Knowing is one thing, but confirmation ever better! For contractors, working with others  is a given, but forming a partnership is a joint venture surrounded by a common border.  Unfortunately, an ‘injury’ to one leaves a mark on all for those ‘responsible’ on the license…

 

Q: Last year, we had submitted our insurance renewal to the CSLB via their online portal and it was never processed and our license was suspended for a period of time. Your company was instrumental in getting the insurance certificate submitted and processed to put our license back to Active status. How do I ensure there was no break in the license? I know you had said the CSLB would renew the insurance retroactively to the effective date, but I just want to make absolute sure there was no break. Is there a way to confirm?

 A: You can order a Certified License History from the CSLB which will give you the status history of the license. I will go ahead and get one requested for you and let you know when I have it in hand.

 

 

Q: We have been offered to do a project for one of our customers which requires that we have a General Building (“B”) license. We currently hold a General Engineering (“A”) license. One of the companies that we currently work with on other projects has the building license in Arizona, Nevada, and several other States. Is it possible to form a Joint Venture with them and obtain a license in the name of the Partnership/JV so we can accept? How quickly can this be accomplished? 

A: While the process to obtain a JV license in CA is fairly quick, both/all entities which make up the Joint Venture must be licensed in the State of California.

 

 

Q: I am the RMO for two different companies, one of which had a complaint filed against it recently. The other company, who has no complaints, received a letter stating the complaint would also be shown on it’s license, even though the two entities are unrelated except for me being the common owner. Is there a way to get the complaint removed from where it doesn’t belong?

 A: According to B&P Code Section 7124.6, complaints, citations, etc are required to be disclosed on the license for five years after the date of compliance, and any disclosure pursuant to 7124.6 shall also be appear on the license record of any other license that includes a qualifier that is listed as one of the members of personnel of record of the license that was issued a citation. The only way to have the complaint removed from the license which wasn’t directly disciplined would be disassociate yourself as the Qualifying Individual from that license. The company would be required to replace you within 90 days.

 

 While knowledge is power, knowing where to go for the answers is half the battle. Get expert assistance immediately when you call 866-443-0657, email info@cutredtape.com, or write us at Capitol Services, Inc., 3609 Bradshaw Rd, Ste H, #343, Sacramento, CA 95827. Search past columns at www.cutredtape.com.

What’s yours, may actually be their’s, or so license law reads. For another contractor there is no ‘grace’ in answering his many questions! Let’s go wild on dba’s to wrap it up…

 

Q: We are working on changing our Responsible Managing Employee (RME) (our qualifier) on our California contractor’s license.  When we change our RME, will that change our contractor number?  We are trying to determine if we need to update all of our contracts with vendors, etc. in connection with the change.

A: Your license number will not change when you change your Qualifying Individual. The license belongs to the company, not an individual, so the individual does not “take” the number with them when they leave.

 

Q: Is there a grace period for an HIS to be able to sell contracts? For example, can they sell if they have an application submitted but not yet processed by the CSLB? Similarly, is there a grace period for HIS registrations? For example, how long do we have to notify the CSLB of an active HIS? For HIS licenses, what are the parameters to either renew an expired license OR apply for a whole new license? We have some reps that held licenses previously but have expired, some less than, some greater than, 10 years ago.

A: No, there is no grace period for an HIS to be able to sell contracts. You must wait until the CSLB issues an Home Improvement Sales (HIS) number to have them start working as an HIS. When your company hires an HIS, you are required to complete and submit the notification form to the CSLB upon employment of the individual, but submission of that form meets the notification requirement. So as soon as it’s submitted, the person can start acting as home improvement salesperson. With regards to the expiration/renewals, they can renew an HIS registration for up to three years after it expires. After three years have passed, they must apply for a new registration number.

 

Q: How many assumed names (i.e., doing/business/as) can we operate under our license?  Are assumed name assignments based on the specific trade or the name of the entity?   We are thinking about adding plumbing to our business and want to know if we can use a name other than [ex] XYZ A/C (which implies just air conditioning).

A: You can only have one dba attached to your license. You can have as many dba’s as you want, but if you are operating under separate dba’s each one needs it’s own license.

Ex: XYZ Services dba XYZ A/C, license number 1000000

XYZ Services dba XYZ Plumbing, license number 1000001

And yes, the dba name needs to be indicative of the classification the license is holding.

 

While knowledge is power, knowing where to go for the answers is half the battle. Get expert assistance immediately when you call 866-443-0657, email info@cutredtape.com, or write us at Capitol Services, Inc., 3609 Bradshaw Rd, Ste H, #343, Sacramento, CA 95827. Search past columns at www.cutredtape.com.

Thank you to our members for their continued support!

50 Years
SEBASTOPOL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC dba L J ConstructionSebastopolhttp://www.ljconstruction.net
30 Years
BERGER CONCRETEVineburghttp://www.bergerconcrete.com
25 Years
DENNY’S ELECTRIC INC.Healdsburg
FURIA HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONINGHealdsburghttp://www.furiahvac.com
15 Years
DANIEL N. BAZZOLICalistoga
NORDBY SIGNATURE HOMES, INC.Santa Rosahttp://www.nordby.net
5 Years
J N M CONSTRUCTIONEureka
MASTER’S TOUCH DRYWALL INCRedding
MT SHASTA MASONRYAnderson
DALE HEATING COOLING & SHEETMETAL ISanta Rosahttp://www.dalehcs.com
DIXON’S BACKHOE & GENERAL ENGINEERIMiddletown
IRON DOG FABRICATION, INC.Santa Rosahttp://www.irondogfab.com
TJM INNOVATIONS, LLCMilwaukeehttp://www.gutterstuff.com
1 Year
CALIFORNIA ENERGY – SMART HOMESFair Oakswww.caenergysmarthomes.com
Kyle Thompson ConstructionUkiah
SONOMA COUNTY CARPENTRY INC.Santa Rosawww.sonomacountycarpentry.com
SILVERIA ELECTRICSebastopolhttp://www.silveriaelectric.com
SKYVIEW TREE EXPERTS, INCSanta Rosawww.skyview-tree.com
November New Members! 
ACE TOP QUALITY PAINTINGSanta Rosa  Ace Top Quality.com
Advance Telecom SolutionsNapaadvancetelecomsolutions.com
ADVISOR CONTRACTING INCRedding
BELKORP AGSanta Rosa
CPI DEVELOPERSSan Rafaelwww.cpidevelopers.com
DUNCAN AND SONS CONSTRUCTION, INCWillits
LUCCHETTI EXCAVATINGUkiahlucchettiexcavating.com
PAYTON ENVIRONMENTAL LLCCotatipaytonasbestostesting.com
WINE COUNTRY REMODEL CORPORATIONSanta Rosa

You may not realize it, but contractors have the world by the tail, as your opportunity is virtually unlimited! However, that doesn’t mean everything is an ‘open book.’ And limits are real so what goes here maybe doesn’t go there. That’s why having expert assistance is always a great idea…

 

Q:  Is there any limit to the number of classifications I can have on my license?  We are considering adding some additional classifications to our “C-20” (HVAC) license to expand our range of services.

A:  No, there is no limit to the number of classifications a license can hold.  Keep in mind for each classification, you are required to have an individual who can document at least four years of full-time work experience in the specific trade you are applying for.

 

Q:  Our corporation is a licensed contractor in Nevada.  We are in the process of changing from a standard ‘S’ Corporation to an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP).  Do we need to do anything to update our Contractor’s License?

A:  A change in ownership does not require that you update your Nevada Contractors License. However, I am not a tax advisor or attorney so suggest you research changing from an ‘S’ Corporation to an ESOP and if it would warrant a new Federal Identification number. That change may trigger a new application be submitted as your ‘business entity’ is now a different structure.  

If your entity changes or if your Officers change, you are required to report it to the Nevada Contractors Board to update your license.

 

Q: When submitting an application for a new license, approximately how long after the application is submitted should I expect to be approved to sit for the exams? And are the exams open book? I’m trying to plan for study time.

 

A: You will likely be approved to schedule the exams about 6 weeks after the application is submitted, and no such luck on the open book though! You are not permitted to bring any material in to the exam with you.

 

 

Q: My brother-in-law is a “C-10” (Electrical) qualifier. He recently left the company he worked for, and he and I are going to start an electrical company. Does it matter what we name the business? He seems to remember the CSLB having an issue with his former Company’s business name and there being some back and forth which delayed the licensing process. We don’t want to run into any of that!

 

A: The CSLB is very particular about business names. Your business name of course cannot be misleading (i.e., you will not be able to call it “ABC Plumbing”), and it also cannot be too “general” such as “ABC Services” or “Systems Inc”. Most anything with “Electrical”, “Electric”, “Power”, “Controls”, etc. in the name should work for a “C-10” contracting business. You’ll want to check the business name with the CA Secretary of State as well to make sure it’s available for use

 

While knowledge is power, knowing where to go for the answers is half the battle. Get expert assistance immediately when you call 866-443-0657, email info@cutredtape.com, or write us at Capitol Services, Inc., 3609 Bradshaw Rd, Ste H, #343, Sacramento, CA 95827. Search past columns at www.cutredtape.com.

Q: I am at the last stage of obtaining my contractor’s license. I’ve passed the exams, passed the background check, etc. The CSLB is requesting that I obtain an LLC Employee/Worker bond. I received a quote from my bonding company for $3000 for just one year! I tried to reach the CSLB but was only able to leave a message and that was two days ago. What I want to tell them is one, even though I’m registered as an LLC my accountant has filed with the IRS to have my company treated as an S-corporation. Two, I do not have employees. Am I still required to obtain this LLC Employee/Worker bond?

A: Yes, you are still required to obtain the LLC regardless of whether you have employees or not, and regardless of how the IRS taxes the Company. All companies who are registered as an LLC with the CA Secretary of State are required to have the LLC bond on record with the CSLB.

 

There is a brand new classification contractors! According to this bulletin from the Board-

New C-49 Tree and Palm Classification Takes Effect January 1, 2024

Sacramento, CA – The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) will accept applications for the new C-49 – Tree and Palm Contractor classification starting January 1, 2024.

CSLB created this classification to ensure tree service contractors are tested on health and safety protocols in the tree service industry. The regulation establishing the C-49 was approved on March 30, 2022. The C-49 trade examination was developed and finalized in December 2022.

Starting January 1, 2024, the following changes affect tree service specialty contractors:

• CSLB will no longer accept applications for the C-61/D-49 Tree Service limited specialty classification. Applications received for the C-61/D-49 Tree Service classification after December 31, 2023, will be processed as a C-49 Tree and Palm application.

• Contractors who wish to specialize in tree service work who do not hold a C-61/D-49 Tree Service classification will need to apply for the C-49 Tree and Palm Contractor classification.

• All applicants for the C-49 Tree and Palm Contractor classification will need to sit for a trade examination regardless of other license classifications they hold.

• CSLB will expediate the application experience review for C-49 applicants that have held an active C-61/D-49 Tree Service license for at least four years.

Contractors who hold a C-61/D-49 Tree Service classification issued before January 1, 2024, may retain and work under that classification after January 1. However, C-61/D-49 are encouraged to apply for the C-49 classification, which will become the industry standard.

While the C-49 and C-61/D-49 classification descriptions differ slightly (the C-49 description includes palms) CSLB regards the classification of work as the same.

Click here to read the existing C-61/D-49 classification description. Click here to read the new C-49 classification description.

While knowledge is power, knowing where to go for the answers is half the battle. Get expert assistance immediately when you call 866-443-0657, email info@cutredtape.com, or write us at Capitol Services, Inc., 3609 Bradshaw Rd, Ste H, #343, Sacramento, CA 95827. Search past columns at www.cutredtape.com

Highlights

  • In 2023, the California Legislature enacted and extended significant housing streamlining laws – most, but not all, are limited to projects that pay prevailing wage for construction labor and contain significant amounts of Below Market Rate (BMR) housing.
  • The session also saw important signs of legislative frustration at California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) abuse. A new law will limit localities’ ability to refuse to certify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or confirm a CEQA exemption for qualifying housing developments, and a new CEQA exemption applies to qualifying 100 percent affordable housing projects. The Legislature also reacted to the University of California, Berkeley “students are pollution” case by providing that noise generated by occupants and their guests is not a significant effect on the environment.
  • The Legislature further expanded the State Density Bonus Law, but limited the scope of the Surplus Lands Act – in ways that may increase the complexity of both statutes.
  • New laws will allow localities to permit Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be sold separately as condos and prohibit localities from imposing “owner occupancy” requirements on ADUs.

The 2023 California Legislative session, like the last several, saw the enactment of a large number of significant new housing production laws. (See Holland & Knight’s previous annual recaps of California Housing Laws in the final section below.) This Holland & Knight alert takes a closer look at some of the most significant housing laws that the Legislature passed and that Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law, grouped into following categories:

  • Streamlining:
    • SB 423 (extension and expansion of streamlined ministerial approval law for affordable projects consistent with objective zoning rules)
    • SB 4 (by-right approval for affordable housing on land owned by religious organizations and higher education institutions)
    • SB 684 (ministerial approval of up to 10-unit housing projects on small sites)
    • AB 1490 (adaptive reuse for affordable housing)
    • AB 1114 and AB 281 (reforms to post-entitlement permitting)
  • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
    • AB 1633 (CEQA reform for infill housing)
    • AB 1307 (residential noise impacts)
    • AB 1449 (affordable housing exemption)
    • SB 406 (financial assistance exemption)
    • SB 91 (motel conversion exemption)
    • AB 356 (Dilapidated Building Refurbishment Act)
    • SB 149 (CEQA administrative record reform)
  • Density, Land Use and Planning:
    • AB 1287 (additional density bonuses for very low or moderate income units)
    • SB 747 and AB 480 (amendments to scale back the Surplus Land Act)
    • AB 821 (local agency obligation to resolve general plan and zoning conflicts)
    • SB 272 (sea level rise planning in coastal commission and bay conservation and development commission jurisdiction)
    • AB 529 (building code updates for adaptive reuse projects)
  • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs):
    • AB 1033 (ADUs sold separately as condos)
    • AB 976 (owner-occupancy requirements prohibited beyond 2025)
    • AB 1332 (streamlined 30-day approval for preapproved ADU plans)
  • Enforcement:
    • AB 434 (expanded Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) enforcement authority)
    • AB 1485 (attorney general right to intervene in housing enforcement suits)
  • Anti-Displacement and Affordable Housing:
    • SB 439 (motion to strike lawsuit challenging affordable housing)
    • AB 1218 (replacement housing and relocation benefit expansion)
    • AB 911 (notification and ownership requirements for modifications to recorded covenants restricting development of affordable housing)
    • SB 469 (exemptions from Article 34 of the California Constitution for affordable housing projects receiving specified funding)
    • ACA 1 (constitutional amendment to lower threshold for bond measures)
    • SB 789 (constitutional amendments scheduled for voter consideration at November election)
    • AB 812 (authorization of conditions of approval for affordable artist housing)
  • Financing and Costs:
    • SB 253 (carbon emission disclosure)
    • AB 1319 (Bay Area Housing Finance Authority authorizations to facilitate production and preservation of affordable housing)
    • AB 835 (fire marshal to study safety of requirement for apartments to have more than one staircase)
  • Parking:
    • AB 1308 (no increased minimum parking requirements on single-family home renovations)
    • AB 1317 (unbundled parking for qualifying residential properties)
    • AB 894 (shared parking)

Except where noted, the new laws take effect on Jan. 1, 2024.

Streamlining

SB 423 (Sen. Scott Wiener) – Extension and Expansion of Streamlined Ministerial Approval Law for Affordable Projects Consistent with Objective Zoning Rules. SB 423 significantly expands, and extends the “sunset date” of, the streamlined ministerial approval law originally created by SB 35 of 2017 (SB 35). Holland & Knight has substantial experience advising both 100 percent affordable developers and mixed-income developers entitling projects on the basis of this law and litigating cases under SB 35. Holland & Knight was the first in California to secure housing approval through litigation under SB 35, and the California Court of Appeal sided with Holland & Knight clients in a landmark housing case.

SB 35 provides a CEQA-exempt, time-limited ministerial approval process (90-180 days, depending upon whether the project has more or less than 150 units), for residential and mixed-use projects in the majority of California jurisdictions that are not making sufficient progress toward the regional need for housing. To qualify for this ministerial process, projects must comply with a locality’s “objective” standards, meet a long list of qualifying criteria designed to capture “infill” sites, commit to paying “prevailing wage” (typically union) rates for construction labor, and meet significant affordable requirements (either 10 percent, 20 percent or 50 percent of units at Below Market Rate (BMR) rents, depending upon a project’s location and the local jurisdiction’s progress toward meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)).

In addition to extending the sunset date of this law from to 2026 to 2036, SB 423 expands the statute in several ways, including:

  • Reduction in Labor Requirements. The law previously applied a very costly “skilled and trained workforce” labor requirement to many projects. Now, the “skilled and trained workforce” has been removed except for projects that are more than 85 feet in height – and even then, only if a prime contractor receives at least three bids for construction work that can meet the “skilled and trained workforce” requirement. Prevailing wage remains required except for projects of 10 or fewer units, and projects of more than 50 units are newly required to ensure contractors provide specified apprenticeship training and healthcare expenditures to workers.
  • Coastal Zone. SB 35 previously did not apply in the coastal zone. As amended, the law will apply to areas of the coastal zone that are zoned for multifamily housing, unless the area is not subject to a certified local coastal program or a certified land use plan, is vulnerable to 5 feet of sea level rise, or is within 100 feet of a wetland or on prime agricultural land. Applicability in the coastal zone does not go into effect until Jan. 1, 2025.
  • Housing Element Noncompliance. Previously, the only criteria that determined whether a jurisdiction was subject to streamlining is the number of housing permits the jurisdiction had issued relative to its RHNA. After SB 423, a jurisdiction’s failure to achieve an HCD-certified housing element will also make the jurisdiction subject to SB 35 streamlining – creating yet another negative consequence for failure to adopt a legally compliant housing plan.
  • Flexibility for 100 Percent BMR Projects. Affordable housing projects have often found that the specific income targets required by state laws such as SB 35 do not match up well with the income levels required by various federal, state or local funding programs. To meet this concern, 100 percent BMR projects can qualify for streamlining as long as they charge a rent that is consistent with the maximum rent levels stipulated by the public program providing financing for the development.
  • Hearing Required in Certain Areas. A public hearing must be provided if the development is proposed in a census tract designated as either a moderate resource area, low resource area or an area of high segregation and poverty by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) and HCD.

Even as amended, SB 35 remains costly. But project applicants should at least give streamlined processing a second look to see if the costs imposed are outweighed by the benefits of a ministerial, CEQA-exempt approval process.

SB 4 (Sen. Wiener) – By-Right Approval for Affordable Housing on Land Owned by Religious Organizations and Higher Education Institutions. SB 4 creates a “by right,” CEQA-exempt, time-limited (90-180 day) approval process closely modeled on SB 35 of 2017 and AB 2011 of 2022 for affordable housing projects (including qualifying ground-floor commercial, childcare center and community center uses) on land owned by religious organizations and higher education institutions. Such a project can be entitled to approval even if the project is inconsistent with applicable local general plan and zoning requirements. Instead, a project is entitled to a height of one story above applicable local requirements and to specified minimum residential densities of between 10-40 dwelling units per acre, depending upon the project’s location.

To qualify for this process:

  • the development must be on land owned on or before Jan. 1, 2024, by an institution of higher education or a religious institution
  • the developer must be a local entity; a nonprofit corporation, as specified; a developer that contracts with a nonprofit corporation, as specified; or a developer that the religious or educational institution has contracted with before to construct housing or other improvements
  • the housing must be deed-restricted housing affordable to lower-income households, except that up to 20 percent of the units may be for moderate-income households and 5 percent may be for staff of the educational or religious institution
  • projects of more than 10 units that are not a public work must ensure construction workers are paid “prevailing wage,” unless otherwise provided in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement; projects of more than 50 units are required to ensure contractors provide specified apprenticeship training and healthcare expenditures to workers
  • the project site must meet a long list of qualifying criteria – similar to those in SB 35 and AB 2011 – designed to capture “infill” project locations that avoid environmentally sensitive areas and avoid demolition of existing housing

The law sunsets on Jan. 1, 2036. Affordable housing developers should consider whether development opportunities on sites owned by houses of worship or educational organizations might make SB 4 a potentially appealing avenue relative to SB 35 or AB 2011.

SB 684 (Sen. Anna Caballero) – Ministerial Approval of Up to 10-Unit Housing Projects on Small Sites. In an effort to meet the need for “missing-middle” housing types that are not inherently expensive to build, SB 684 requires CEQA-exempt ministerial approval for up to 10 units of housing on qualifying multifamily infill sites of no more than 5 acres. Under the law:

  • Local governments must ministerially approve, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that will result in 10 or fewer parcels and 10 or fewer units, if the lot is no larger than 5 acres, and meets numerous other qualifying criteria, most designed to capture “infill” sites with water and sewer supply that are not environmentally sensitive and avoid demolishing existing housing.
  • Housing development projects on qualifying sites are exempt from needing to comply with any minimum requirement on the size, width, depth or dimensions of an individual parcel other than a 600-foot minimum parcel size. Qualifying projects are also exempt from the requirement to form a homeowners’ association, except as required by the Davis-Sterling Common Interest Development Act.
  • A local government must also approve, on a ministerial basis, an application for a housing development project on a lot subdivided by this law and then issue a building permit also on a ministerial basis. A locality may not apply any standards that would preclude development at densities deemed naturally suitable to lower-income household (10-30 units per acre, depending upon the jurisdiction), and the locality is further limited from applying certain setback, parking, floor area and other limitations as specified in the statute.

SB 684 was originally written to be applicable in single-family residential zoning districts but was amended very late in the process to only apply to sites zoned for multifamily housing – to the disappointment of its supporters. Despite this limitation in its scope, the law is notable for being one of few that provide a streamlined, CEQA-exempt approval process for housing without requiring developers to commit to specified labor standards or BMR housing requirements. Developers of small subdivisions should determine whether a potential site may be able to make use of the statute’s ministerial approval process.

The primary operative provisions of the law do not take effect until July 1, 2024.

AB 1490 (Assembly Member Alex Lee) – Adaptive Reuse for Affordable Housing. AB 1490 makes “adaptive reuse” – retrofitting and repurposing of an existing building to create new residential units – an “allowable use” for qualifying 100 percent affordable housing projects, even if such a use conflicts with local plans, zoning ordinances or regulations. To qualify, an adaptive reuse project must meet criteria, including:

  • the development must be entirely within the existing envelope of a residential building or a commercial building that currently allows temporary dwelling or occupancy (i.e., a hotel or motel)
  • all units (other than managers’ units) must be dedicated to lower-income households, with at least 50 percent dedicated to very-lower-income households; home prices can be set at an “affordable cost” pursuant to existing California Health and Safety Code definitions or at an affordable rent consistent with rent limits established by the CTCAC
  • the site must be 75 percent surrounded by urban uses or within one-half mile of a rail, bus rapid transit or ferry station, or the intersection of two bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during peak periods; further, the development cannot be on a site or adjoining a site where more than one-third of square footage is devoted to industrial uses

The law allows jurisdictions to impose objective design standards to the extent consistent with the law, as long as those restrictions do not limit maximum density or require additional parking or open space or require curing any preexisting deficit or conflict with existing standards. Local governments are must determine whether a project meets its design guidelines and the requirements of the law within 60 or 90 days, depending upon whether the project has more or less than 150 units. Failure to meet these deadlines results in the project being “deemed” to comply. The law also requires jurisdictions to include affordable adaptive reuse as an eligible project for affordable housing funding.

This law and AB 529 (discussed further below) only make limited steps toward addressing the clear need to facilitate residential conversions of nonresidential properties. But the law may provide pathways for affordable housing developers to make effective use of hotel and motel properties without needing to seek rezoning of the property.

AB 1114 (Assembly Member Matt Haney) and AB 281 (Assembly Member Tim Grayson) – Reforms to Post-Entitlement Permitting. In 2022, the Legislature established enforceable timelines and procedures for cities and counties when issuing ministerial post-entitlement permits such as building in grading permits. (See Holland & Knight’s previous alert, “California’s 2023 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know,” Oct. 10, 2022.) AB 1114 amends the law to provide that this process also applies to discretionary post-entitlement permits and further provides that once a local agency determines that a post-entitlement permit is compliant with applicable standards, the local agency shall not subject the permit to any appeals or additional hearing requirements. AB 281 requires special districts to comply with specified timeframes, similar to those for cities and counties, when reviewing and approving post-entitlement phase permit applications from housing developers for service from the special district.

CEQA

AB 1633 (Assembly Member Phil Ting) – CEQA Reform for Infill Housing. AB 1633 was inspired by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ vote to uphold a CEQA appeal of a proposed 495-unit infill development project. The legislation is the most direct reform in recent years aiming to crack down on excessive CEQA review practices that are weaponized against residential development.

Rather than amending CEQA directly, AB 1633 operates by defining two new violations of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), which can expose jurisdictions to litigation and vulnerability to pay attorneys’ fees and penalties. First, under AB 1633, it is now an HAA violation to refuse to make a CEQA exemption determination when dealing with an AB 1633-protected project that is entitled to a CEQA exemption. This addition is designed to prevent local governments from insisting on full CEQA analysis when a project is entitled to bypass CEQA. AB 1633 also creates a 90-day notice procedure, whereby applicants who believe they are entitled to CEQA exemptions may protest when local governments proceed with CEQA review. If there is substantial evidence that the project is entitled to a CEQA exemption, then the agency has 90 days to make an exemption determination. Failure to do so constitutes an HAA violation.

Second, it is now an HAA violation for a local government to hold a meeting at which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or similar CEQA document is considered, but decline to approve that document, if there is substantial evidence to support EIR certification and the project is protected by AB 1633. This addition directly addresses the San Francisco development project situation, wherein the Board of Supervisors indicated they were seeking to disapprove the project but avoided liability by technically only rejecting certification of the project’s EIR.

AB 1633 does not apply statewide. Instead, it applies to project sites that are within an urbanized area and that meet one of four requirements:

  1. It is within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop.
  2. It is located in a very low vehicle travel area.
  3. It is “proximal” to six or more amenities (bus stations or ferry terminals, grocery stores, parks, community centers, pharmacies, clinics or hospitals, libraries or schools).
  4. It is adjoined on three sides by parcels with urban uses (or 75 percent if not a four-sided site).

Further, the project must be at least 15 units per acre. High and very high fire hazard severity zones are excluded, and sites must also meet SB 35 criteria designed to capture “infill” project locations. Beyond this, however, there are no requirements to “use” AB 1633 (e.g., no labor or BMR housing requirements). The law also provides cities with some protection against having to pay CEQA petitioners’ attorneys’ fees if the petitioner sues the city for approving project subject to AB 1633.

Although it remains to be seen how often the law can be effectively invoked, the law makes important steps toward making a CEQA exemptions something an applicant can insist on – rather than something lead agencies can simply decline to adopt at their preference.

AB 1307 (Assembly Member Buffy Wicks) – Residential Noise Impacts. AB 1307 is a direct reaction to the University of California, Berkeley “students are pollution” case, holding that an EIR for UC-Berkeley’s 2036-37 long-range development plan – and specifically the university’s immediate plan to build student housing on the site of “People’s Park” – failed to assess potential noise impacts from loud student parties in residential neighborhoods near the campus. The case has been appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted review. In the meantime, AB 1307 specifies that, for residential projects, noise generated by occupants and their guests is not a significant effect on the environment. The law’s author notes that the law will reestablish existing precedent that minor noise nuisances such as from human voices will be addressed through local nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA. As such, CEQA cannot be used to consider “people as pollution.”

Less broadly applicable, AB 1307 also provides that an EIR prepared for a project proposed by a higher education institution shall not be required to study off-site alternatives if 1) the residential or mixed-use housing project is located on a site that is no more than 5 acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses and 2) the residential mixed-use project has already been evaluated in the EIR for the most recent long-range development plan for the applicable campus.

As an “urgency statute,” the law took effect when signed into law on Sept. 7, 2023.

AB 1449 (Assembly Member David Alvarez) – Affordable Housing Exemption. AB 1449 adds a new exemption not only for the entitlement of qualifying affordable housing but also for the actions leading up to and following project approval, including general plan amendments and rezonings, the lease or sale of property and financing decisions. The fact that the exemption also applies to the actions leading up to a project helps address the line of cases addressing when an action becomes a “project” under CEQA, holding that a lead agency’s actions that commit an agency to a project require CEQA review.

Such projects must be 100 percent low-income housing projects (except for managers’ units), meet prevailing wage and other labor standards identified in AB 2011, be located in an infill location and meet a range of criteria intended to ensure the site has access to transit or other amenities. The qualifying criteria include a slightly more permissible definition of “infill” than other statutes (requiring a site to be surrounded by urban uses on three sides rather than 75 percent). It is also notable that the site location criteria can be met either by one-half mile proximity to a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop or location in very low vehicle travel area (which is intended to capture areas that do not have access to transit but otherwise have lower vehicle miles traveled averages than surrounding areas). Another new option for meeting the location criteria has been added for projects that are within one-half mile of six or more designated amenities (e.g., a grocery store, public park, community center, pharmacy, library or school).

This CEQA exemption sunsets on Jan. 1, 2033.

SB 406 (Sen. Dave Cortese) – Financial Assistance Exemption. An existing CEQA exemption exempts HCD and the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) actions providing financial assistance or insurance for affordable housing projects. SB 406 expands the exemption to a local agency not acting as the lead agency as long as the project receiving funding will be reviewed pursuant to CEQA by another public agency. Similar to AB 1449, this exemption avoids any need for a public agency providing funding to conduct CEQA review as such CEQA review will separately be conducted by the lead agency.

SB 91 (Sen. Tom Umberg) – Motel Conversion Exemption. SB 91 extends indefinitely the CEQA exemption for projects that convert motels, hotels, residential hotels or hostels to supportive or transitional housing that was otherwise set to expire in January 2025. In addition, SB 91 extends CEQA streamlining provisions for “environmental leadership transit projects” located within the County of Los Angeles that meet certain specified requirements.

AB 356 (Assembly Member Devon Mathis) – Dilapidated Building Refurbishment Act. This law extends the sunset date from 2024 until 2029 on an existing provision that waives consideration of aesthetic impacts under CEQA for projects that refurbish, convert, repurpose or replace an existing building and meet certain criteria. The author stated that the purpose is to encourage beautification projects in disadvantaged communities.

SB 149 (Sen. Caballero) – CEQA Administrative Record Reform. Holland & Knight previously reported on the package of laws intended to streamline infrastructure processing and implement CEQA reform. Most relevant to housing projects, the new law provides that a petitioner bringing a CEQA lawsuit has 60 days to prepare the administrative record of proceedings before the lead agency, and if they fail to do so, the agency can prepare the record at taxpayer expense (for public agency projects) or at an applicant’s expense (for affordable housing projects, for example). Existing law requires parties who file CEQA lawsuits challenging agency approvals of housing or other projects to either prepare the administrative record themselves (at their expense) or pay to have the agency they have sued prepare the record. Accordingly, this “reform” actually makes it much cheaper and easier for project opponents to file CEQA lawsuits challenging projects. The amendments also authorize a lead agency (at its own cost or the real party in interest’s cost) to opt to prepare the record without waiting for the petitioner to so do. This may lead to a faster administrative record preparation process.

As budget laws, these laws took effect when signed this summer.

Density, Land Use and Planning

AB 1287 (Assembly Member Alvarez) – Additional Density Bonuses for Very-Low or Moderate Income Units. This year’s State Density Bonus Law amendments provide benefits to projects that provide additional very-low or moderate income units. AB 1287 requires that a project maximize the production of very-low, low or moderate units, as allowed by the current State Density Bonus Law (i.e., 15 percent very-low, 24 percent low or 44 percent moderate, which must be for-sale units) before utilizing the bonuses in AB 1287. Where these maximums are met, additional bonuses can be stacked on top of the prior maximum bonus. As an example, if a project includes 25 percent very-low income units, it can now achieve an 88.75 percent bonus by coupling the prior maximum bonus of 50 percent with an additional 38.75 percent bonus awarded by AB 1287. Additionally, a project that includes 59 percent moderate for-sale units can achieve a 100 percent bonus by coupling the prior maximum bonus of 50 percent with an additional 50 percent bonus granted by AB 1287.

Other amendments include:

  • Concessions and Incentives: The above-described projects that exceed the prior maximum bonus tiers are now eligible for four incentives or concessions. The number of incentives or concessions for 100 percent affordable projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or within a low vehicle travel area in a designated area has also been increased from four to five.
  • Documentation: The obligation for an applicant to provide reasonable documentation in connection with a request for incentives or concessions or development standard waivers has been eliminated.
  • Maximum Density: AB 1287 removes language stating that for purposes of determining a project’s base density, the greater density prevails if the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is “inconsistent” with a general or specific plan or specific plan. After this removal, the law now provides that the base density for the State Density Bonus Law is the greatest number of units allowed under the zoning ordinance, specific plan or land use element of the general plan – with no specific requirement that the zoning must necessarily be “inconsistent” for this to apply.
  • Nonprofit Corporation Eligibility: AB 1287 provides additional specification of criteria for nonprofit corporations that may purchase affordable for-sale units.

SB 747 (Sen. Caballero) and AB 480 (Assembly Member Ting) – Amendments to Scale Back the Surplus Land Act (SLA). The SLA significantly limits the ability of local governments to dispose of surplus property for the purpose of affordable housing development without first proceeding with a noticing process. SB 747 and AB 480 are intended to significantly roll back amendments to the SLA that were adopted in 2019 via AB 1486 (Ting) and were broadly reported to result in bureaucratic delays. The full universe of this year’s SLA amendments is beyond the scope of this alert, but the primary focus of the amendments is to add new exemptions and clarifications to the exemptions from the SLA. Some of the notable amendments include:

  • Leases: Clarifies that a lease less than 15 years or a lease for property on which no development or demolition will occur is exempt
  • Small Size: Increases the “small size” exemption for sites up to one-half acre that are not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency used for open space or affordable housing purposes
  • Affordable Housing: Eliminates the obligation to conduct competitive bidding for qualifying affordable housing projects
  • Third-Party Intermediary: Allows an agency to transfer property to a third-party intermediary for a receiving agency’s use
  • Valid Legal Restrictions: Provides additional clarifications on the types of valid legal restrictions that may qualify for an exemption
  • Transportation System: Allows agencies whose mission is to supply the public with a transportation system to transfer property for the sole purpose of investment or generation of revenue

There are still other exemptions that apply to other unique scenarios such as California public-use airports and community land trusts.

The new amendments also identify activities that may be conducted prior to the obligation to issue a notice of availability under the SLA such as issuing a request for proposals in certain instances. Most scenarios are tied to specific exemptions and again require careful review.

Finally, a penalty for noncompliance with the SLA will now be based on the final sales price of the land or the fair market value of the land at the time of the sale, whichever is greater. Since land may be sold at less than fair market value, this provision tying the penalty to fair market value could increase the penalty amount in the event of a violation.

While the intent of these amendments is to reduce bureaucratic delays, a learning curve is anticipated to digest and implement the new provisions.

AB 821 (Assembly Member Grayson) – Local Agency Obligation to Resolve General Plan and Zoning Conflicts. AB 821 provides that if a local agency receives a development application for a project that is consistent with the general plan but not the zoning, the agency must either: 1) amend the zoning ordinance within 180 days from the receipt of the development application or 2) process the application based on the general plan standards and ignore inconsistent zoning standards. AB 821 further provides a legal remedy for challenging an agency that does not comply. This provision does not apply to housing projects subject to the HAA, since the HAA already provides a mechanism requiring approval of a project that is consistent with the general plan that is inconsistent with the zoning. This law is intended to address the numerous instances in which agencies adopt general plan updates but corresponding zoning amendments never materialize.

SB 272 (Sen. John Laird) – Sea Level Rise Planning in Coastal Commission and Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). SB 272 requires sea-level rise planning as part of local coastal programs in the coastal zone and areas covered by the BCDC. By 2024, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and BCDC are required to establish guidelines for the preparation of sea level rise plans under their respective jurisdictions, and all local governments must then prepare plans by 2034. Implementation of SB 272 remains expressly contingent on an appropriation by the Legislature in the annual budget or another statute.

AB 529 (Assembly Member Jesse Gabriel) – Building Code Updates for Adaptive Reuse Projects. AB 529 was one of the few laws to address the obvious need in the post-COVID-19 era to facilitate conversion of office (or other use) buildings to residential. Rather than address entitlement processing of such projects, AB 529 made minor changes to existing law. First, AB 529 adds facilitation of the conversion projects (including the adoption of reuse ordinances) to the list of examples of pro-housing policies that HCD may consider in awarding grants to local governments. AB 529 also requires HCD to convene a working group with various state agencies to identify challenges and opportunities that may help support conversion projects. HCD must issue a report by Dec. 31, 2025, of its findings and thereafter research and consider proposing amendments for adoption by the California Building Standards Commission adaptive reuse building standards in within each agency’s respective authority for the next code adoption cycles in 2025 and 2026.

Given the astronomical statistics regarding underutilized office buildings, hopes and tensions continue to run high that more significant conversion laws will be adopted next year.

ADUs

AB 1033 (Assembly Member Ting) – ADUs Sold Separately as Condos. State ADU law has historically allowed local agencies to prohibit the separate sale or conveyances of ADUs from the primary dwelling. The sole exception to that rule has been that qualified nonprofits can sell or convey an ADU separately from the primary residence to a qualified low-income buyer, through the establishment of a tenancy in common. The original intent behind this regime was to support ADUs’ role in adding rental unit stock throughout the state as opposed to being a viable source of homeownership. AB 1033 now authorizes (but does not require) local agencies to adopt local ordinances allowing ADUs to be conveyed as condominiums separately from the primary dwelling. Condominium projects approved under this legislation will remain subject to the Subdivision Map Act and Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act.

AB 976 (Assembly Member Ting) – Owner-Occupancy Requirements Prohibited Beyond 2025. Current state ADU law prohibits local agencies from imposing “owner-occupancy” conditions on ADUs permitted between Jan. 1, 2020, and Jan. 1, 2025. AB 976 extends the prohibition indefinitely, meaning local agencies cannot impose owner-occupancy conditions on ADU projects permitted after Jan. 1, 2025. Local agencies are still required to impose owner-occupancy requirements on Junior ADUs (JADU), which are defined as units that are no more than 500 square feet, contained entirely within a single-family residence and equipped with separate or shared sanitation facilities.

AB 1332 (Assembly Member Juan Carrillo) – Streamlined (30-Day) Review of Preapproved ADU Plans. Even prior to the enactment of AB 1332, local agencies were required to approve or deny a complete ADU application within 60 days (including approvals and sign-offs from all interagency departments, special districts and utilities). AB 1332 creates an even more streamlined approval process for locally “preapproved” ADU designs. By Jan. 1, 2025, local agencies must develop a program for the preapproval of ADU plans whereby the local agency accepts ADU plan submissions for preapproval. Once an ADU plan is approved, local agencies are required to either approve or deny an ADU application utilizing a preapproved ADU plan within 30 days. The bill also specifies that local agencies must maintain a website page with preapproved ADU plans and the contact information of companies offering preapproved ADU plans. Lastly, AB 1332 specifies that ADU plans approved by the local agency or “other agencies within the state” (i.e., HCD) can be admitted into the local preapproval program. While some cities such as San Jose have already enjoyed success with preapproved ADU design programs, such programs will now become mandatory across the state.

Enforcement

AB 434 (Assembly Member Grayson) – Expanded HCD Enforcement Authority. AB 434 significantly expands the scope of HCD’s enforcement authority over state housing laws. AB 72 of 2017 granted HCD express enforcement authority with respect to four statutes: the HAA, State Density Bonus Law, fair housing law and the “no net loss” requirements for replacing housing element sites that are not developed as projected. Subsequent legislation broadened HCD’s enforcement authority to cover nine additional statutes, including 2017’s SB 35, 2019’s SB 330 and 2022’s AB 2011.

AB 434 brings 13 more areas of law into HCD’s enforcement authority, including five statutes adopted this year. Now, the following state housing laws are enforceable by HCD: several provisions streamlining approvals for ADUs, along with a provision allowing certain ADUs to be sold separately from the primary residence; several requirements of 2021’s SB 9, concerning ministerial processing of lot splits in single-family residential zones; 2022’s SB 6, which allows residential development in certain commercial zones; the so-called “five hearing rule” applicable to code-compliant residential projects; this year’s SB 684, requiring ministerial approval of certain small multifamily infill projects (discussed herein); this year’s SB 4, concerning ministerial approval of affordable housing on religious sites (discussed herein); and this year’s AB 1218, addressing replacement of demolished housing units (discussed herein).

Separately, AB 434 shortens the timeline for HCD to review housing elements that have already been adopted from 90 to 60 days.

AB 1485 (Assembly Member Haney) – Attorney General Right to Intervene in Housing Enforcement Suits. Prior to AB 1485, in order to intervene in housing-related litigation brought by third parties, the California Department of Justice was required to petition the court for permission to participate in the litigation. This process was both time-consuming and uncertain. AB 1485 now gives both the attorney general and HCD an unconditional statutory right to intervene in cases concerning the enforcement of housing laws.

Anti-Displacement and Affordable Housing

SB 439 (Sen. Nancy Skinner) – Motion to Strike Lawsuit Challenging Affordable Housing. SB 439 creates a new procedural option for defending against litigation challenging 100 percent affordable housing projects, modeled on California’s “anti-SLAPP” law that protects defendants from lawsuits designed to chill political participation and free speech. SB 439 creates a new “special motion to strike” any portions of a pleading that challenge the approval or permitting of a 100 percent affordable project. If the plaintiff challenging the project does not establish a probability of prevailing in the litigation, the party filing the special motion to strike is entitled to recover their attorney’s fees and costs.

AB 1218 (Assembly Member Josh Lowenthal) – Revisions to Requirements for Replacement Units and Relocation Benefits Applicable to Demolition of Protected Housing. This law creates a new article within the Government Code for replacement housing and relocation benefit requirements that were previously contained within the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. The revised provisions expand replacement requirements to nonresidential developments. Development projects that demolish vacant or occupied protected units or that are located on sites where protected units were demolished in the last five years will be required to replace all protected units that currently exist or were demolished after January 2020. Only industrial projects in zones that prohibit residential uses, which demolish residential units that are nonconforming uses, are exempt from the law’s replacement requirement. Nonresidential projects may satisfy the replacement requirement by contracting with a third party to develop the units, which may be located offsite within the jurisdiction of the project.

The law’s amendments include a number of clarifications that aim to address confusion arising from implementation of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019’s replacement unit and relocation benefit requirements. In particular, the law clarifies that notice of construction must be given six months in advance and that relocation benefits provided by private developers must be equivalent to those provided by public entities. Other amendments define the terms “housing development project” and “very low income households” through cross-references to existing definitions in the Government Code and Health and Safety Code.

Although the clarifications resolve some ongoing issues, the clarifications do not confirm when occupants qualify as “existing” for purposes of relocation benefits, nor do the amendments address how an occupant’s income level should be documented. Early coordination with the jurisdiction and use of a relocation consultant may help to resolve these open questions, but the law does not yet provide clarity on these important aspects of implementing the law’s demolition protections.

AB 911 (Assembly Member Pilar Schiavo) – Notification and Ownership Requirements for Modifications to Recorded Covenants Restricting Development of Affordable Housing. Two years ago, AB 721 authorized owners of qualifying affordable housing developments to remove restrictive covenants that limit residential development. AB 911 amends AB 721 to clarify notice requirements and ownership qualifications for modifications and to specify timelines for lawsuits challenging modifications.

As amended by AB 911, the law requires a county to notify a property owner who has submitted a restrictive covenant modification request of the county counsel’s determination regarding the modification request. This notification then allows (but does not require) the owner to inform interested parties – such as a party with an interest in the covenant that is being redacted – that the county has approved the removal of the covenant. If such notice is provided, it triggers a 35-day statute of limitations for any party receiving such notice to file a suit to challenge the removal of the covenant.

AB 911 confirms that any record title owner of the property, any beneficial owner of a property or any person with site control (such a right to acquire the property under an option agreement, purchase and sale agreement, or similar agreement) may request that the county redact a covenant. However, an owner may not actually record a modification documents until they close escrow and receive title.

SB 469 (Sen. Ben Allen) – Exemptions from Article 34 of the California Constitution for Affordable Housing Projects Receiving Specified Funding. Article 34 of the California Constitution requires voter approval prior to a jurisdiction’s development of a state- or locally financed or funded “low-rent housing project.” In advance of ballot measures seeking to repeal Article 34, SB 469 adds projects that receive federal and state grants or tax credits to the list of projects exempt from Article 34. The law specifies that the definition of “low-rent housing project” does not apply to rural and urban residential projects receiving funding in the following forms: 1) funding from HCD, CalHFA and Business, Consumer Services and Housing (BCSH) pursuant to the Zenovich-Moscone-Chacon Housing and Home Financing Act, 2) grants from the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program and 3) allocations of federal or state low-income housing tax credits from the CTCAC. Exempting affordable housing projects receiving funding from these sources from Article 34’s requirements removes a layer of uncertainty and delay resulting from voter approval from the development of these housing projects without risking state funding for local jurisdictions that is tied to compliance with Article 34.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 1 (Assembly Member Cecilia Aguiar-Curry) – Constitutional Amendment to Lower Voter Threshold for Affordable Housing General Obligation Bonds. If passed, ACA 1 would lower the voter threshold required for approval of certain special taxes and General Obligation (GO) bonds for improvements to and acquisition or construction of affordable housing, permanent supportive housing and public infrastructure projects. The current (two-thirds) supermajority required to pass such measures would be lowered to 55 percent. Proceeds from the bonds may only be spent on the authorized improvements, subject to an annual performance audit and oversight by a citizens’ committee. Funded projects must service the approving jurisdiction, and local officials are prohibited from bidding on contracts for the project if the official voted to place a measure to fund the project on the ballot.

SB 789 (Sen. Allen) – Two Constitutional Amendments Facilitating Affordable Housing Set for the General Election Ballot. SB 789 consolidates two constitutional amendments set for special election on March 5, 2024, with the general election on Nov. 5, 2024: 1) Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 2 would repeal Article 34 of the California Constitution (see above), and 2) ACA 1 would lower the voter threshold for bonds to fund affordable housing, public infrastructure and permanent supportive housing (see above).

AB 812 (Assembly Member Tasha Boerner) – Authorization of Conditions of Approval for Affordable Artist Housing. AB 218 authorizes local governments to impose as a condition of approval a reservation of up to 10 percent of a development’s affordable housing units for “artist housing,” as defined, within one-half mile of a designated state or local cultural district. When signing the law, Gov. Newsom explained that he would be “disinclined” to sign bills providing “statutory carve outs for specific professions” in the future.

Financing and Costs

SB 253 (Sen. Wiener) – Carbon Emission Disclosure. The law will require the California Air Resources Board (CARB), on or before Jan. 1, 2025, to develop and adopt regulations requiring companies that do business in California to disclose to the state’s emissions registry information. It remains unclear how this requirement will be clarified and enforced, but given the large number of different products used to build a home and the complexity of determining how each such product impacts greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions throughout the product’s entire life cycle, the process of tracking and ensuring compliance with this law may impose significant new costs on homebuilding.

AB 1319 (Assembly Member Wicks) – Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Authority Authorizations to Facilitate Production and Preservation of Affordable Housing. AB 1319 amends the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Act (Act), expanding the Act’s scope and the governing powers of the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority and Governing Board (Board). The amendments expand the Act’s definition of “affordable housing” to include rental housing and revise the definition of “authority revenues” to include special taxes, other charges, investment income, income from operation and ownership of property and loan repayments. Other key provisions increase the membership total of the Act’s advisory committee, specifying that members should have construction workforce and finance experience. Significantly, Board actions funding affordable housing and technical assistance are exempt from CEQA.

AB 835 (Assembly Member Lee) – Fire Marshal to Study Safety of Requirement for Apartments to Have More than One Staircase. AB 835 requires the state fire marshal to analyze and report to the Legislature on standards for “single-exit, single stairway apartment houses.” The report will assess “fire and life safety” issues with respect to the requirement to have more than one exit in apartment buildings with three or more stories and at least two dwelling units. Proponents of the bill contend that California’s current requirement of two exits in certain apartment buildings limits the location and design of potential housing and contributes to California’s ongoing housing crisis.

Parking

AB 1308 (Assembly Member Sharon Quirk-Silva) – No Increased Minimum Parking Requirements on Single-Family Home Renovations. AB 1308 prohibits public agencies from increasing minimum parking requirements applicable to single-family residences as a condition of approval for projects remodeling, renovating or adding to a single-family residence, as long as the project does not cause the residence to exceed applicable zoning regulations (e.g., floor area ratio, lot coverage and height). The Legislature declared the prohibition necessary because the imposition of minimum parking standards “can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units” and “lead to an oversupply of parking spaces.”

AB 1317 (Assembly Member Carrillo) – Unbundled Parking for Qualifying Residential Properties. Requires owners of “qualifying residential properties” in certain counties to unbundle the cost of parking from the total rent for the housing unit. The law defines “unbundled parking” as the practice of selling or leasing parking spaces separate from the lease of the residential property. To be subject to this law, the property must:

  • have received a certificate of occupancy on or after Jan. 1, 2025
  • include 16 or more residential units
  • be located in Alameda, Fresno, Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Shasta or Ventura counties

Tenants of a qualifying residential property have a right of first refusal to parking spaces built for their property, which if not exercised may be leased by the property owner to other residential users onsite or offsite “on a month-to-month basis.”

Affordable housing that is 100 percent deed-restricted or financed through tax credits for low-income housing or tax-exempt bonds, as well as properties designed with a garage that is “functionally a part of the property or unit” (e.g., townhomes and row houses), are exempt from the unbundling requirements.

AB 894 (Assembly Member Laura Friedman) – Shared Parking. Local agencies generally establish parking standards for various land uses or properties in their zoning ordinances. AB 894 mandates local agencies allow shared parking plans if applicable parking is “underutilized” and the entities proposing shared parking provide an agreement meeting certain criteria and an explanation of the benefits of the proposal. Parking is “underutilized” if at least 20 percent of parking spaces in a development are vacant during the time that the parking will be shared. For projects receiving public funding after June 30, 2024, local agencies and developers must analyze the possibility of shared parking, but local agencies may not “compel private parties to enter into a shared parking agreement.” Local agencies must count shared parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement toward local parking requirements for existing or proposed uses and development if the parking meets certain locational requirements. Shared parking agreements that include a parking analysis based on specified “peer-reviewed methodologies” and that ensure long-term parking or include provisions for periodic review by the local agency must be approved. Approval of shared parking agreements that do not include this analysis is discretionary. Local agencies may not condition approval on the remedying of existing parking deficits nor “withhold approval” because the shared plan will reduce the parking included in the originally proposed use. Provisions of AB 894 may not reduce parking spaces needed to meet accessibility or electric vehicle requirements.

Conclusion

For more information about how to maximize these and other state housing laws to advance the approval of your project, contact the authors or your Holland & Knight West Coast Land Use & Environmental Practice Group attorney.

It takes ‘two to tango’ but only one can qualify a license if they make the grade! Another contracting business buyer wants to charge up his opportunity with a new license if he can pass the test in time, while I wrap with some ‘perspective’…

Q: Our Qualifier just turned in his resignation. We have gone through getting a new Qualifier several times in the past couple of years and we are ready to step up and have myself and the other Partner take the exams and have Responsible Managing Officer’s (RMO) rather than Responsible Managing Employee’s (RME), since we aren’t going anywhere anytime soon! Should we both apply to replace the previous Qualifier and then whoever passes the exams first, become the new Qualifier? Or what is the process?

A: You cannot both apply to replace the previous qualifier at the same time. You could have one of you apply to replace the qualifier, while the other applies for a Sole Proprietor license. That would allow you to both take the exams and then whoever passes first can take over as the qualifier.

Q: I am buying a business and in order for the deal to close, I need to have a license number in hand. With that in mind, the Seller offered to be my Qualifier for a period of time to speed up the license issuance process. He currently has a “C-7” (Low Voltage) license. I have electrical experience and my goal is to have a “C-10” (Electrical) license. What is the process for changing the license to my name and changing the license type from Low Voltage to Electrical? The seller doesn’t want to stay on the license for very long.

A: I’m thinking the best way to approach this would be once the “C-7” license is issued, you can apply to add the “C-10” classification to the license, you’ll have to sit for the exams, and once the Electrical is added to the license you can disassociate the Seller. As you likely know, you can perform “C-7” work with a “C-10” license.

Q: You helped me obtain my “C-15” (Flooring) and “C-54” (Tile) license a couple of years ago. Now, I am wanting to enter into a business venture with my supplier. He has a cabinet and tile store. Our thought is he would obtain a General Building (“B”) license under his name and then he can start offering installation services along with the material sales, and then sub-contract the tile/flooring jobs to me. We were thinking of forming a corporation or LLC together which would in turn own the store. Does anything about our plan raise any red flags from a licensing perspective?

A: Not that I can see from a licensing perspective. You didn’t specify if the store itself is a corporation, LLC, or if it’s a Sole Proprietorship. If the store is going to be signing contracts for the installation, the store itself needs to hold the license under whatever type of entity it is. I also recommend talking with a legal and tax expert to be safe.

While knowledge is power, knowing where to go for the answers is half the battle. Get expert assistance immediately when you call 866-443-0657, email info@cutredtape.com, or write us at Capitol Services, Inc., 3609 Bradshaw Rd, Ste H, #343, Sacramento, CA 95827. Search past columns at www.cutredtape.com.

In response to industry need, Career Technical Education (CTE) Foundation, Sonoma County Office of Education (SCOE), and North Coast Builders Exchange (NCBE) launched the North Bay Construction Corps in February 2017 to recruit and train students interested in the construction trades and get them on a path to post-secondary training and employment after high school. After its first year in Sonoma County, NBCC expanded to Mendocino County in 2018 with a robust program until 2020 when the program was paused due to COVID-19. After a two-year hiatus, North Bay Construction Corps returned to Mendocino County in the 2022-2023 school year.

North Bay Construction Corps (NBCC), a program of the North Coast Builders Exchange (NCBE), is eight-week construction skills building and career exploration program for high school seniors interested in a career in construction. We work closely with local area high schools (both traditional and alternative) to recruit students for the program. Classes are taught by high school teachers, skilled industry tradespeople and business owners in topics ranging from tool handling and personal safety to fundamentals of electrical, carpentry, solar power design and installation, drywall, concrete, framing, sheet metal, and much more. The goal of the program is to equip our students with the skills and competencies to be ready to enter the construction workforce upon completion of the program.

This program teaches high school seniors technical and soft skills desired by most contractors in a newly hired employee. Students who successfully complete the rigorous program are invited to participate in a two-week boot camp project or paid internship where they practice newly acquired skills. Upon completion of Boot Camp or their internship, students meet and interview with several local businesses. Year after year, students receive job offers from local companies and have credited the program with helping them clarify their career goals and opening their eyes to opportunities around them. Many of our students are hired on the spot at the graduation and interview event each year. Since the pilot program in 2017, North Bay Construction Corps has graduated more than 200 students in Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake, and Napa counties.

The program’s target population is high school seniors both at traditional and alternative high schools. We work closely with college and career counselors and CTE teachers at school sites to reach students. We provide printed and digital materials to be distributed to the students. We also make presentations on campus, mainly in the CTE classes. We utilize program graduates and construction industry partners to make these presentations so that students can hear firsthand about the program and the construction industry. We also market this program to our 900 plus members through our weekly newsletter, Building News.

NBCC’s focus on workforce development, particularly in the construction industry, is crucial due to the demand for labor. The construction industry will need to attract nearly 546,000 additional workers on top of the normal pace of hiring in 2023 to meet the demand for labor nationally, according to a model developed by Associated Builders and Contractors. With an aging workforce and a shortage of skilled labor, our program aims to train and equip young individuals with the skills and knowledge required to meet this demand. We seek to provide them with a viable career path and simultaneously strengthen the construction industry in our region.

In 2023, NBCC served 20 students and partnered with over 10 local construction businesses in Mendocino County. We are thrilled for the opportunity to expand the program in 2024 and beyond with the funding provided by the State of California. This funding will allow for the geographic expansion of NBCC as well as increasing the number of students we can serve. Funding from the state will also allow NCBE to implement additional Workforce Development programming including outreach to middle school students through a Careers in Construction Expo. We look forward to working in partnership with the State of California, Mendocino County Office of Education, and Career Technical Education Foundation to ensure out students have every opportunity to be successful and to support thriving workforce and community in Mendocino County.

 

     

     Here to help contractors get a ‘handle’ on problems, without blowing smoke. While some extended license opportunities exist in CA, the dry heat of AZ makes them disappear! Not mine, but let me answer one for ‘Dad’…

Q: We acquired a licensed business and have applied for a new license using the Qualifying Individual who currently qualifies the business we acquired. The CSLB has requested that he disassociate from the current license in order for the new entity to officially be licensed. However, the currently licensed company still has projects going on. How do companies typically handle this for such acquisitions?

A: You can delay the submittal of the Disassociation for a bit. Once the CSLB requests that from you, you aren’t required to provide it right away, they will keep the application for the new company pending/active for a period of time while you are still working under the current license. However, that obviously delays the issuance of the new license! Be aware that once he disassociates from the current license, that license will have 90 days to continue operating which is usually enough time to finish work in progress.

 

Q: I am a licensed HVAC (C-20) contractor in California. I have my own Sole Proprietorship license and then I also am the RMO for three other Company licenses, each of which I own 20% of. I wanted to do the same thing in Arizona. What is their rule regarding how many licenses I can Qualify for?

A: Arizona only allows for you to be the Qualifying party for one additional entity and in order to do so, there must be common ownership of at least 25% between the two licenses.

 

Q: My Dad has had a Sole Owner license since 2016 and in 2019 we incorporated. When he incorporated, he was issued a new license number. I have been an active employee of his since he’s been in business, but only on the books since the incorporation. I am an Officer of the Corporation with 25% ownership. Can my father transfer the license to me? If he can transfer the license to me, can he remain a part of the company? Either as a partner with a percentage, or as an employee?

A: He can transfer the license to you, however at the moment you would be required to take the exams (C-10 & Law). If you wait until after 4/23/2024 which is when the license will have been in existence for five years, you would be able to take over the license as the RMO without needing to take the exams. Your Dad can remain an Officer/owner of the company as he is now, or he can become an employee, either way. If he wants to stay on as an Officer/owner, you two would essentially be switching roles. You would become the Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) and he would remain as an Officer on the license.

 

  While knowledge is power, knowing where to go for the answers is half the battle. Get expert assistance immediately when you call 866-443-0657, email info@cutredtape.com, or write us at Capitol Services, Inc., 3609 Bradshaw Rd, Ste H, #343, Sacramento, CA 95827. Search past columns at www.cutredtape.com

Thank you to our members for their continued support!

 

30 Years

HARKEY CONSTRUCTION, INC.Windsorhttp://www.harkeyconstruction.com
L.D. GIACOMINI ENTERPRISES, INC.Ukiah
15 Years
LACO ASSOCIATESEurekahttp://www.lacoassociates.com
VALLEY CONTRACTORS EXCHANGECHICOhttp://www.vceonline.com
DUNLAP ROOFING, INC.Fort Bragghttp://www.dunlaproofing.com
WINTERS CONSTRUCTION & CONSULTINGSanta Rosa
 

10 Years

C. HARDY GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORPetalumahttp://www.chardyge.com
PACIFIC COAST DRILLING CO. INC.Santa Rosahttp://www.pacificcoastdrilling.com

5 Years

SAL CONCEPT CONSTRUCTION INCWindsor
SMITH CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL ENGINEMiddletown
ARROW FENCINGCalpella
CED GREENTECHSanta Rosahttps://www.cedgreentechsr.portal/ced.com
GALLAGHER CONSTRUCTION SERVICESSan Franciscohttp://www.ajg.com
HANSEL FORDPetalumahttp://www.hanselford.com
POLAIRIS MECHANICALAuburn
 

1 Year

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANYSanta Rosahttp://www.pge.com
SONOMA MARIN ELECTRIC, INC.Sebastopolhttps://sonomamarinelectric.com/
TLC CHILD & FAMILY SERVICESSebastopolwww.tlc4kids.org
INTEGRITY GLASSRohnert Parkhttp://www.integrity-glass.com
JENSEN PRECASTSebastopolhttps://www.jensenprecast.com/
NORTH BAY EXCAVATION INC.Santa Rosahttps://www.northbayexcavation.com/
SONOMA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATIONSanta Rosahttps://www.scoe.org/
STRATA a|pSonomahttps://www.strataap.com/
 

October New Members

CERAMIC DESIGNS BY RON GREEN, INC.Reddinghttp://www.ceramicdesigns.net
L N S WELDING & FABRICATIONWillits
Summit State BankSanta Rosawww.summitstatebank.com
Tavizon Construction & Design dba Carpet OneNapa
CRANDELL CONSTRUCTIONRedding
F & M BANKNapafmbonline.com
LAVENDER.ATELIER INTERIOR DESIGNWindsor
MITCHELL HOWIE DBA HOWIE EXCAVATINGSan Anselmo