AB 2011 & SB 6: Pro-Growth or Slow Growth for Construction Workforce

| Daniel Frattin and Daniel J. Turner
SB 6

AB 2011, along with SB 6 (Cabellero, Eggman and Rubio), were passed by the California Legislature this week with large majorities in both houses. The two bills will create 10-year housing programs with similar aims: increasing housing production and increasing the skill level, wages, and number of residential construction workers. However, the bills differ in important ways—their approach to density, allowances for ministerial approvals, and the degree of deference to local zoning rules. They also take markedly different approaches to growing, training, and better compensating the residential construction workforce. The bills were the product of a political compromise between the State Building & Construction Trades Council and the Carpenters Union. They effectively set up an experiment to test the relative efficacy of the SB 6 labor rules favored by the State Building & Construction Trades Council—basically requiring union labor on any SB 6 project and the rules preferred by the Carpenters Union – requiring payment of prevailing wages and benefits to all workers on an AB 2011 project.

A good deal of attention has been given to improving the regulatory conditions for getting new housing approved, expanding access to sites, and requiring cities to upzone. However, less attention has been paid to the fact that—even if there were shovel-ready projects for the Governor’s declared goal of 3.5 million new homes over ten years—the current residential construction workforce could only build about a third of that number without significant increases in the number and productivity of workers, who currently build housing at a rate of one home per worker per year. By comparison, average productivity per worker was 1.4 units per year from 1990-2005. Put simply, the state cannot meet its housing targets without an increase in the number of workers and productivity.

However, attracting new workers has proven difficult. Median residential construction worker pay in California ranks 46th in the country when adjusted for the high cost of living. On average, residential construction workers income is 2/3 of their commercial counterparts and they get about 1/3 the amount of fringe benefits. Less than half have insurance through employers. This is a dramatic shift since the 1970s and 1980s, when average pay in both sectors was roughly equal.

AB 2011, which we discussed in greater detail last week, provides for time-limited ministerial approvals for properties on commercial corridors that meet certain criteria for affordable housing and overrides local zoning rules that conflict with its minimum standards for density and height. It also mandates payment of prevailing wage to all construction workers, or at least the prevailing apprentice wages for apprentices enrolled in state-approved apprentice programs. Family healthcare benefits are required for projects with qualified construction craft workers on projects with more than 50 units, while those without such workers can credit qualifying expenditures toward the prevailing wage requirements. Essentially, AB 2011 bets that rapid approvals under more liberal standards will entice employers to pay higher wages and create a strong, near-term incentive for developers to invest in apprenticeship programs to elevate worker productivity.

A final version of SB 6 has yet to be published, but takes a less aggressive approach than AB 2011 with lower minimum density requirements, greater deference to local zoning, and no mandatory ministerial approval process unless a project otherwise qualifies under SB 35. Thus, many SB 6 projects would be subject to lengthy CEQA reviews and modified discretionary approvals. It would require lower amounts of affordable housing subsidies by than AB 2011, but would effectively require the use of union labor if two qualified bids are received from union contractors. While SB 6 expands potential building sites, most projects would not realize the cost savings associated with quick ministerial approvals or the elimination of most entitlement/CEQA risk. Without these incentives in place, it may be years before the state sees its first SB 6 project, or additional demand for workers.

AB 2011 passed the Assembly 67-4 with 9 abstentions and the Senate 33-0 with 7 abstentions. While the 4 Noes in the Assembly were from rural and suburban districts leaning more conservative (3 Rs & 1 D), notably 7 of the 9 abstentions were from urban and suburban districts along the coast between Ventura and San Diego with a high number of Democratic representatives (6 Ds & 3 Rs). Conversely, SB 6 passed the Assembly 67-0 with 13 abstentions and the Senate 34-0 with 6 abstentions. Of the 4 Noes for AB 2011, 3 abstained in SB 6 and 1 voted yes (a democrat representative from District 29, encompassing Santa Cruz and the surrounding area). The Assembly abstentions followed a similar pattern as AB 2011, with those abstaining coming from both parties and primarily representing rural districts or coastal urban and suburban districts in Southern California. For both AB 2011 and SB 6, the Senate abstentions followed a similar geographic pattern as in the Assembly.

While union support was split between the two bills, with both construction and other unions on either side, pro-housing and business organizations tended to support both. Most affordable housing developers supported AB 2011 and opposed SB 6, presumably because the latter would tend to increase cost and time for approval without offsetting benefits. San Francisco’s Council of Community Housing Organizations, which frequently opposes market-rate development, was a notable outlier, supporting SB 6 and opposing AB 2011 in spite of its clear benefits to affordable housing developers.

Both bills still need to be signed by the governor and will not take effect until July 2023. Annual reports of projects approved under both bills are required from cities and the Department of Housing & Community Development is to provide two reports on the use of each during the ten year period prior to their sunset date.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorneys Daniel Frattin and 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.

To Fourplex or Not to Fourplex

| Thomas P. Tunny
fourplex

Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which took effect January 1, 2022, enables property owners to split their single-family residential lot into two separate lots and build up to two new housing units on each lot.  A key component of SB 9 is that it requires ministerial approval of such projects.  In San Francisco (the “City”), that means no discretionary review process and other opportunities for project opposition.  The City’s policymakers and housing advocates were influential in the adoption of SB 9.  And yet, now that it’s here, the City’s lawmakers can’t seem to decide if they like SB 9.

Housing advocates hailed SB 9 for facilitating the construction of new, smaller dwelling units throughout the City.  Everyone can agree that the City needs housing.  However, the City’s new housing production in recent years has been heavily concentrated in the eastern and southeastern parts of the City, with 90% of all new housing produced in just ten eastside and central neighborhoods.  Development in these neighborhoods has at times been subject to significant conflicts and prevented from moving forward.  At the same time, roughly 60% of the City’s developable land area is in residential zoning districts, concentrated primarily on the City’s west side, with 38% of the City’s developable land area zoned exclusively for single-family homes.  Just 3% of housing built since 2005 was added in areas that allow one to two units (only 6% of affordable housing when ADUs are counted).  SB 9 presents a fresh approach.

When Supervisor Rafael Mandelman proposed his “fourplex” legislation last summer, allowing any single-family home to be turned into a fourplex, and corner lots to have six units, it seemed SB 9 would be embraced, and that some of the City’s more vexing housing challenges would be addressed.  It wasn’t that easy.

Last Monday (April 11), the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use Committee considered Supervisor Mandelman’s fourplex legislation.  Supervisor Mandelman, facing significant political push-back, had amended his legislation to upzone all single-family residential districts (RH-1 and RH-1(D)) in the City to two-family density (RH-2 and RH-2(D)).  The elimination of single-family zoning is a means of ensuring the approval of new fourplexes and six-unit projects would not be ministerial, and that discretionary review of these projects would continue.  This is because the ministerial provisions of SB 9 apply only to single-family residential districts.

Advocates of preserving the discretionary review process cite the need for the City to maintain design review control over new housing.  But discretionary review is not about design review.  Discretionary review has become a process that project opponents manipulate to stop new development.  It adds significant time, cost, and risk to the production of housing, thereby discouraging new units.  If design review is the concern, there are better ways to accomplish that without leaving it to discretionary review.

Other related issues addressed by Supervisor Mandelman’s legislation include residency and tenancy controls, measures to prevent demolition, condominium conversion and subdivision controls, and rent protections.

In the end, at the Land Use Committee on Monday, the Committee approved certain amendments proposed by Supervisor Melgar that sought to encourage larger units, incentivize marginalized homeowners to create more units, and waive the application fees for Historic Resource Assessments,  and then voted to continue its consideration of the legislation to the April 25 meeting.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney 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.

Density Bonus Law & CEQA Tiering Upheld

| Mark Loper
DBL

This winter, two California Courts of Appeal issued decisions that reaffirm some of the positive aspects of state laws related to housing production, from both a CEQA perspective and via the State Density Bonus Law (“DBL”). In the first case, out of East Bay city Newark, the First District Court of Appeal upheld a tiered CEQA review for a 469-lot subdivision based on a program-level EIR prepared for a Specific Plan. About a week later, the Fourth Appellate District upheld San Diego’s approval of a 20-story residential tower, relying heavily on the protections afforded to mixed-income residential projects under the DBL. We discuss each below.

In Newark, the City approved a specific plan in 2010 for up to 1,260 units, as well as a golf course and related facilities, relying on an EIR. The EIR specifically noted that Newark would proceed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 for specific development proposals and “tier” off of the EIR to the extent applicable. In 2019, the applicants submitted a subdivision map proposing 469 residential lots, but no golf course. Other changes from the development analyzed in the EIR included filling and elevating only certain areas on the site (the project site is located next to the San Francisco Bay) and locating the filled and elevated areas directly next to wetlands, with riprap along the western banks. The City prepared an exemption checklist comparing the EIR to the subdivision’s impacts and conducted background technical studies, including an updated sea level rise analysis. The checklist found that the subdivision would be consistent with the specific plan, and that there were no changed circumstances or new information that might trigger the need for more CEQA review than what was done for the EIR. It was a classic example of CEQA “tiering.”

The Court of Appeal upheld the City’s use of the checklist. First, it rejected an argument that the project changes made tiering inappropriate. The Court helpfully pointed out that changes in and of themselves do not eliminate the ability to tier off an EIR; instead, the environmental consequences resulting from those changes must be new, greater, or substantially different than what was analyzed in the EIR. Here, they were not. The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim that the amount and rate of sea level rise was different enough to require a new EIR, finding that the EIR’s unambiguous finding of a significant impact due to sea level rise was adequate, as was some language in the EIR noting that the rate of sea level rise was uncertain and might be accelerating.

Finally, the Court determined that adaptive management plans for sea level rise do not improperly defer consideration of mitigation measures. Taking a refreshingly common-sense approach to climate change and CEQA, the Court would not fault Newark for acknowledging in the EIR that adaptive management would be required. “The City’s potential responses to environmental conditions between 50 and 80 years from now cannot be considered part of the project,” it concluded. “Because the City currently can only dimly guess what measures will be needed to respond to conditions several generations from now, the City was not required to analyze the impacts of the adaptive pathways” as part of the project.

The Court of Appeal’s opinion in San Diego generated more buzz, particularly among the pro-housing groups that have done yeoman’s work in recent years to strengthen California’s housing protections. The case was originally not certified for publication, in part because San Diego’s City Attorney was reluctant to have a published case that so clearly spelled out the limits of the City’s discretion to deny or downsize density bonus projects. Nevertheless, after receiving petitions to publish it, the Court did. It is helpful in several ways, reaffirming the City’s evidentiary burden to deny waivers or concessions; harmonizing General Plan consistency findings with the DBL; and applying the conclusion the First District Court of Appeal reached in Wollmer v. City of Berkeley that a density bonus project can be approved with residential amenities such as a courtyard.

The Project—a 20-story, 204-unit mixed use tower at 6th Avenue and Olive Street across from Balboa Park—faced pushback from neighbors, at least some of whom the Court implied would lose their view of the park. Somewhat surprisingly, instead of arguing that the project would have an unmitigable health and safety impact on the adjacent park, the neighbors argued administratively, at the trial court, and at the Court of Appeal that the project should be denied because it did not comply with several General Plan and Community Plan guidelines that call for contextual development and massing moderation of tall towers. They also argued that the City should not approve waivers that contradicted the guidelines, and that the City should have approved a shorter and squatter development that had the same number of units but a smaller courtyard.

The Court began its analysis by noting that the neighbors had “sidestepped” the implications of the DBL, not discussing it at all in its opening brief and then dismissively claiming the DBL is not a “free pass.” The Court identified the narrow grounds by which a City can shrink or deny a DBL project and pointed out that the neighbors simply failed to make any arguments about that point.

It then went on to explain that the developer specifically requested concessions under the DBL that were germane to each of the General Plan and Community Plan guidelines the neighbors claimed the project did not comply with. The City Council expressly made a finding that there was no evidence to support the denial of the requested incentive, which the Court found to be determinative—acknowledging that the burden on this issue has now shifted to cities if they attempt to deny a project, not the developer proposing an incentive. It also concluded that the project’s waivers were correctly layered on top of the project with requested concessions, meaning a project qualifies for waivers based on its form with both the density bonus and the concessions.

The Court finally rejected the neighbors’ claim that the project’s design was not dictated by the density bonus and concessions, but by a large courtyard. It pointed out that this precise argument was raised and rejected in the Wollmer v. City of Berkeley case from 2011, one of the first cases analyzing the modern DBL. The San Diego City Council could not demand the developer remove the courtyard or redesign its building to satisfy the neighbors’ subjective concerns. The Court stated: “a city cannot apply a development standard that would physically preclude construction of the project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” It remains to be seen what qualifies as an “amenity” that can be baked into a project other than a courtyard, as both Wollmer and the San Diego case related to open space and courtyard amenities. And the evidentiary burden and procedural posture here were also the same as Wollmer: a city defending a project approval with amenities instead of making a project shorter or smaller by eliminating them. This issue may be ripe for further litigation.

The Newark case—Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge v. City of Newark et al. (2022) ___ Cal.App. ___ (A162045, Alameda County Superior Court No. RG19046938)—and the San Diego case—Bankers Hill 150 et al v. City of San Diego et al (2022) ___ Cal.App. ___ (D077963, Super. Ct. No. 37-2019- 00020725-CU-WM-CTL)—are reminders that well-crafted CEQA documents, entitlement applications, and approval motions can help ensure new state laws meant to protect and streamline housing projects are accurately applied to a project.

 

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

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 Warns San Francisco Concerning Rejected Housing Projects

| Thomas P. Tunny
State

The Board of Supervisors (“Board”) recently issued two unusual denials of large housing projects – the projects would have provided over 800 dwelling units, over 130 of which were affordable.  In an even more unusual move, last week the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) informed San Francisco officials that the City may have violated state housing laws by rejecting the projects.  Without getting into the Board politics behind the project denials, the State’s actions are notable.  The State rarely takes such a public stance concerning local planning and zoning decisions, indicating the high priority the State is placing on the provision of housing and the concern with these decisions.

The Two Rejected Housing Projects

The two housing projects at issue are located at 469 Stevenson Street and 450-474 O’Farrell Street.  The 469 Stevenson Street project is a mixed-use, 27-story high rise with 495 dwelling units, including 89 affordable units.  The Board of Supervisors denied the project on CEQA grounds, overturning the Planning Commission’s certification of the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”).  In HCD’s own words, the Board cited “various vague concerns about FEIR deficiencies, including seismic concerns, effects (e.g., shadowing) on historic resources, and gentrification.”

The project at 450-474 O’Farrell Street is a modification of an earlier project.  The new project proposes more, smaller units (316 vs. 174) that are “affordable by design”, and included 43 affordable/below market rate units.  The Board overturned the Planning Commission’s approval of a Conditional Use Authorization for the project without yet issuing written findings.

HCD Letter

HCD made its concerns known to City officials in a letter last week.  The message was pointed.  HCD expressed concern that the Board’s decisions “represent[] a larger trend in the City/County,” noting that “California’s housing production does not meet housing need. In the past ten years, housing production has averaged fewer than 80,000 new homes each year, far fewer than the 180,000 new homes needed…. As a result, the cost of housing has skyrocketed, and San Francisco stands amongst the top two most expensive housing markets in the United States.”

HCD raised significant concerns with the City’s compliance with the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”).  Under the HAA, a local government cannot disapprove or reduce the density of a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, unless it makes written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible way to mitigate that impact.  The Board did not make such findings for either project.

HCD also expressed “concern[] about the significant delays in the approval of housing generally and in the City/County in particular.”  As to the O’Farrell project, HCD expressed concern that the City violated the “5 Hearing Rule” set forth in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330).  The Planning Commission had six hearings on the project and the Board appeal was the seventh hearing.

Lastly, HCD warned the City about its implementation of and compliance with its existing Housing Element and its upcoming Housing Element update.  The Housing Element update “must … demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need and include program actions with metrics and milestones to remove or mitigate identified constraints…. Academic research continues to show that San Francisco’s processing and entitlement timeframes and procedures exceed the norms for other jurisdictions of similar size and complexity and act as a constraint on the development of housing.”

HCD concluded by reminding the City that HCD “has both the authority and duty to review any action or failure to act by a city, county, or city and county that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element… or in violation of the HAA.”  HCD’s investigation remains open and they are continuing their review of the City’s practices with respect to housing review and approval generally.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney 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.

California Enacts Bills Aimed to Increase Housing

| Melinda Sarjapur
zoning

Last month, Governor Newsom signed three complimentary bills taking aim at the housing crisis in California: SB-8, SB-9, and SB-10. Together, the bills are intended to promote denser housing, streamline housing permitting, and boost housing production in California. The practical effects of the bills, however, are yet to be seen.

SB-9

SB-9 requires local agencies to ministerially approve the following in single-family zoning districts: (a) subdivision of existing lots into two parcels; and (b) development of up to two units per lot. Ministerial approvals require no environmental review, discretionary review, or public hearing process.

While opponents have painted SB-9 as a death knoll for single-family zoning, in reality the legislation comes with slew of caveats and conditions that limit its practical application.

To qualify for ministerial approval of a lot split under SB-9, all of the following must be met:

  • Site is located in a single-family residential zoning district;
  • Site is located in an urbanized area or urban cluster, or within a city that has an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the US Census Bureau (which covers most urban and suburban cities in the state);
  • Subdivision creates no more than two new parcels of approximately equal lot area, provided that one parcel may not be smaller than 40% of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision;
  • Both newly created parcels must be no smaller than 1,200 square feet, unless the local jurisdiction adopts an ordinance allowing for smaller lot sizes with ministerial approval;
  • Site is not located on property that is prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance; wetlands; in a very high fire hazard severity zone; a hazardous waste site; in a delineated earthquake fault zone; in a special flood hazard area; in a regulatory floodway; identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan; a habitat for a protected species; or subject to a conservation easement;
  • Subdivision would not require demolition or alteration of housing subject to rent control; designated affordable housing; housing that has been removed from the rental market through Ellis Act eviction in the last 15 years; or housing that has been occupied by a tenant (market rate or affordable) in the past 3 years;
  • Site is not an historic landmark, and is not located within an historic district;
  • Site was not created through a prior SB-9 subdivision; and
  • Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided or any person acting in concert with the owner has previously used SB-9 to subdivide an adjacent parcel.

To qualify for ministerial approval to develop up to 2 units per lot under SB-9, the locational and tenant-history criteria are similar.  In addition, applicants will need to show that the project won’t demolish more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, unless either a local agency passes legislation allowing otherwise, or the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last 3 years.

SB-9 also contains an owner-occupancy condition which limits its utility for development entities.  Applicant-owners will be required to sign an affidavit stating their intent to occupy one of the resulting housing units as the owner’s principal residence for at least three years following the lot split.  However, community land trusts and qualified nonprofit corporations are exempt, and local agencies cannot impose any other owner-occupancy requirements.

And while SB-9 will allow for ministerial approval of qualifying projects, local agencies can still require all of the following:

  • Lots resulting from ministerial subdivision be limited to residential use;
  • No short term rental of units resulting from ministerial approval;
  • Project compliance with all objective zoning, subdivision, and design review standards applicable to the parcel that do not have the effect of physically precluding construction of two units on either resulting parcel or result in a unit size of less than 800 sf;
  • That new structures provide setbacks of up to 4 feet form side and rear lot lines;
  • For residential units connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last 5 years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.
  • Projects provide easements for provision of public services and utilities;
  • All resulting parcels maintain access to or adjoin the public right of way;
  • Projects to provide parking of up to 1 space per resulting unit, unless the site is located within ½ mile of a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop, or there is a car share vehicle located within 1 block of the site.

Finally, on lots that are both created by an SB-9 lot split and developed with two units under SB-9, a local agency is not required to permit ADUs or JADUs.

SB-8

SB-8 primarily extends the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB-330) another five years until 2030 and clarifies some of the text of the previous measure.  Among other things, SB-330 expedites the permitting process for housing developments; protects existing housing inventory; allows housing developments to file preliminary applications that provide grandfathering protection against zoning changes enacted during the discretionary review process; and limits the ability of local agencies to downzone areas unless they upzone an equivalent amount elsewhere within their boundaries.

SB-10

SB-10 authorizes local governments, at their election, to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 residential units in transit-rich areas or urban infill sites.  That would apply to most properties located along established bus lines, within half a mile of a major transit stop, or in residential/mixed use areas of most California cities.  Ordinances or resolutions adopted by local agencies under SB-10 are exempt from environmental review, would require a 2/3 vote in favor from the local legislative body to adopt, and could not be used to reduce density otherwise permitted on any parcel subject to the ordinance.  SB-10 would further prohibit a residential or mixed-use project with 10 or more units that is located on a parcel zoned pursuant to an SB-10 ordinance from being approved ministerially or by right, or from being exempt from environmental review.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney 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.

Eliminating Single Family Zoning is OK, but Don’t Eliminate Parking

| Matthew Visick
Bill

SB 9 Makes it Through the Assembly but AB 1401 Dies in the Senate

Two bills that would limit local control over housing issues met very different fates this past Thursday in the California Legislature.  Both were vehemently opposed by cities and groups that favor local control over land use decision making.  One was opposed by housing equity groups.

Senate Bill 9

Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”) would, among other things, require a city or county to ministerially approve (1) a two-unit housing project in a single-family zone, (2) the subdivision of a parcel zoned for residential use into two parcels, or (3) both.

SB 9 could unlock substantial housing production in single-family neighborhoods, where opposition to multi-family housing projects is typically greatest.  Many of the lots in these districts include only a single-family home and maybe an Accessory Dwelling Unit (which cannot be separately sold).  SB 9 would allow each existing single-family lot to be ministerially subdivided into two lots, and require ministerial approval of a duplex on each of the lots.

According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, SB 9 has the potential to allow for the development of nearly 6 million new housing units statewide.

Assembly Bill 1401

Assembly Bill 1401 (“AB 1401”) would limit minimum off-street parking requirements for projects located near a “major transit stop” (generally a train station or bus station with high frequency headways).

AB 1401 is hardly radical legislation.  When first introduced by Assembly Member Friedman in February 2021, the bill prohibited public entities (cities and counties) from imposing or enforcing minimum parking requirements on residential, commercial, or other development that is located within one-half mile walking distance of a “major transit stop” (generally a rail stop or a bus stop with frequent headways).  As last amended on July 5, 2021, the bill eased the prohibition for smaller cities.  A city with a population of 75,000 or more that is located in a county with a population of less than 600,000 was only prohibited from imposing the parking minimums on projects located within one-quarter mile of a major transit stop, and a city with a population of less than 75,000 was not subject to any prohibition.

Studies show that eliminating minimum parking requirements for projects located near transit routes supports the state’s housing goals by reducing the cost to deliver housing and allowing more dwelling units on a development site.  Eliminating parking requirements near transit also advances the state’s environmental goals by reducing emissions from cars.

Wait, the Parking Bill is the One That Died?

Both SB 9 and AB 1401 sailed through their respective policy committees in both the Assembly and the Senate with large vote margins in support.  Both were vehemently opposed throughout by local governments and groups that advocate for “local control” over land use decision making.  Yet AB 1401 was referred to the “suspense file” in the Appropriations Committee, where ambitious legislation often goes to die, while SB 9 was not.

It is hard to know exactly why bills are referred to the “suspense file.”  The “suspense file” is intended to be a place to evaluate whether to advance a bill that could have a significant fiscal impact.  But committee analyses of both SB 9 and AB 1401 show that both bills were anticipated to have the same annual impact on the budget (SB 9: $89,000 and AB 1401: $97,000).

A more plausible explanation emerges when one considers the groups opposed to the changes the bills would bring.  It is not surprising that numerous suburban cities and local government groups opposed both bills (SB 9 faced even greater opposition from these groups than AB 1401).  However, the opposition to AB 1401 was more diverse.  Affordable housing advocates argued that eliminating parking minimums for market rate development would reduce incentives for developers to create the affordable dwelling units required to reduce parking requirements using the Density Bonus Law.  In addition, environmental groups objected to the reduction of parking near transit as inconsistent with equity goals.

Decline in Value Real Estate Tax Appeals Due September 15

The deadline to appeal the valuation of property for real estate tax purposes is September 15 for both San Francisco and Alameda Counties.  Such an appeal would be appropriate due to a decline in property value because of the impact of Covid-19 and the related business shutdowns.  If you need more information, please contact Kevin Rose at krose@reubenlaw.com (415.567.9000).  Other counties may have different deadlines, so you should check with your local County appeals board to confirm the deadlines.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Matthew Visick.

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.

Appellate Court Clarifies Permit Streamlining Act’s Noticing Requirements

| Mark Loper
PSA's

On the heels of the Berkeley Shellmound SB 35 decision in favor of streamlined housing, another recent Court of Appeal decision rejected a public agency’s attempts to delay a housing project under the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”), and clarified that a jurisdiction with permitting authority must take action within the PSA’s time limits even if the project’s public hearing notice did not specifically discuss the PSA’s “deemed approved” provision.

Overturning a 2006 decision about the level of detail necessary to trigger the PSA’s “deemed approved” requirement when a City fails to render a decision on a project within a specified time period, the Court of Appeal in late June determined that a public agency’s hearing notice did not need to specifically include a reference to the deemed approved outcome (Linovitz Capo Shores LLC et al v. California Coastal Commission, No. G058331 (Cal. Ct. App. June 25, 2021)). Instead, the Court found that the California Coastal Commission (“Coastal Commission”) failed to properly make a decision on the merits of a mobilehome housing project within the PSA’s time limits, and under the PSA the project was approved. While the fact pattern for the case is somewhat unique, it provides a lesson for local and state permitting agencies, and project sponsors dealing with jurisdictions hostile to new housing.

Owners of beachfront mobilehomes in San Clemente, Orange County, filed permits with the Coastal Commission and other permitting agencies to renovate their mobilehome park. After several years, the Coastal Commission issued individual public hearing notices for each application. The notice included a project description, the date, time, and location of the hearing, hearing procedures, and ways the public could participate. Notably, the hearing notice did not specify the deadline for the Coastal Commission to render a decision on the permits under the PSA. However, the staff report provided in bold lettering that the Coastal Commission was required to make a decision at the hearing in order to comply with the PSA, and the Commission’s legal counsel discussed the “deemed approved” deadline at the hearing itself.

At the project hearing, the sponsors agreed in principle to withdraw and re-file their applications with an amended scope, but asked the Coastal Commission to waive resubmittal fees and a resubmittal waiting period. The Commission waived the waiting period, but not the resubmittal fees, and the meeting recessed without any further comment from the project sponsors. The Commission did not take any formal action on the pending applications. The sponsors then sued the Commission, claiming in part that the projects had been deemed approved under the PSA.

Unsurprisingly, the Coastal Commission claimed that the projects were not approved for several reasons. Relevant to the PSA, according to the Commission, the requisite public notice under the PSA was never given. It claimed the hearing notice needed to include a statement that the projects would be “deemed approved” if the Commission did not act within 60 days. The Court of Appeal disagreed, interpreting the PSA to require such a statement only when an applicant itself is providing notice of a hearing under the PSA. When the permitting agency provides notice, the PSA’s time limitations can apply even if the notice does not discuss the PSA.

The Court of Appeal’s decision overturns a 2006 decision reaching the opposite conclusion. The Court did not promulgate a list of information that must be included in a public notice to trigger the PSA’s deemed approved deadlines, instead reaching a narrower conclusion that the notice provided in this case—as discussed above—complied with statutory law and constitutional due process principles.

Interestingly, the Court noted that even though the Coastal Commission did not have a legal obligation to notify the public of the upcoming PSA deadline, it did just that, both through the project’s staff report and its legal counsel’s advice to the Commission that the PSA deadline was approaching. The Court also went out of its way to note near-unanimous public support for the project, which arguably made its decision easier. Implied in the Court’s opinion is that the Commission made a simple mistake of parliamentary procedure by not taking an official action on the pending applications in front of it.

The Court did not opine on whether the Commission could legally keep the hearing open and continue it to a future date past the PSA deadline date, or adopt a motion of intent to disapprove and continue it. Both are common actions taken by permitting authorities that pro-housing activists have long claimed circumvent the intent of the PSA and cause delay to housing projects.

Increasingly, California courts are being asked to enforce the pro-housing laws passed in Sacramento in recent years, such as SB 330, the PSA, and SB 35. For example, two trial courts recently rejected anti-housing voter initiatives on the grounds they violated SB 330, either one of which could be appealed and become binding case law. We will continue to keep you up to date on major housing-related legal developments.

 

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

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.

San Francisco Housing Element Update

| Jody Knight
Housing Element

While the Bay Area works to recover from the impacts of COVID-19 on retail and hospitality, and digital nomads slowly return to the office, the pandemic has done nothing to slow escalating home prices. The California Association of Realtors reported this week that the Bay Area’s median single-family home price exceeded $1.3 million in April, with a median price of $1.8 million in San Francisco. The City saw an increase of 5.9% from last year and 2.6% from March.

As single-family homes become increasingly out of reach for many families, the City also continues to experience a shortfall in all housing types, resulting in ongoing debate about uneven development throughout the City and the introduction of legislation at the State and local level that takes aim at single-family zoning.

On March 18, 2021, Reuben, Junius and Rose’s Tuija Catalano updated you about the upcoming RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) cycle. The update explained how the draft allocation would significantly increase the identified need for housing units in the Bay Area compared with the last RHNA cycle. Under the draft, San Francisco would see an increase from 28,869 to 82,069 units.

San Francisco has begun the process of planning for those housing units. The City’s Housing Element 2022 Update began in May 2020. The Housing Element is a component of the General Plan that is updated every eight years.

The current update focuses on social and racial equity, while it looks at how to accommodate the creation of 82,000 housing units by 2031. The plan focuses on building in State identified High Opportunity Areas, which are mainly in the western part of the City. The Planning Department has a page dedicated to the process which provides information and allows for public input.

The first draft of the Goals, Policies and Actions of the Housing Element have been identified as follows:

  • recognize the right to housing as a foundation for health and social and economic stability;
  • repair the harms of historic racial, ethnic, and social discrimination for American Indian, Black, and other People of Color;
  • foster racially and socially inclusive neighborhoods through distinct community strategies;
  • increase housing production to improve affordability for the City’s current and future residents;
  • increase housing choices for the City’s diverse cultural lifestyles, abilities, family structures, and income; and
  • promote neighborhoods that are well-connected, healthy, and rich with community culture.

On April 22, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted an informational hearing on the Draft Housing Element. Planning Staff will be engaging in outreach to further refine the policies in the plan, with a second draft anticipated by Fall 2021. The Draft Environment Impact Report is anticipated in early 2022.

At the April 22, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission also heard the 2020 Housing Inventory and Housing Balance Reports. The City saw a 1% increase in housing stock in 2020, with most new development in SoMa, the Mission and Downtown. While 2020 was a difficult year for development because of the pandemic, the Reports illustrate how far the City has to go to meet its RHNA target, particularly on housing affordable to lower income residents.

Given the already contentious environment surrounding housing equity and the geographic distribution of new units in the City, we expect this Housing Element update to generate significant debate. However, the Plan does not change allowable land uses, heights, or density, so meeting the City’s housing needs will depend on legislative changes. We will follow and report on both as the housing debate continues.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Jody Knight.

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.

Two Legislators Take Aim at Statewide Planning Laws

| Sabrina Eshaghi
Laws

In an apparent backlash against recent housing bills, two California state legislators have introduced a constitutional amendment that would essentially revoke the state’s ability to regulate land use. If approved, this amendment would allow cities to avoid compliance with state laws aimed at increasing housing production, making it more difficult to meet the housing needs of the growing California population.

The measure was introduced by Assemblymember Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) on March 16, 2021 and co-authored by Senator Glazer (D-Contra Costa). This comes after an attempt to get a similar citizen-initiated measure on the ballot, which has not reported any required signatures to the state as of this writing. In order to qualify for the ballot, two-thirds of each legislative chamber will need to approve the constitutional amendment. That amounts to a minimum of 54 votes in the Assembly and 27 in the Senate, assuming no vacancies. The governor’s approval is not required.

The constitutional amendment itself is fairly simple. It states that city or county regulations regarding “zoning or the use of land” prevail over conflicting state laws. Limited exceptions include conflicts with state statutes involving (1) the California Coastal Act, (2) the siting of certain power generating facilities, and (3) water or transportation infrastructure projects. Transportation infrastructure projects do not include transit-oriented development projects. This amendment would apply to both charter cities and general law cities. However, in charter cities, courts would determine whether a local ordinance that conflicts with one of the subject areas listed above addresses a matter of statewide concern or a municipal affair.

The measure states that the amendment will provide local control over land use decisions in order to balance development with the economic, environmental, and social needs of the community. The measure notes that the impacts of land use decisions vary depending on the municipality and specifically points to impacts on the infrastructure needed to maintain adequate public services.

While these are valid concerns, they need to be evaluated in light of the current housing crisis, which has been decades in the making. The state sets housing production goals, also known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), that cities and counties are required to plan for in their Housing Elements. However, planning for housing does not always translate into actual housing production. According to the HCD’s latest data, only about 6% of California’s cities and counties are on track to meet the state’s current RHNA goals in all income categories. And, as we noted in a prior e-update, many cities and counties are looking at significant increases in RHNA goals next cycle. In order to incentivize housing production, the legislature has stepped in to streamline approvals, allow density bonuses, and limit municipalities’ ability to deny certain housing projects.

The amendment’s broad applicability to regulations regarding “zoning or the use of land” leaves significant room for interpretation and will result in far-reaching consequences that will ultimately exacerbate the state’s worsening housing crisis. For example, the amendment would allow cities to disregard the following state laws:

  • Density Bonus Law. Under the Density Bonus Law, developers are entitled to up to a 50% density bonus if certain on-site affordability requirements are met. The law also allows waivers and concessions from development standards that would physically preclude the density permitted or result in identifiable and actual cost reductions.
  • SB 35. This legislation requires ministerial approval of housing projects that meet certain affordability requirements in cities and counties that are not meeting their RHNA goals.
  • Permit Streamlining Act. This Act allows certain development projects to be deemed approved if the local agency does not approve the project within specified time limits.
  • SB 330. Among other things, SB 330 (1) provides a mechanism to vest the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date a complete Preliminary Housing Development Application is submitted, (2) limits the ability of municipalities to downzone certain properties, impose moratoria, or apply new subjective design standards to housing developments, (3) further streamlines approvals, and (4) limits the number of hearings that can be conducted prior to approval of a housing project.
  • Housing Accountability Act. This Act limits a local government’s ability to deny, make infeasible, or reduce the density of housing development projects that are consistent with objective local development standards.
  • ADU Law. In recent years, there has been a significant amount of legislation making ADUs easier to build by streamlining the approval process, limiting applicability of impact fees, and relaxing zoning requirements.

The broad language of the amendment may also have the effect of reversing state rent control regulations and General Plan requirements, including the need to update the Housing Element to accommodate RHNA goals. In addition, a number of land-use related bills have been introduced this session that could be impacted by this constitutional amendment.

It remains to be seen whether two-thirds of the legislature, which recently passed landmark housing bills, would vote to put this constitutional amendment on the ballot. We will continue to monitor this measure and keep you updated.

 

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

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.

Cities’ Upcoming Need to Identify Housing Opportunity Sites

| Tuija Catalano
Housing

The next RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) cycle is quickly approaching, which means that all Bay Area cities will be taking a closer look at their Housing Elements and determining whether they have enough land zoned to accommodate more housing.

In June 2020, the California Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) provided the Bay Area its Regional Housing Needs Determination for the next RHNA cycle (2023-2031), identifying a need for 441,176 new housing units.  The overall figure is further categorized into very low (26%), low (15%), moderate (16%), and above moderate (43%) housing and income levels.  This figure represents a significant increase when compared to the prior RHNA cycle (2015-2023) when the Bay Area was allocated 187,990 units.  In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) is responsible for allocating the overall figure among cities and counties, and its Housing Methodology Committee spent much of 2020 in meetings to discuss and decide on different methodology options.  Regardless of which allocation methodology was going to be chosen, most Bay Area cities and counties are seeing a significant increase in their RHNA allocations.

ABAG’s Executive Board approved the Draft RHNA Methodology and Final RHNA Subregional Shares (“Draft Allocation”) for the Bay Area on January 21, 2021.  The Draft Allocation is subject to HCD approval on or before April 11, 2021, and thereafter an appeal opportunity by individual cities and counties during Summer/Fall 2021.  Historically, very few appeals by individual cities or counties have been successful, and thus most of the Draft Allocation figures are anticipated to be adopted as final allocations by late 2021.

Once the allocations have been finalized, individual cities and counties will need to amend their Housing Elements and identify sufficient number of vacant or underdeveloped sites that can accommodate the RHNA figure allocated to each city.  Many cities are currently starting the process by engaging consultants to work on their next Housing Element update.  The updated housing elements must be submitted to the State by each city and county no later than January 2023, and if applicable, cities and counties will thereafter need to rezone properties consistent with the updated Housing Elements and site identifications.

To understand the magnitude of the increases cities and counties are facing for the next RHNA cycle, it is helpful to look at some of the Draft Allocation figures.  The following represents a sampling of Bay Area cities, comparing their final 2015-2023 RHNA figure to those proposed in the Draft Allocation for the next, 2023-2031 cycle.  For a complete list of cities/counties, see the Draft Allocation.

City2015-2023 cycle2023-2031 cycle
San Francisco28,86982,069
Oakland14,76526,251
San Jose35,08062,200
Berkeley2,9598,934
Fremont5,45512,897
Concord3,4785,073
Lafayette4002,114
Walnut Creek2,2355,805
Novato4152,090
Tiburon78639
Daly City1,3504,838
Menlo Park6552,946
San Bruno1,1553,165
Cupertino1,0644,588
Los Gatos6191,993
Sunnyvale5,45211,966

Cities and counties are not required to build new housing, but they are required to plan for it and specifically plan for enough housing that satisfies their assigned RHNA figure.  Since most Bay Area cities and counties are subject to significant increases, local city councils and board of supervisors, along with their Planning Departments, will be taking a comprehensive look at zoning and development in their jurisdictions over the next year and a half.  This may also represent opportunities in the near-term for property owners of currently vacant or underutilized properties and/or those that lack the zoning necessary for residential development.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Tuija Catalano.

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.