AB 1033

AB 1033 – How to Implement New State ADU Condominium Law

| Casita Coalition

New! Casita Guidance for Establishing Local ADU Condo Ordinances As of January 1st, 2025, the ban on separate sale of ADUs will be lifted in state law. Cities and counties who want to opt in and allow these entry-level homeownership opportunities through separate sale of ADUs as condos will need to update their municipal codes. The Casita Coalition and Reuben, Junius, and Rose, LLP have developed this guidance to assist and encourage local agencies in establishing procedures and policies to re-enable Californians priced out of many of our communities to once again have a dream of buying a home, by enabling more naturally affordable condominiums for sale. Download Memo

exemption

Transfer Tax Waiver Proposed by Mayor

| Kaitlin Sheber

Last week, Mayor London Breed proposed a ballot measure aimed at encouraging conversion of office to residential use in San Francisco’s Downtown by eliminating transfer tax for certain converted residential space. The measure would complement the Commercial to Residential Adaptive Reuse Program, effective as of August this year, which we previously provided an overview of on April 19, 2023. Currently, the City’s Transfer Tax is as high as 6% for transactions over $25 million (Article 12-C, San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code (the “Transfer Tax”)). If approved by the voters, any deed, instrument, or writing that effects a first transfer of converted residential property, that would have been subject to the Transfer Tax, is exempt from the Transfer Tax. However, the exemption only applies up to the first 5,000,000 square feet of converted residential space. Above the 5,000,000 gross square feet limitation, the Transfer Tax would apply to the proportional value of or consideration for the property, based on the floor area over 5,000,000 square feet. Under the ballot measure, converted residential property is the property or portion of property that received a first certificate of occupancy after conversion from nonresidential property to residential property (“Converted Residential Property”), and meets the following requirements: Either (1) the first development application for conversion is approved or (2) the first site or building permit is issued, before January 1, 2030. Note, in cases where there is an appeal, the approval/issuance must be upheld before January 1, 2030; A certificate is requested from the Planning Department, before January 1, 2030, showing the square footage of the proposed conversion, to be within the 5,000,000 square foot limitation (“Qualifying Certificate”); A first construction document is received within three years after final approval of the conversion; and At the time of the transfer, the gross floor area of the improvements divided by the lot area is at least one. Those who seek to claim the proposed Transfer Tax exemption must take the following steps: Request, after final approval of the property conversion, a Qualifying Certificate; Request an exemption certificate from the Planning Department for each transfer for which an exemption will be claimed; and For each exemption claimed for each transfer, submit the exemption certificate to the recorder at the time the Transfer Tax Affidavit is submitted. According to the Mayor’s Office, 30 million square feet, or 34% of the office market, is currently vacant in the City. The proposed ballot measure aims to assist projects on the edge of financial feasibility through elimination of tax that would be due on the sale of a converted building. Voters will decide whether to approve this proposed ballot measure at the upcoming March 5, 2024 election.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Kaitlin Sheber. 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.

legislation

2023 Housing Legislation Round-Up

| Justin A. Zucker

Like last year, 2023 was a stellar year for housing legislation in California. Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law more than forty-five bills related to housing and housing production. Below is a brief overview of thirteen housing bills signed by the Governor becoming effective January 1, 2024, relating to the State Density Bonus Law, housing policies, and parking. Density Bonus Law Updates AB 1287 (Alvarez) Additional Density Bonus Layer. This bill adds another density bonus layer option to the State Density Bonus Law. If additional very low income or moderate income units are provided, a project is eligible to receive up to an additional 20% to 50% density bonus on top of the base density bonus, provided no more than 50% of the total units would be restricted as affordable. In addition, this bill alters the definition of “maximum allowable residential density” to mean the greatest number of units allowed under the zoning ordinance, specific plan, or land use element of the general plan, or, if a range of density is permitted, the greatest number of units allowed by the range. This bill clarifies that a local government is not prohibited from requiring reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for a requested density bonus and parking ratios. This bill also authorizes up to four incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 16% of the units for very low income households or at least 45% of the units for moderate income households in for sale projects. SB 713 (Padilla) Development Standard Definition Adjustment. This bill amends the definition of “development standard” to include regulations adopted by a local government or enacted by the local government’s electorate. SB 713 codifies a recent technical assistance memorandum from the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) that explicitly re-states existing law, that local governments cannot impose standards that stop state density bonus projects from moving forward. California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) SB 423 (Wiener) SB 35 Extension and Expansion. This bill extends SB 35 (2017, Wiener), which is currently set to expire January 1, 2026, and expands its applicably, including into the coastal zone. A more robust overview of SB 423 can be found here. AB 1449 (Alvarez) 100% Affordable Housing Exemption. This bill, until January 1, 2033, exempts 100% affordable housing projects from CEQA. While there are other tools available to make 100% affordable housing projects ministerial and not subject to CEQA, e.g., SB 35 (2017, Wiener), there are no workforce standards tethered to AB 1449. AB 1633 (Ting) Housing Accountability Act Protection Extended to CEQA Review. This bill would expand the Housing Accountability Act’s definition of “disapprove the housing development project” to include any instance when a local agency fails to issue an exemption, fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, or certify an environmental impact report or another comparable environmental document. This bill also clarifies “that attorney’s fees and costs shall rarely, if ever, be awarded if a local agency, acting in good faith, approved a housing development project.” The bill’s provisions sunset January 1, 2031. Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) AB 976 (Ting) No Owner-Occupancy Requirement. This bill makes permanent an existing prohibition to imposing an owner-occupancy requirement on an ADU that sunsets January 1, 2025. AB 1033 (Ting) ADU Condominiumization. This bill allows a local jurisdiction to permit condominiumization and sale of ADUs separate from the primary residence. AB 1332 (Carillo) Pre-Approved ADU Plan Sets. This bill requires jurisdictions, by January 1, 2025, to develop a program for the preapproval of ADU plans. This bill also requires local governments to approve a detached ADU project utilizing preapproved plans within thirty days. Housing Policies SB 439 (Skinner) Priority Housing Development Projects. This bill would allow a party to bring a motion to strike any part of a pleading in a lawsuit challenging approval of a priority housing development project within sixty days of service of the complaint or administrative record. A “priority housing development” is defined as a 100% low income affordable project. AB 1218 (Lowenthal) SB 330 Amendments. This bill tweaks SB 330 (2019, Skinner) extending the protected unit demolition and replacement controls, which currently only apply to housing development projects, to projects that are not considered housing developments. This bill would also place the restrictions on demolition of protected units and replacement requirements into separate provisions (Government Code Sections 66300.5 and 66300.6) that will apply permanently. Those controls would otherwise become inoperative on January 1, 2030. AB 1485 (Haney) State Intervention in Actions Involving Violations of Housing Laws. This bill grants the Attorney General and HCD an unconditional right to intervene in any lawsuit filed over a potential violation of an enumerated list of state housing laws, including, among others, the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and the Density Bonus Law. AB 572 (Haney) HOA Assessment Limits for Affordable Units. This bill places a cap on assessment increases a condominium homeowners association (“HOA”) could impose on a deed-restricted affordable unit, subject to certain exceptions. A more robust overview of AB 572 can be found here. Parking Controls AB 1308 (Quirk-Silva) Parking Requirements for Single-Family Homes. This bill prohibits a local jurisdiction’s ability to increase the applicable minimum parking requirements that applies to a single-family residence as a condition of approval of a project to remodel, renovate, or add to a single-family residence, provided it does not cause the single-family residence to exceed any maximum size limit imposed by the applicable zoning regulations, including, but not limited to, height, lot coverage, and floor-to-area ratio. This bill complements AB 916 (2022, Salas), which prohibits cities from requiring a public hearing as a condition of reconfiguring space to increase bedroom count within an existing dwelling unit. AB 1317 (Carrillo) Unbundled Parking for Residential Property. This bill requires landlords to “unbundle” parking costs from rent for leases or rental agreements for residential property in Alameda, Fresno, Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Shasta, and Ventura counties, commencing or renewed on or after January 1, 2025.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Justin A. Zucker. The issues discussed in this

planning

San Francisco Entitlement Streamlining Legislation Faces Legislative Hurdles

| Daniel J. Turner

As previously reported in August, San Francisco is currently considering a major overhaul of its Planning Code that would revise, relax, and simplify many of the city’s complex zoning and development controls. The legislation, aptly named the Housing Production – Constraints Reduction Ordinance, would affect over 30 sections of the Planning Code, ranging from reducing required setbacks to relaxing demolition controls and notice requirements. As part of the legislation process, the City’s Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance in late July and gave its approval 4-2-1 with a few minor modifications. It then came before the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) on September 18th to be reviewed, discussed, and amended, if necessary. This committee review is a necessary hurdle before the legislation can be presented to the full Board of Supervisors and voted on. Although some were hopeful of the ordinance passing in its current form, it met strong opposition from both supervisors and members of the public. The hearing began with Planning Department staff recommending a number of corrective amendments, including some that re-added various conditional use requirements that the legislation originally proposed to remove. During the over four hours of public comment, members of the public expressed concerns about reduced notice requirements, loss of rent-controlled housing, and a loss of neighborhood character from simplified development controls. The three supervisors on the committee echoed these sentiments, expressing great concern over many of the proposed changes. Notably, many members of the committee were not convinced that relaxing and making development standards more uniform, such as setbacks and height limits, would produce more housing, and felt that, instead, it would simply lead to a loss of neighborhood character. It was stated multiple times that zoning fixes should focus on large-scale projects, while many of the proposed changes were seen to mostly benefit one and two-unit developments. The supervisors were also critical of the changes to notice requirements and demolitions controls, citing worries over reduced public participation and the loss of rent-controlled housing, respectively. The hearing ended with Supervisor and LUTC President Melgar stating that she had been planning to introduce numerous amendments based on community feedback. The LUTC also agreed that there was a need to formalize the amendments proposed by Planning and the Mayor, and to incorporate many of the changes discussed during the meeting. The legislation was continued for two weeks, although it remains to be seen if the amendment language will be ready by then. If said amendments are considered substantive, the legislation would need to go back to the Planning Commission, then return to the LUTC before finally going before the full Board of Supervisors. The ordinance is open to further amendment at each step of the way, and it seems that many of the provisions intended to simplify the development process are now at risk of being weakened or removed. With Planning Commission’s blessing of the legislation and San Francisco’s looming RHNA requirement to build 82,000 new housing units over the next eights years, some were hopeful that the legislation would move quickly through the City’s legislative bodies; however, last week’s hearing proved there’s a long road ahead for the Housing Production – Constraints Reduction Ordinance.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Daniel J. Turner. The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

production

California Passes New Law to Spur Housing

| Melinda Sarjapur

Last week the California Legislature passed SB-423, new law introduced by Senator Scott Weiner to spur statewide housing production. SB-423 extends and expands SB-35 (Weiner, 2017), which allows streamlined, ministerial processing for housing developments in cities that haven’t met their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) goals. Qualifying SB-35 projects must also meet certain criteria, including on-site affordability and labor requirements, and comply with local objective zoning standards. SB-35 has been celebrated by housing development advocates statewide over the past six years for unlocking the potential to develop thousands of new homes. According to an August 2023 report issued by the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation, SB-35 spurred applications for construction of more than 18,000 new units in California between 2018 and 2021, 62% of which were 100% affordable. SB-423 extends the original term of SB-35 by decade, to January 1, 2036. It also makes a number of significant tweaks to SB-35, including: Extending into the Coastal Zone. Previously, SB-35 did not apply to property within California’s Coastal Zone, which is a band of land that extends approximately 840 miles along California’s coast. SB-423 removes this exemption, allowing SB-35 to apply within the Coastal Zone beginning January 1, 2025, except for certain environmentally sensitive or hazardous locations, or areas not zoned for multifamily housing. Qualifying developments would still require a Coastal Zone Permit, but the public agency must approve it if they determine the development is consistent with objective zoning standards, which may be modified through state density bonus law. Shortening San Francisco’s Reporting Period. SB-35 applies to cities that aren’t meeting their RHNA housing production goals either for low- or above-moderate income categories, which is typically determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) every four years. However, SB-423 singles-out the City of San Francisco, requiring analysis of its RHNA goal progress (and SB-35 eligibility under each income category) every year. As of the most recent assessment, San Francsico was meeting RHNA goals for above-moderate income housing, but not low-income housing. As a result, SB-35 projects in the City must currently provide 50% of units affordable to low-income households. However, if moving forward San Francisco falls below above-moderate income housing targets in an annual review period, projects could instead qualify for SB-35 by providing 10% of on-site units as affordable. Local Inclusionary Program requirements would still apply, but affordable units under SB-35 would count toward the local requirements. Tying Application to Housing Element Compliance. SB-423 extends application of SB-35 to Cities that have failed to adopt a compliant housing element as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), even if they’re currently meeting RHNA goals. Altering Affordability Requirements. SB-423 amends the affordability requirements for rental units in 10% jurisdictions, requiring such units to be affordable to households making 50% of the area median income, instead of the current 80%. The legislation also includes an alternate definition for “affordable rent” for developments that dedicate 100% of their units, exclusive of manager’s units, to lower income households. Clarifying Interaction with Local Inclusionary Programs. It specifies that if a local BMR program requires units that are restricted as affordable to AMI tiers higher than those required by SB-35, the units meeting SB-35 thresholds will satisfy the local program requirements for higher-income units. Amends Labor Standards. It requires projects over 85 feet in height, regardless of unit count, to utilize a skilled and trained workforce. Further, on projects with 50 or more units, contractors and subcontractors with construction craft employees must meet specified apprenticeship program and health care expenditure requirements. Allowing the State to Approve Development on State Property. It authorizes the California Department of General Services, at its discretion, to act in the place of the local government, at its discretion, in order to approve SB-35 projects on property owned by or leased to the state. Creating New Noticing Requirements. Requires local governments to hold a public meeting within 45 days of receiving a notice of intent to submit an SB-35 application for projects proposed in a census tract designated as a moderate- or low-resource area, or an area of high segregation and poverty. Limiting the Scope of Local Review. Expressly states that cities cannot request studies, information or other materials that are not related to determining whether the development is consistent with the objective standards, nor can they require compliance with any standards necessary to receive a post-entitlement permit before the issuance of the project’s entitlement. SB-423 is now on Governor Newsom’s desk along with a long list of other new bills passed just before the end of the legislative session. The Governor has until October 14th to sign or veto the bill. Unless vetoed, it will take effect on January 1, 2024.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner Melinda Sarjapur. The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

affordable unit

State Law Would Limit HOA Assessments for Affordable Units

| Jay Drake

Assembly Bill 572, introduced by Assembly Member Matt Haney of San Francisco, would place a cap on assessment increases a condominium homeowners association (HOA) could impose on a deed-restricted affordable unit, subject to certain exceptions.  AB 572 would amend California Civil Code 5605, part of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, to prohibit an increase of the HOA regular assessment for a deed-restricted affordable unit that is more than 5% greater than the preceding year’s regular assessment, or that is greater than the annual percentage change in cost of living, whichever is larger.  The maximum increase for a deed-restricted affordable unit would be 10% greater than the preceding year’s regular assessment.  The “percentage change in the cost of living” would be determined using the Consumer Price Index for the region where the project is located.  The limitation would not apply to a development where 30% or more of the units are deed-restricted affordable units. Civil Code Section 5605 already provides that an HOA board of directors may not impose a regular assessment that is more than 20% greater than the regular assessment for the HOA’s preceding fiscal year without the approval of a certain number of the HOA members.  The proposed amendment to Section 5605 would extend this existing rule by further limiting such increases as applied to deed-restricted affordable units. Under current state law, there is no difference between the assessments paid by affordable and market-rate units.  Having one group of owners pay more and subsidize another group of owners who receive the same benefits and services is not allowed. It may be well-intentioned, but AB 572 is somewhat controversial and opposed by some industry groups for a few reasons. This new law could result in the affordable units paying less than the market-rate units for the same services and benefits.  This disparate treatment could breed resentment from the market-rate owners, who were not part of the original approval of the project and imposition of affordable housing requirements, yet could be burdened with the responsibility of paying a disproportionate share of assessments and subsidizing the affordable units in the project.  This could be viewed as unfair to the market-rate unit owners. This new law is also seen by some as designating affordable unit owners as a separate class of homeowners, which could create inequities and sow division among the residents of the community. There is also concern that in order to avoid any controversy, an HOA might decide to cap all increases in HOA assessments at an artificially low amount in order to keep the assessments the same for all units.  This could result in an HOA reducing services and deferring necessary maintenance, and could also result in large special assessments down the road to make up for insufficient HOA funds. AB 572 is currently processing in the State legislature. We will continue to monitor and report back if the bill passes and becomes law.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner Jay Drake. 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.

Development

Legislation Aimed at Impact Fee Reform Nears Final Approval

| Kaitlin Sheber

Last month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed on first reading Impact Fee Reform legislation aimed to make development more predictable, easier, and financially feasible. The legislation complements the proposed BMR and impact fee changes our office previously reported on and will: Reinstate the fee deferral program; Escalate development impact fees by 2% each January; Allow projects to lock in the type and rate of impact fees to be paid; Waive development fees for a narrow category of projects; and Adopt a nexus analysis that was completed in December 2021. The Impact Fee Reform legislation is a part of the City’s efforts at recovery from the pandemic and is meant to supplement efforts to accomplish the policy goals outlined in the updated Housing Element that was adopted earlier this year. Inclusionary housing development impact fees are specifically excluded from the scope of the legislation, so would not be affected. Below is a brief summary of the changes proposed by the legislation: Fee Deferral Program The legislation would reinstate and modify a Fee Deferral Program that expired in 2013 to allow project sponsors to defer 80%-85% of total development impact fees, except inclusionary affordable housing fees. For projects that opt to defer fees: Generally, projects subject to a neighborhood infrastructure impact development fee would be required to pay 20% of the total amount of development fees owed prior to issuance of the first construction document; For projects not subject to a neighborhood infrastructure impact development fee, project sponsors would be required to pay 15% of the total amount of development fees owed prior to issuance of the first construction document. The remaining percentage of fees must be paid before issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. To obtain deferral, the project sponsor must submit a deferral request to DBI on a form provided by DBI before issuance of the first construction document. Fee deferral is not available to project sponsors that pay the fee before the effective date of the legislation. Projects subject to a development agreement would be eligible for fee deferral, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Development Fee Indexing The legislation would replace and simplify the current method of annual fee escalation with a 2% escalation rate every January 1st. Development Fee Assessment The legislation proposes to freeze the rates of development impact fees as follows: Additionally, the legislation institutes new procedures for assessing development impact fees when a development project requires a modification, renewal, or extension. Development Impact Fee Waivers for Certain Projects The legislation would also waive development impact fees for certain projects. Eligible projects that obtain a final approval before the effective date of the ordinance that have not already paid development impact fees are eligible for waiver. Waiver under the legislation is set to expire on December 31, 2026. Projects in Production, Distribution, and Repair (“PDR”) Districts: Within PDR Districts, projects that meet the following requirements are eligible for waiver from development impact fees related to establishing new PDR or retail use: Located in a PDR District; Contain a retail or PDR use and no residential uses; Propose new construction of at least 20,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) and a maximum of 200,000 square feet of GFA; Located on a vacant site or site improved with buildings with less than a 0.25:1 Floor Area Ratio on the date a development application is submitted; and Submit a complete development application on or before December 31, 2026. Projects in C-2 and C-3 Districts Within C-2 and C-3 Districts, projects that meet the following requirements are eligible for waiver from development impact fees related to establishing hotel, restaurant, bar, outdoor activity, or entertainment use: Located in a C-2 or C-3 District; Contain hotel, restaurant, bar, outdoor activity, or entertainment use; and Submit a completed development application on or before December 31, 2026.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Kaitlin Sheber. 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.

Zoning

Legislation to Overhaul Residential Building & Zoning Standards

| Tara Sullivan

On June 29th, the San Francisco Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of Mayor Breed’s proposed legislation titled “Housing Production” (BOS File No. 23-0446).  The legislation amends the Planning Code to encourage housing production by focusing on the controls that mainly apply to Residential and Neighborhood-Commercial Districts.  This legislation is proposing significant and far-reaching changes that will greatly change how residential projects are developed, for the better. First, the legislation proposes to reduce the number and type of projects that require Planning Commission hearings.  The major changes are below: Eliminate Conditional Use Authorization (“CUA”) / Planning Commission Hearing / Neighbor Notice The legislation also proposes to modify some of the more basic building standards that apply to most properties in the city: setbacks, open space, and lot area requirements.  If passed, these changes would be the most radical to residential projects in decades.  A summary of the significant changes are below. Required Rear Yard (Section 134) Lot Size (Section 121, 121.1) Front Yard/Setback (Section 132) Usable Open Space (Section 135) There are several other changes proposed, but the above are the most far-reaching.  The legislation is currently awaiting a hearing at the Land Use & Transportation Committee, which may happen once the Board of Supervisors returns from their summer recess.  As with any legislation, changes may occur before it is finally passed, but it is expected to pass largely as-is. Reuben, Junius, & Rose, LLP will continue to monitor this legislation and provide an update once passed.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner Tara Sullivan. 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.

bills

2023 California Legislation – Summer Recess Update

| Justin A. Zucker

The California legislature reconvened yesterday, after taking a summer recess. As previously reported, this year’s legislative session is packed full of pending bills with far reaching changes to land use controls and local controls of such. In this update, I provide the status of bills introduced related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State Density Bonus Law, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), parking, and housing policies. Bills previously reported in 2023 Legislation at a Glance – Part 1 or Part 2 and not discussed below failed to leave their house of origin and advance to their second house. CEQA: Many of the previously reported CEQA bills have failed to advance out of their house of origin. There are, however, some CEQA bills advancing through their second house to note, including: AB 1307 (Wicks and Luz Rivas) Residents’ Noise Not A Significant Effect. This bill, which appears to be in response to the University of Berkeley People’s Park project hang up, would amend CEQA to clarify that for residential projects, noise generated by the unamplified voices of residents is not a significant effect on the environment. A mirror bill, AB 1700(Hoover) failed to advance. AB 1449 (Alvarez) 100% Affordable Housing Exemption. This bill would, until January 1, 2033, exempt 100% affordable housing projects from CEQA. While there are other tools available to make 100% affordable housing projects ministerial and not subject to CEQA, e.g., SB 35 (2017, Weiner), there are no workforce standards tethered to AB 1449. AB 356 (Mathis) Aesthetics Not a Significant Effect. This bill would extend the current regulation, set to sunset January 1, 2024, that aesthetic impacts are not considered significant effects on the environment for housing projects involving the refurbishment, conversion, repurposing, or replacement of an existing building. SB 393 (Glazer) CEQA Litigation Underwriting Disclosures. This bill would require, upon request, a petitioner of an action attacking a project’s CEQA compliance to identify every person or entity that contributes in excess of $10,000 to the costs of the action. State Density Bonus Law: AB 1287 (Alvarez) Additional Density Bonus. This bill would allow up to an additional 50% density bonus for projects that (1) maximize the very low income, low income, or moderate-income units permitted under the current State Density Bonus Law and (2) provide up to 15% additional moderate-income units. A bonus up to 38.75% can be obtained by providing 10% very low-income units. 100% affordable projects would be eligible to receive five incentives or concessions. Previously, this bill was to modify the State Density Bonus Law to supersede the California Coastal Act of 1976 and up to six incentives or concessions for certain projects, but those provisions were removed. AB 323 (Holden) Restricting Use of For-Sale Units as Rentals. This bill has progressed intact; it would prohibit a developer from offering a for-sale unit constructed pursuant to a local inclusionary zoning ordinance to a purchaser that intends to rent the unit to families of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income families, unless the developer can prove that none of the applicants for owner-occupancy can qualify for the unit. Any violation would be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $15,000. ADUs: All but one of the bills previously reported on pertaining to ADUs (AB 1661) have left their house of origin and are advancing through their respective second house. The bills that advanced include: AB 1033 (Ting) ADU Condominiumization. This bill would allow a local jurisdiction to permit condominiumization and sale of ADUs separate from the primary residence. AB 1332 (Carillo) Pre-Approved ADU Plan Sets. This bill would require jurisdictions, by January 1, 2025, to develop a program for the preapproval of ADUs plans. Initially six sets of preapproved plans were to be prepared, but as amended, no amount to be published is set. AB 976 (Ting) No Owner-Occupancy Requirement. This bill would make permanent an existing prohibition to imposing an owner-occupancy requirement on an ADU that sunsets January 1, 2025. SB 477 (Committee on Housing) ADU Chapter. This bill would create a new Government Code chapter to house state ADU regulations. It has been amended to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Parking Controls: All three bills relaxing parking controls previously reported on have advanced to their second house: AB 1317 (Carrillo) Unbundled Parking for Residential Property. This bill would require landlords to “unbundle” parking costs from rent for leases or rental agreements for residential property in Alameda, Fresno, Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Shasta, and Ventura counties, commencing or renewed on or after January 1, 2025. AB 1308 (Quirk-Silva) Parking Requirements for Single-Family Homes. This bill would prohibit a local jurisdiction’s ability to increase the applicable minimum parking requirements of a single-family residence as a condition of approval to remodel, renovate, or add to a single-family residence. AB 894 (Friedman) Shared Parking. This bill would provide a pathway to activate underutilized parking (as defined) as shared parking spaces with other users, which would count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement. Housing Policies: While several previously reported housing bills have failed to advance, several have made it on to their second house, including: AB 1485 (Haney) State Intervention in Actions Involving Violations of Housing Laws. This bill would grant the Attorney General an unconditional right to intervene in any lawsuit filed over a potential violation of an enumerated list of state housing laws, including, among others, the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and the Density Bonus Law. This bill was amended to allow both the Attorney General and the Department of Housing and Community Development to intervene. AB 1633 (Ting) Housing Accountability Act Protection Extended to CEQA Review. This bill would expand the Housing Accountability Act’s definition of “disapprove the housing development project” to include any instance when a local agency fails to issue an exemption, fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, or certify an environmental impact report or another comparable environmental document. This bill was amended to include a sunset date of January 1, 2031. SB 423 (Weiner) SB 35

summer

Summer SF Legislation Roundup

| Melinda Sarjapur

Below is a round-up of some items introduced before the Board of Supervisor’s summer recess, which will run from July 31st to September 4th. Update to Ordinance That Would Expand Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses In early June, Mayor Breed and Supervisors Engardio, Dorsey, and Melgar introduced an ordinance aimed at reducing zoning restrictions to allow more types of commercial use on the ground floor of certain neighborhood commercial and residential districts. For an in-depth overview of this legislation, see our June 22nd update. On July 25th, the Mayor substituted an amended version of this legislation.  It has been assigned to the Land Use and Transportation Commission, where it will likely be heard in the early fall. Changes in the updated version appear minor, and include: allowing formula retail restaurants with conditional use authorization at the ground floor in the Mission Street Formula Retail Restaurant Subdistrict; retaining the flat prohibition on formula retail pet supply stores or restaurants in the Geary Boulevard Formula Retail Pet Supply Store and Formula Retail Eating and Drinking Subdistrict; correcting the summary description of maximum number of eating and drinking uses that would be allowed in the Mission Street NCTD to 197 (from 179); and clarifying that formula retail and restaurant controls would be amended in certain residential districts, as well as commercial districts. A Tweak to Prop X Section 202.8 of the Planning Code, enacted by voters in 2016 as “Prop X”, limits projects that would convert Production, Distribution, and Repair (“PDR”) uses, Institutional Community uses and Arts Activities uses in certain Eastern Neighborhoods Plan areas and Central SoMa. With limited exemptions, Prop X imposes specific replacement requirements for projects that would convert building space where the prior use was: a PDR use of at least 5,000 square feet; an Institutional Community use of at least 2,500 square feet; or an Arts Activities use. On July 25th, Supervisor Dorsey introduced an ordinance that would create an exemption from Prop X replacement requirements for projects proposing change of use from one of the listed uses above to another listed use, or to new Institutional Education uses, in areas zoned SALI, MUO, SLI, MUG or MUR as of July 1, 2016. This could allow for a more efficient change of use process, encouraging continued use of buildings. This legislation would require a supermajority vote (i.e., 8 members) of the Board to pass, and has been assigned under the Board’s 30-day rule to the Land Use and Transportation Committee for review. Vacant Storefront Fee Waivers Currently, owners of vacant or abandoned commercial storefronts are required to register the storefront with the Department of Building Inspection (“DBI”) within 30 days of a vacancy or abandonment, pay an annual registration fee, and to renew the registration annually. On July 25th, Mayor Breed introduced an ordinance that allows the Director of DBI to waive the annual registration fee for storefronts that comply with City and state law, do not contribute to blight as defined by the Administrative Code, and are ready for occupancy and being offered for sale, lease, or rent. This ordinance has been referred to the Building Inspection Commission for comment and recommendation. Reduction of Entertainment Permit Requirements On July 25th, Mayor Breed introduced an ordinance that could reduce entertainment permit requirements citywide, encouraging a sector that will draw in locals and tourists alike. The ordinance, which has been referred to the City’s Small Business Commission for review, would do the following: waive the initial license and filing fees through June 30, 2025, for certain Entertainment Permits for current or former holders of Just Add Music Permits; waive initial license and filing fees for Entertainment Permits for applicants who are newly eligible to apply for those permits due to recent Planning Code amendments; eliminate masked ball permits; require applicants for Arcade, Ancillary Use, billiard and pool table, Place of Entertainment, Limited Live Performance, Fixed Place Outdoor Amplified Sound, and Extended-Hours Premises Permits to submit a new Permit application and filing fee if their existing application has not been granted, conditionally granted, or denied within 12 months of its submission; authorize the Entertainment Commission Director to issue billiard and pool table permits without a hearing, and allow them to be suspended or revoked under the standards that apply to other Entertainment Permits; eliminate the requirement that applicants for Place of Entertainment Permits disclose criminal history information regarding certain individuals connected with the applicant business; narrow the categories of new criminal charges, complaints, or indictments brought against a Place of Entertainment Permittee or its employees or agents that the Permittee must report, to only those charges, complaints or indictments that could be grounds for suspension of the Permit; and allow the Entertainment Commission Director to require an applicant for a Limited Live Performance Permit to propose a Security Plan if necessary to protect the safety of persons and property or provide for the orderly dispersal of persons and traffic, to make compliance with the Security Plan a condition of the Permit, and to require revisions to the Security Plan as necessary. Decline in Value Tax Appeals are Due Soon Tax bills are in the mail for the 2023/2024 tax year.  Many commercial owners have experienced a decline in income and property value due to reduced occupancy and rental rates.  Some residential neighborhoods have also declined in value.  The good news is that there is the possibility for some temporary real estate tax relief.  Property owners have the right to file decline in value appeals (also referred to as Prop. 8 appeals) to account for such market conditions.  The deadline for properties located in San Francisco is September 15, 2023.  Alameda County’s deadline is also September 15, 2023.  Contra Costa County and San Mateo County give a bit more time – November 30, 2023 is their deadline.  (Deadlines are taken from each County’s website.) If you would like more information about a real estate tax appeal, contact Kevin Rose at krose@reubenlaw.com.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP

1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 56