housing Archives

2023 Legislation at a Glance – Part 1

April 5, 2023April 5, 2023 | Justin A. Zucker and Sabrina Eshaghi

As we’ve previously reported, 2022 was a blockbuster year for housing legislation and it appears this legislative session is gearing up to be just as consequential. But, with approximately a quarter of the legislative body in their freshman year, it’ll be difficult to determine how the session will play out. In this two-part update, we will be providing a brief overview of some of the most significant bills introduced thus far impacting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Density Bonus Law, housing, parking requirements, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and other land use-related policies.

CEQA Reform

A substantial number of CEQA-related bills have been introduced this legislative session. Most significantly, meaningful CEQA reform appears to be a priority with multiple bills aiming to creatively address CEQA misuse.

AB 978 (Patterson) Bond Requirements for CEQA Challenges to Housing Projects. This bill would require any person bringing a CEQA lawsuit against a housing project to post a bond of $500,000 to cover the costs and damages to the housing project incurred by the project sponsor or lead agency. The court would be permitted to waive or adjust the bond requirement if there is good cause to believe the requirement does not further the interest of justice.

AB 340 (Fong) Written Comments Must be Submitted Ahead of Hearing. This bill would require project opponents to make any written comments challenging the project’s compliance with CEQA at least ten days before the public hearing on the project. Any written comments submitted after that time could not be used in a CEQA lawsuit against the project. Note that this would not restrict opponents’ ability to present oral comments at the hearing.

SB 239 (Dahle) Limits on CEQA Litigation. First, this bill would only allow the Attorney General to bring CEQA lawsuits challenging certified Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), Negative Declarations, or Mitigated Negative Declarations, meaning members of the public and community organizations would no longer have standing in cases involving these types of CEQA documents. Notably, it excludes other types of CEQA documents like exemptions. Challenges brought for non-environmental purposes would be subject to dismissal and award of attorney’s fees. Second, courts would be prohibited from stopping construction or operation of a project due to CEQA litigation, unless the project (1) presents an imminent threat to public health and safety or (2) contains unforeseen important Native American artifacts or unforeseen important historical, archaeological, or ecological value that would be materially, permanently, and adversely affected. Even in that case, the court can only stop specific activities related to those impacts. Third, for housing projects, the bill would limit subsequent CEQA actions challenging an agency’s remedial revisions to CEQA documents in response to a court’s ruling by prohibiting the court from considering new issues that were not raised in the original proceeding. Lastly, until January 1, 2030, lawsuits challenging certified EIRs for commercial, industrial, housing, or public works projects that meet certain standards and address longstanding critical needs in the project area must be resolved within 365 days, unless the court makes certain findings.

These bills may indicate that the long-awaited first step toward CEQA reform is on the horizon. In addition, a couple of other CEQA-related bills have been introduced that would be helpful in limiting review:

Two bills appear to be a response to the First District Court of Appeal ruling last month involving the UC Berkeley project that proposes to turn the People’s Park into student and homeless housing. In that case, the court held that the EIR failed to analyze potential noise impacts from loud student parties, among other inadequacies.
- AB 1307 (Wicks and Luz Rivas) would amend CEQA to clarify that for residential projects, noise generated by the unamplified voices of residents is not an impact on the environment.
- AB 1700 (Hoover) would clarify that for housing projects, in addition to noise impacts, population growth is also not an impact on the environment.
Currently, aesthetic impacts are not considered significant effects on the environment for housing projects involving the refurbishment, conversion, repurposing, or replacement of an existing building. This existing law is set to expire January 1, 2024. AB 356 (Mathis) would make this provision permanent.

State Density Bonus Updates

Similar to last year, a number of bills proposing updates and tweaks to the current State Density Bonus Law have been introduced.

AB 1287 (Alvarez) Additional Density Bonus. This bill would modify the State Density Bonus Law to supersede the California Coastal Act of 1976. This bill would also 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. Projects that utilize this additional moderate-income bonus would also receive up to six incentives or concessions.

AB 1630 (Garcia) Ministerial Student Housing. Dubbed the Student Housing Crisis Act of 2023, AB 1630 would require student and faculty and staff housing (with limitations) on property within 1,000 feet of a university campus to be ministerially approved if a minimum of 20% of the units are affordable to lower income households. In exchange, a local agency could not impose or enforce a minimum parking requirement, floor-to-area ratio requirement, rear or side setback requirements greater than four feet, or height limit below forty feet. This bill would require a range of wage and training standards, including paying prevailing wage, providing workers with health benefits, and giving graduates of state-approved apprenticeship programs first access to these jobs (similar to AB 2011, which is taking effect July 1, 2023).

AB 323 (Holden) Restricting Use of For-Sale Units as Rentals. This bill 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.

AB 637 (Low) Undermining Local Inclusionary Ordinance Not Allowed. This bill would create an exception from the requirement to grant an incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction if it would alter the requirements of a local inclusionary affordable housing ordinance. The initial draft of this bill would have created an exception from the requirement that a jurisdiction grant an incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction if the project would have an adverse impact on a policy that affirmatively furthers fair housing.

Only in San Francisco

As previously reported last month, AB 1114 (Haney) would bar jurisdictions (San Francisco is the only one affected) from allowing building-permit appeals after a qualifying residential project has received an entitlement.

Stay tuned next week for an overview of proposed legislation related to housing, parking, ADUs, and other land use-related policy bills.

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

West Side Story: Proposed Legislation May Remove Barriers for Small Projects

March 8, 2023March 8, 2023 | Chloe Angelis

Supervisor Myrna Melgar has introduced legislation that aims to incentivize much-needed family-sized housing on the west side of the city. While clearly in line with the City’s housing production goals, it includes some requirements that could make it inapplicable to most of the west side properties it aims to cover.

The draft legislation would create the Family Housing Opportunity Special Use District, which shares a boundary with the Well-Resourced Neighborhoods Map included in the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element. The map covers the entire west side of the city, plus the Marina, Cow Hollow, and parts of North Beach. As drafted, the ordinance would expire eight years after it becomes effective.

The proposed ordinance encourages the construction of two-to-four-unit projects that provide at least two 2-bedroom units within the new special use district. Qualifying projects would be exempt from an otherwise-required conditional use authorization (“CU”), including CUs that typically apply to the demolition of an existing residential unit. Eligible projects would also be exempt from Section 311 notice and the discretionary review process. Obtaining approval of a CU or having a project sent to the Planning Commission by a neighbor via discretionary review creates uncertainty and can add many months to a project’s approval timeline. Taking both CU requirements and Section 311/discretionary review off the table are meaningful incentives.

The legislation does not automatically exempt these projects from CEQA—but small new construction projects should be eligible for Class 3 (new construction of small structures) categorical exemptions.

Specifically, the new rules would apply to projects that construct two-unit buildings (including a two unit building with a third standalone unit outside the proposed building envelope) and three-unit buildings (including a three unit building with a fourth standalone unit outside the proposed building envelope). At least two of the units in a qualifying project must have at least two bedrooms.

Projects must consist of ground-up new construction, and while they would be exempt from the otherwise-applicable density limit (up to four units per lot and not including any permitted accessory dwelling units), projects would not be exempt from the otherwise-applicable height limit for the property in question.

As drafted, the legislation includes several other restrictions that will limit its potential impact:

Qualifying projects cannot demolish a historic resource and must comply with the Residential Design Guidelines and the Planning Code, except for lot-based dwelling unit density limits. While requiring Code compliance in exchange for bypassing Planning Commission review is reasonable, the Residential Design Guidelines are not entirely objective, which will make it difficult for sponsors to assess whether Planning Staff will deem a particular project in compliance with the guidelines. It’s also difficult to imagine how a third or fourth unit constructed outside the main building envelope could comply with the Planning Code’s rear yard and obstruction controls.

Additionally, projects cannot propose the demolition of any of the following:

Units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past five years;
Units that are or were subject to the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (Chapter 37 of the Administrative Code) within the past five years;
Units that are or were occupied by lower or very low income households within the past five years; or
Units that were withdrawn from the rental market pursuant to the Ellis Act within the past 10 years.

The requirement related to the Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (i.e., the “Rent Ordinance”) is very limiting as drafted. Most residential units in San Francisco are subject to the Rent Ordinance, which has a rent control component and an eviction protection component.

Units built after June 13, 1979, most single-family homes and condos, and units that have undergone substantial rehabilitation are subject to the Rent Ordinance, but only to the eviction controls (not the rent increase limitations that apply to other units). If the legislation intends to exclude these units and older units subject to rent control limits, there will be nothing left for redevelopment pursuant to the proposed Family Housing Opportunity Special Use District. Protecting affordable units from demolition is a logical policy choice, but hopefully the legislation will be amended to limit this restriction only to units subject to the Rent Ordinance’s rent control protections.

Supervisor Melgar’s proposal has the potential to be an impactful piece of legislation to spur development on the west side of the city and we’ll be keeping an eye on its progress through the legislative process.

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

Matt Haney Seeks To Eliminate Only-in-San Francisco Appeals

March 1, 2023March 1, 2023 | Thomas P. Tunny

Housing developers in San Francisco no doubt recognize this entitlement moment of disbelief: after a grueling, years-long process of working with staff, neighbors, and policy-makers, with numerous concessions made to address the potential impacts of their proposed project, the project finally receives its entitlement from the Planning Commission (a recent study found that a multifamily housing project takes 627 days on average to obtain a building permit) when lo and behold, the Board of Appeals sends notice that the project’s site permit has been appealed; and/or the demolition permit is appealed; and/or the grading permit; and/or the tree planting permit…

Fueling the disbelief even further is that the appeal isn’t based on anything new. The project has already gone through exhaustive review and revisions. The permit appeal process simply gives project opponents one more “bite of the apple”, an opportunity to cause delay and gain leverage for further negotiations and concessions. The standard of review for the Board of Appeals is merely whether the permit was issued in error. And four out of five votes are needed to overturn the permit. All of this highlights the City’s recognition that these appeals are superfluous; and yet, they remain allowed.

Assembly Member Matt Haney seeks to change that. This month he introduced AB 1114, a new bill that recognizes the absurdity (and steep costs to housing) of these appeals, and would eliminate them. The bill would bar cities from allowing building-permit appeals after an applicant has navigated the long and winding road to entitlement. Although the legislation would apply to all cities and counties in California, San Francisco is the only jurisdiction in the state that allows such appeals of entitled projects. Hence, only San Francisco would be affected by the new law. Only permits for projects that are at least 2/3 residential would be protected by the legislation.

One potential hurdle for the legislation is the City’s Charter. Arguably, this proposed change requires an amendment of the City’s Charter, which can be done only by San Francisco voters. But Haney is seeking to bypass that requirement, relying on the state’s vested interest for all California jurisdictions to build more housing.

The bill was introduced February 15 and is scheduled tentatively for a committee hearing on March 18. State Senator Scott Wiener supports the bill, and the Housing Action Coalition was instrumental in its drafting.

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

Housing Element Fallout: From Noncompliance to Lawsuits

February 15, 2023February 15, 2023 | Daniel J. Turner

The January 31, 2023 deadline for Bay Area cities and counties to revise and update their Housing Elements has passed, and only four of the Bay Area’s 109 local jurisdictions – San Francisco, City of Alameda, Emeryville, and San Leandro – have adopted fully compliant Housing Elements so far. While many of the Bay Area’s other jurisdictions have made substantial progress toward updating their Housing Elements, others have shown little effort in meeting their obligations under the state’s Housing Element Law. State law imposes a number of potential enforcement penalties and consequences on jurisdictions that fail to comply with the Housing Element Law, including the oft-discussed “Builder’s Remedy”, and housing advocacy groups have started turning to the courts to enforce these provisions against noncompliant jurisdictions.

Background

California’s Housing Element Law was enacted in 1969 and is intended to encourage housing development by requiring cities and counties to adopt Housing Elements as part of their General Plans. A Housing Element is a jurisdiction’s detailed plan for the development of housing within its borders, and it must meet various statutory requirements, such as identifying adequate development sites to meet the jurisdiction’s allocated housing need, creating programs to incentivize the production of affordable housing units, and describing the necessary measures to implement the plan. To achieve compliance with the law, the Housing Element must also receive certification from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) before the jurisdiction’s statutorily determined deadline. A jurisdiction that fails to do so is considered out of compliance and is exposed to certain penalties and other enforcement mechanisms until it adopts a compliant Housing Element.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Among the potential consequence for noncompliance is the notorious Builder’s Remedy. Under the Builder’s Remedy, a jurisdiction is prohibited from denying an affordable housing project based on the project’s noncompliance with the jurisdiction’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. It effectively frees such projects from all local zoning and development controls, unless the jurisdiction can justify project modifications or disapproval by articulating specific, adverse impacts to health or safety. To qualify for the Builder’s Remedy, a project must provide either 20% of units as affordable to ≤80% AMI households (low-income), or 100% of units as affordable to ≤120% AMI households (moderate-income). While potentially very powerful, it should be noted that the Builder’s Remedy has had minimal real-world testing, with sparingly few examples of successfully entitled projects.

Beyond the Builder’s Remedy, a noncompliant jurisdiction can experience a variety of other consequences. For example, a jurisdiction that does not become compliant within 120 days of missing its deadline is subject to tighter implementation and rezoning timelines once it does adopt a compliant Housing Element. Further, as long as a jurisdiction remains noncompliant, it may be subject to other statutory or judicial losses of zoning and permitting authority, it may be liable for court-imposed fines, and it may have reduced access to state funding and grants for housing, infrastructure, and municipal operations.

Current Status of Bay Area Jurisdictions

The 105 remaining Bay Area jurisdictions – beyond those four listed above – are in various states of noncompliance with the Housing Element Law. These jurisdictions range from those that have made substantial progress toward compliance and are undergoing review and certification by the HCD, to those jurisdictions that have barely begun preliminary drafts.

Oakland, the Bay Area’s third-largest city, is among those jurisdictions that did not achieve compliance by the deadline after its Housing Element was denied certification on February 3rd. Despite having already undergone multiple revisions since it was first submitted in December 2022, a number of technical deficiencies were identified in Oakland’s Housing Element and HCD requested further edits. HCD’s denial letter to Oakland also commended the city’s overall efforts in completing the process. Oakland resubmitted its Housing Element on February 13th, and it is currently pending review.

According to the HCD’s Housing Element Review and Compliance Report (as of 2/14/23), approximately 34 Bay Area jurisdictions are in a similar situation to Oakland’s, with an adopted Housing Element that is currently awaiting review and certification by the HCD. About three-fourths of these jurisdictions submitted their Housing Elements on or within a few days of the January 31st deadline, and given this large influx, the HCD’s review timeline is uncertain. While technically out of compliance, these jurisdictions are unlikely to experience the more severe enforcement consequences due to the substantial amount of progress they have already made and the high likelihood of achieving compliance within the next few months.

Based on the Compliance Report, another 59 jurisdictions have submitted an initial or subsequent draft Housing Element to HCD for review but have not yet adopted it. Because the adoption process includes environmental review, public participation, and multiple hearings, these jurisdictions have a longer road ahead of them (although it will vary greatly for each individual jurisdiction). A further 12 jurisdictions have not yet submitted anything to HCD and may not have even begun the drafting process.

Housing Advocacy Group Lawsuits

In response to the numerous jurisdictions that failed to meet the Housing Element deadline, housing advocacy groups, including YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, and Californians for Homeownership, have started filing lawsuits against those jurisdictions that are furthest out of compliance. These lawsuits are requesting that the court compel each jurisdiction to bring its respective Housing Element into compliance and are asking the court to impose additional sanctions available to the court under the Housing Element Law, which range from fines to removal of permitting authority. Further, each lawsuit is seeking a judgment declaration regarding the provisions of the Builder’s Remedy, with the apparent intent of laying the groundwork for developers to take advantage of it without having to face extraneous judicial challenges.

It is unknown whether these advocacy groups will expand their current litigation efforts, and it remains to be seen whether any developers will actually employ the Builder’s Remedy at risk of garnering the ire of local agencies for future projects. However, these lawsuits may provide helpful insight in how the courts – and the cities themselves – will respond to the various enforcement mechanisms enacted over the past few years.

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

SF Housing Element Certified by State, adopted by the Board on Jan. 31 deadline

January 31, 2023 | Kaitlin Sheber

Today, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) unanimously voted to adopt an ordinance that amends San Francisco’s Housing Element as required under California law. Today was the last day for the City to meet its deadline to adopt an updated Housing Element that complies with a variety of new state laws.

The updated Housing Element plans for 82,069 new housing units in the next 8 years—nearly three times the units the City was expected and failed to construct over the past 8 years. Of the 82,069 new units, 32,881 units must be affordable to Low or Very Low Income households. To plan for the ambitious requirement and comply with new Housing Element Laws, the City has made extensive updates to its Housing Element, including the following:

Housing production is being shifted towards small and mid-rise housing across all neighborhoods, particularly along transit corridors and the west side of the City.
Programs and actions to affirmatively further fair housing have been added as newly required under state law.
The Housing Element has been updated to reflect the City’s commitment to advancing racial and social equity in San Francisco.
Environmental justice policies will address unique or compounded health risks in affected areas.

As many jurisdictions across the Bay Area work to ensure their updated Housing Elements comply with state law to avoid consequences such as loss of state funding, fines, and potentially loss of local control, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) issued a letter on January 20, 2023 deeming San Francisco’s Housing Element update will comply with State Housing Element Law when it is adopted, submitted to, and ultimately approved by HCD.

Now that the updated Housing Element has been adopted, the City will begin work on implementing its Housing Element to stay in compliance with State Housing Element Law. This will entail rezoning significant swaths of the west side of the City within the next 3 years to allow for more density, especially as HCD has indicated the City should pursue its most aggressive rezoning strategy. The City will also work to reduce governmental constraints in an effort to facilitate housing production under its new Housing Element.

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

Cars to Casas Nearing Adoption

December 14, 2022December 14, 2022 | Tuija Catalano

Approximately a year ago we reported on Mayor London Breed’s introduction of the “Cars to Casas” legislation which proposed to make it easier to build housing on existing parking lots, gas stations and properties improved with certain other automotive uses. The legislation has now been rebranded as “Automotive Uses to Housing Uses” and made significant progress in the last two weeks with a positive recommendation from the Land Use and Transportation Committee on Monday, December 5^th, and unanimous votes at the full Board of Supervisors on first reading on Tuesday, December 6^th and on second and final reading on Tuesday, December 13^th. The legislation will be forwarded next to the Mayor for her signature, and if signed, will become effective 30 days thereafter.

The legislation has been pending since October 2021, in part due to the Land Use and Transportation Committee’s request for an economic analysis. If adopted, the legislation will eliminate a conditional use authorization requirement that currently applies to conversion of existing gas station uses, and would create an exception to the permitted residential density at eligible sites. Sites that are eligible under the legislation are those that are currently used for auto-oriented uses, allow residential uses as a principally permitted use but do not currently contain any residential uses, and have not had a Legacy Business on the site within four years prior to the application submittal date.

As proposed, including amendments by the Land Use and Transportation Committee, the legislation will not apply to any properties that are zoned for the RM (Residential-Mixed) or RC (Residential-Commercial) district, or to properties that are located in a historic district.

The permitted residential density for RH (Residential-House) districts is up to four units per lot, and for all other eligible sites density is unlimited provided the project complies with applicable height, bulk, setback and other Planning Code requirements. That said, eligible sites can also utilize the state density bonus program, which can allow waivers and concessions from otherwise applicable Planning Code requirements.

The legislation is one example of efforts by Mayor Breed and the City to make it easier to build more housing and to get entitlements and permits for development proposals, and as such, a welcome proposal. If the legislation is signed by the Mayor in the next 10 days, it will become effective in approximately mid-January 2023.

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

PDR Protections & Higher Fees for Large Institutions in Housing Element Package

November 23, 2022November 23, 2022 | Melinda Sarjapur and Daniel Frattin

San Francisco’s Housing Element Update (“Update”) has been in the works since mid-2020, and the City is sprinting to adopt it before a January 2023 deadline that could open the door to Builder’s Remedy Projects and eventually a loss of state funding for affordable housing and transportation. (See Exhibit D to the Planning Department’s Update Initiation Memo).

The Update’s primary focus is to spur residential construction to meet the state-mandated RHNA target of 82,000 new homes over eight years and to shift more housing development – especially affordable housing – to transit corridors on the westside.

However, through “conforming amendments” to other elements of the City’s General Plan, the City sets the stage for new restrictions on the conversion or displacement of existing Production, Distribution, and Repair (“PDR”) or Industrial uses. It also targets large institutions – one of the sectors where in-person activity tends to be higher in the era of hybrid work – for new development impact fees.

Two of these amendments are shown below. For each item, text from the existing General Plan is shown in plain text; proposed additions to the General Plan are underlined.

Air Quality Element:

Policy 3.3: Continue existing city policies that require housing development in conjunction with office development and expand this requirement to other types of commercial and large institutional developments.

The intent is to require large institutional employers that aren’t currently subject to the City’s Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee to conduct an analysis of the housing demand of their employees and then show how they will meet that demand in their Institutional Master Plans (“IMP”). It could also pave the path for extending the JHLF to large non-institutional uses that are not currently subject to it (hospitals/schools/etc.).

In a bit of revisionist history, the Planning Department notes that the “IMP” caused colleges to realize the housing needs of their students and credit that as causing many private non-profit colleges to build student housing. In fact, IMPs had nothing to do with colleges building housing. The need was obvious; in reality inclusionary housing requirements were too expensive for them to shoulder. It was only when the City exempted student housing from inclusionary requirements that several private schools embarked on ambitious housing construction programs. Non-profit colleges and healthcare providers will find it difficult to grow in San Francisco if the Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee – currently ranging from $26 – $76 per square foot for other uses – is extended to them.

Commerce & Industry Element:

Policy 4.5: Control encroachment of incompatible land uses on viable industrial activity. Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR) areas offer economic opportunity for adjacent neighborhoods, especially for low-income communities and communities of color. PDR businesses can provide stable job opportunities, good wages, and diversity in types of activities and jobs Restrict incompatible land uses, such as housing and office, and the conversion of industrial buildings to other building types in PDR districts and in areas of concentrated PDR, construction, or utility activities.

In mixed-use districts or areas adjacent to PDR districts, avoid the displacement of existing businesses, protect the affordability of PDR space, and, if displacement is unavoidable, replace some or all the PDR use with viable, affordable industrial space on-site or off-site in a PDR district.

This revised language paves the way for the City to adopt additional restrictions on the types of uses permitted in PDR districts – specifically the conversion or new construction of laboratory uses that frequently complement PDR. Engineering labs, for example, often need PDR to supply parts for prototyping, testing, and may well grow into small-scale manufacturing (PDR) uses themselves. This flexibility has served both PDR and lab uses well. How is a policy that replaces synergy with inflexibility good for the City? Why is industrial protection in districts where housing is not even permitted a “conforming” amendment to the General Plan?

Even more ironically, this policy amendment sets the stage to say “no” to housing in the very areas that have been most successful at producing it: rezoned PDR areas accounted for roughly ¾ of housing production by striking a balance between preserving space for industry and allowing much higher residential density. Proposition X made it harder to build housing in certain districts by requiring replacement space. However, this policy could reach much further and set up yet another restriction on housing in favor of preserving industrial space. The Update is supposed to remove barriers to housing. This one fails that test.

A full list of the General Plan updates proposed in connection with the Housing Element Update is available on the Planning Department’s website.

The full Housing Element Update is anticipated for adoption by the Planning Commission on December 15, 2022, and Board of Supervisors in January 2023.

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

2022 Housing Legislation Round-Up

October 6, 2022October 6, 2022 | Justin A. Zucker and Daniel J. Turner

This year was a blockbuster year for housing legislation coming from Sacramento. Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law more than three dozen bills related to housing and housing production. Below please find a brief overview of twelve housing bills signed by the Governor that become effective next year.

AB 682. Density Bonus for “Shared Housing” Buildings

AB 682 amends the State Density Bonus Law to create a density bonus for “Shared Housing” developments. Shared housing, or group housing as it is commonly known, is characterized by single-room units with shared access to common kitchen and dining facilities. Each unit is typically intended for one or two occupants and features a small kitchenette. This new density bonus will allow shared housing developments to build at greater densities in exchange for dedicating a percentage of units to affordable housing, with the same affordability requirements and bonus amounts as is currently available to standard-unit developments. Notably, shared housing developments can provide up to 25% of their floor area as standard-unit housing and still qualify for a density bonus.

AB 916. No Public Hearing to Increase Bedroom Count

AB 916 prohibits cities from requiring a public hearing for a permit to add up to two bedrooms by reconfiguring existing space within an existing dwelling unit.

AB 1551. Commercial Development Bonuses for Providing Affordable Housing

AB 1551 creates a density bonus for commercial developers who partner with housing developers and support the provision of affordable housing through land donation, cash payment, or by directly building units. A commercial developer is eligible for up to a 20% density bonus. To qualify, the housing development supported by the commercial developer must provide either 30% of units as affordable for low income (<80% AMI) or 15% of units as affordable for very-low income (<50% AMI).

AB 2011. Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act

AB 2011 provides streamlined, ministerial approval of multifamily housing developments that contain affordable housing units located in commercial zones. Two tiers of development are available, depending on the amount of affordable housing provided. A project dedicating 100% of units as affordable for lower income households can be developed by right on most parcels zoned for retail, office, or parking uses. A project with market-rate units that provides a specific percentage of rental or ownership units as affordable for either lower income or very-low income households can be developed by right on parcels zoned for retail, office, or parking if the site has at least 50 feet of frontage on a commercial corridor (a street between 70 and 150 feet wide). AB 2011 projects are also subject to certain prevailing wage and skilled workforce requirements. We have discussed AB 2011 in greater detail in previous updates on August 24, 2022, and September 1, 2022.

SB 6. Middle Class Housing Act

SB 6 is intended to increase the development potential for middle-income housing by principally permitting housing developments that meet specific criteria in areas zoned for office, retail, or parking uses. Eligible developments are required to meet or exceed certain density thresholds established in the state’s Housing Element law, such as 30 units per acre in metropolitan settings or 20 units per acre in suburban settings. SB 6 projects must also meet certain prevailing wage and skilled and trained workforce requirements, although a development can be exempted from these in certain circumstances.

AB 2334. Density Bonus in Very Low Vehicle Travel Area

AB 2334 expands the available density bonus for 100% affordable housing developments in very low vehicle travel areas. A “very low vehicle travel area” is a transit analysis zone where existing residential development generates 85% or fewer vehicle miles traveled per capita than the regional area in which it is located. Qualifying density bonus projects are not subject to maximum density controls, are entitled to up to 4 development incentives, and may receive an additional three-stories of height. This additional density bonus is only available in the counties of the Bay Area, Sacramento, the Southern Coast, and Inland Empire. AB 2334 also clears up the grey area for application of the state density bonus in a form-based zoning district, requiring calculation of an “average unit size” multiplied by the density bonus amount to determine increase in floor area allowed.

AB 2653. Housing Element Reporting

AB 2653 alters some of the requirements for annual housing element reports cities must submit to the state. Cities must include greater detail, including the numbers of all new and demolished housing units in the jurisdiction, as well as data on all approved density bonus projects. AB 2653 also provides a mechanism for the state to request corrections and make referrals for enforcement.

AB 2668. SB 35 Streamlining Updates

AB 2668 amends SB 35 clarifying streamlined SB 35 projects are not subject to any non-legislative discretionary approval and that density bonus units are not considered when calculating whether a project satisfies SB 35’s affordability requirements. Further, the bill prohibits cities from denying an application for missing materials if there is enough information to allow a reasonable person to conclude the development is consistent with the applicable objective standards. AB 2668 also brings important change to how the Cortese List affects SB 35 eligibility. Placement on the Cortese List, which is the aggregate of the state’s decentralized hazardous waste sites databases, disqualifies a site from SB 35, until it is cleared for residential use by the authority having jurisdiction. However, longstanding confusion over the mechanism of clearing a site meant that once a site was listed, it was effectively barred from SB 35 permanently, even if it had undergone extensive remediation. AB 2668 establishes specific criteria, documentation, and agency determinations that allow a “listed” site to qualify for SB 35.

AB 2221 & SB 897. ADU Law Updates

AB 2221 and SB 897 make a number of changes to existing ADU law to provide for greater development flexibility and ensure consistent and efficient project review. Under these bills, a city that denies an ADU application will be required to provide a full set of written comments that includes a list of all deficient items and details how the application can be remedied. These comments must be provided within the existing 60-day review period. Additionally, a city will be prohibited from denying an ADU application based on nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or unpermitted structures that are not affected by the ADU construction and do not pose a threat to safety.

The bills also increase ADU development potential by restricting setbacks that prevent ADUs below a minimum floor area, increasing the minimum height limit for ADUs located near transit stops or attached to primary dwellings, and prohibiting owner-occupancy requirements until January 1, 2025. Importantly, the addition of an ADU will no longer constitute a change of R occupancy under the building code such as from an R3 (single-family or duplex) to an R2 (multi-family), and will not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers if not previously required.

AB 2234. Post-Entitlement Permit Processing

AB 2234 focuses on post-entitlement non-discretionary building permit processes after the planning process has concluded and environmental review is complete. AB 2234 requires local agencies to compile a list of information need to approve or deny a post-entitlement permit, a checklist and post an example of a completed, approved application. AB 2234 also sets timelines for review of post-entitlement applications for housing projects: (a) for projects with 25 units or fewer, a local agency shall complete first review and comment within 30 days of an application completion; and (b) for projects with 26 or more units, a local agency shall complete first review and comment within 60 days of an application completion. These time limits are tolled if a local agency requires review of an application by an outside third-party reviewer. Failure to meet these timelines is a violation of the Housing Accountability Act.

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorneys Justin A. Zucker and Daniel J. Turner.

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

September 1, 2022September 1, 2022 | Daniel Frattin and Daniel J. Turner

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 46^th 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.

To Fourplex or Not to Fourplex

April 18, 2022April 15, 2022 | Thomas P. Tunny

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.