priority Processing Program, which aims to schedule eligible projects for a consent calendar Planning Commission hearing within 90 days of the application being deemed complete. Many non-Formula Retail commercial uses are already eligible for this program.
Miscellaneous Changes: Other one-off exciting changes include the following:
- Financial Services would be allowed on the ground floor with approval of a CU in many NCDs.
- Professional Services and Design Professional uses would be allowed at the ground floor in the North Beach NCD.
- The Sacramento Street NCD would permit Bars on the first story with a CU, and Gyms and Health Services would be principally permitted on the ground floor.
- The Union Street NCD and Pacific Avenue NCD would allow Bars on the first story with a CU.
- The West Portal NCD would permit Financial Services on the ground floor with a CU, and Health Services and Design Professional uses would be principally permitted on the first and second floor.
- Allow new Restaurants, Limited Restaurants, and Bars within the Mission Street NCT, up to an increased maximum of 197 locations (up from 167). Full-service Restaurants and Bars allowed within the cap would still require a CU.
- New Bars and Restaurants would be permitted in the 24th Street-Mission NCT with approval of a CU, subject to the limitation of the Calle 24 SUD.

In the current market, any kind of storefront activation is good for the health of commercial corridors, and it seems that the prevailing political opinion finally agrees. This piece of legislation is just at square one of the process, and you can track its progress here.

[1] See Cushman & Wakefield San Francisco North Bay Metro Retail Q1 2023 Report; available at https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en/united-states/insights/us-marketbeats/san-francisco-north-bay-marketbeats (accessed June 21, 2023.)

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Chloe Angelis.

Sacramento Doubles Down on SB 9

June 14, 2023June 14, 2023 | Thomas P. Tunny

In 2022, SB 9 took effect, imposing radical new requirements on local jurisdictions to approve new housing in single-family neighborhoods. Although the results of SB 9 have been mixed (more on that later), Sacramento has seized upon the SB 9 playbook and looked to expand it.

SB 684 seeks to “create new pathways to homeownership for middle-income Californians” by making it faster and easier to build smaller, more naturally-affordable “starter” homes near jobs, schools, transit, and other amenities. The bill streamlines approvals for homes in infill developments of 10 homes or less, in multi-family zones, and on vacant lots in single-family zones. (It’s worth noting that in San Francisco inclusionary requirements kick in at 10 units, so projects seeking 8 or 9 units under this bill may get some pressure to do 10 and fulfill the inclusionary requirement.)

The bill supercharges the lot-split provisions of SB 9. The bill amends the Subdivision Map Act, the state law that regulates the creation and improvement of subdivisions and lot splits, to make it faster and easier to build more housing on a single parcel of land.

Specifically, SB 684:

Requires ministerial approval of a subdivision map that creates up to 10 units on qualifying parcels in multi-family neighborhoods and on vacant lots in single-family neighborhoods.
Shortens the timeframe development may begin by requiring local agencies to approve building permits once a tentative map has been approved under the Subdivision Map Act.
Prohibits the removal of housing that is low income, rent-controlled, or occupied by tenants within the last 7 years.
Ensures streamlined projects meet environmental sustainability standards.

SB 684 was introduced by Anna Caballero, whose district is in the Salinas Valley, and recently was passed by the state Senate. It now moves to the Assembly.

Speaking of SB 9, the 2022 law was adopted with great fanfare. A 2021 analysis by the Terner Center estimated that over 700,000 new homes could be newly feasible to build if SB 9 passed, and taking into account on-the-ground market dynamics. But the reality has been different. Many California cities passed urgency ordinances implementing additional regulations prior to implementing the benefits of SB 9. Some jurisdictions still have yet to adopt the objective design standards needed to approve SB 9 projects.

Local regulations—such as low maximum unit size, height limitations, and other design rules—can render the construction of SB 9 homes infeasible. Not to mention high construction costs and/or lack of expertise with homebuilding. As a result, few jurisdictions in California are seeing much SB 9 activity, and many are seeing none. In San Francisco, only 34 applications have been submitted, and 16 approved (21 total units). Los Angeles had the most overall activity in 2022, with 211 applications for new units under SB 9. We will continue to monitor the progress of both SB 9 and SB 684.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Thomas P. Tunny.