Court Broadens Applicability of CEQA Infill Exemption

CEQA

Readers no doubt are aware of the CEQA Infill Exemption, one of the most common CEQA exemptions used for projects in San Francisco and the Bay Area. In an important opinion published on November 18, the Sixth District Court of Appeal interpreted key terms in the Infill Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Class 32 categorical exemption) to broaden its application, in particular “in-fill development” projects that meet specified criteria, including being “substantially surrounded by urban uses.” In doing so, the Court upheld a lower-population city’s use (King City) of the exemption for a Grocery Outlet project near Highway 101. (Working Families of Monterey County, et al. v. King City Planning Commission (Best Development Group, LLC, Real Party in Interest) (2024) ___ Cal.App.5th ___.)

The project at issue was a Grocery Outlet store in a single-story building with surface parking on a 1.6-acre lot located within 1,000 feet of Highway 101. The parcel’s General Plan land use designation was Highway Service Commercial (HSC) and its zoning designation was Highway Service District (H-S). It was surrounded on two sides by commercial buildings, on the third side by sheriff’s department buildings, and on the fourth side by a cemetery.

An environmental assessment submitted by the project developer in support of the project’s permit applications (for a CUP, architectural review, monument sign permit, and landscaping permit) concluded the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, or otherwise, and that it qualified for the CEQA Guidelines Class 32 exemption for in-fill development. The City’s Planning Commission agreed on all counts, and its decision approving the project entitlements and exemption was upheld by the City Council, which did the same on administrative appeal.

The Petitioners, a union, sought to have the court narrow the infill exemption by arguing the project was not located in an “urbanized area,” as defined in CEQA Section 21071(a) (population 100,000 or more) or CEQA Guidelines Section 15387 (population 50,000 or more). Petitioners also alleged the project did not meet the definition of an “infill site,” as defined in CEQA Section 21061.3, since the project site was not previously developed for “qualified urban uses.”

The court refused to take the bait and turned to traditional rules of statutory construction to discern the meaning of these key terms. Finding the language of the exemption arguably ambiguous, the court looked to the findings of the Natural Resources Agency and the Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) in establishing the exemption. Their statements of regulatory intent showed no indication that the regulators intended to limit the Class 32 categorical exemption for infill development to projects that meet the criteria set forth in the statutory definitions of “infill site,” “urbanized area,” and “qualified urban uses”.

Citing OPR directly, the court concluded, with a flourish, “The term ‘infill development’ refers to building within unused and underutilized lands within existing development patterns, typically but not exclusively in urban areas. Infill development is critical to accommodating growth and redesigning our cities to be environmentally- and socially-sustainable.” This broad definition will allow the Infill Exemption to be used in areas that may not meet specific definitions of “urban”, but as a matter of common sense are clearly “urbanized”. This decision is important because it reinforces and even broadens the applicability of the Infill Exemption in both typical urban areas and smaller cities.

 

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

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.

Unforeseen Effect of Proposition 19

Proposition 19

Despite San Francisco’s reputation as a high-rent city, it maintains a substantial inventory of older, lower-rent units that primarily cater to working- and middle-class renters. The prevalence of these units arises from a combination of factors: strong rent-control laws and eviction protections, combined with favorable tax treatment under Proposition 13 and subsequent parent-child transfer exemptions passed in the 1980s. These transfer exemptions guaranteed Proposition 13’s low property taxes over multiple generations, creating an incentive to preserve rather than sell, upgrade, or redevelop low-cost rental inventory.

On November 3, 2020, California voters narrowly approved Proposition 19, or The Home Protection for Seniors, Severely Disabled, Families, and Victims of Wildfire or Natural Disasters Act, which amends Article XIIIA of the California Constitution and will remove all transfer exemptions for rental properties. Without these exemptions, the coming decades will see increased taxes on inherited rental properties which will likely force many small property owners out of this lower-cost niche and lead to the gradual erosion of this segment of the rental market.

History of Property Tax and Transfer Exemptions (Propositions 13 and 58)

In 1978, Proposition 13 set a uniform property tax in California at a rate of 1% on a property’s assessed value. The value of a property is assessed on the date of transfer and is limited to a 2% yearly increase unless there is another transfer (or substantial rehabilitation). No matter how high a property’s value climbs, the tax rate will grow at a slow, predictable pace. In 1986, Proposition 58 added transfer exemptions, which created an exemption for parent-child transfers and allowed parents to transfer rental properties to their children up to $1,000,000 in assessed value (or $2,000,000 for married couples) before a reassessment was triggered on the overage. This gave families the ability to sustain the advantages of tax rates secured by decades-old purchases.

Effects of Proposition 13 on the Rental Market

In high demand rental markets, lost profit opportunities on older or rent-controlled units generally drive owners to redevelop or sell their properties in order to take advantage of rising demand and rental rates. Proposition 13, however, offers a counterbalance for longstanding owners by assuring a steady tax bill and predictable operating costs which guarantees ongoing stability for these owners.

Even in a market like San Francisco’s, the effects of Proposition 13 can be seen in the durable collection of older and rent-controlled buildings that make up large swaths of the city’s rental offerings. Incremental tax increases and predictable operating costs allow these buildings to generate a consistent level of profit, even when rents are low due to rent control or aged facilities. This consistent income with minimal intervention persuades many owners to forgo chasing the market and risk endangering their investment.

The long-term preservation of these buildings at low rates results in a consistent stock of housing for lower-income renters. Under the parent-child transfer exemption, families could pass down their rental properties without impacting their consistent investment income. This security protects both the owner and the continued availability of these units by disincentivizing drastic changes to these family investments.

Proposition 19 and the Erosion of Affordable Rentals

With Proposition 19 slated to remove transfer exemptions for rental properties, the taxes on inherited rental properties will see an immediate surge as assessments rise to meet market value. In a real estate market that has seen forty years of unprecedented growth, these increases could easily be tenfold or more.

With tax increases cutting deeply into the already below-market profits of these buildings, inheriting owners will see little of the stability that convinced their parents to maintain these properties. Proposition 19’s effects will reveal numerous issues as the situation develops over the coming years. For instance, an inherited older building may be unable to sustain a profit at the market rate for comparable buildings which still retain a low tax basis. These owners would be unable to compete and be forced to upgrade or sell their units, speeding up the loss of vital rental inventory.

Other issues that could arise could be disparate taxes on comparable buildings depending on when in the boom-bust cycle they were reassessed, leading to potentially different tax bills. Further, the recent rental impacts of Covid-19, with high vacancies, rent reductions, and non-paying tenants, alert us to numerous situations where high taxes on historically low-profit units will threaten viability and drive owners to sell or redevelop.

San Francisco has a large population dependent on older units, with more than 62% of renters living in rent-controlled buildings. Many of these buildings are only profitable because Proposition 13 has protected owners and their tenants from market forces for decades and allowed them to stay afloat. With the loss of these protections, Proposition 19 will accelerate the loss of this housing as desperate owners seek ways to maintain viability.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Daniel J. Turner.

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.