Skip to main content

January 19, 2021

Volume XI, Number 19

National Law Review
  • Login
  • FB
  • twt
  • link
  • home
  • rss
  • logo
  • Publish / Advertise with Us
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Join Our Team
    • Search
  • Trending Legal News
    • Most Recent
    • What's Trending
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • NLR Blog
    • Search
  • About Us
    • About the NLR
    • NLR Team
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • NLR Thought Leadership Awards
      • 2018
      • 2019
      • 2020
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Search
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Search
  • Quick Links
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Search
  • ENEWSBULLETINS

 

New Articles
Bottom Row Image
Advertisement

January 18, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Court Affirmed An Order Modifying A Trust Where The Complaining... by: David Fowler Johnson
  • Dynamex is Retroactive Says the California Supreme Court – The... by: Lilah Sutphen and Karen E. Wentzel
  • Court Holds That Bank Did Not Owe Fiduciary Duties To Depositor/... by: David Fowler Johnson
  • ENOUGH ALREADY: Court Issues Injunction Preventing Harrassing... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Illumina v. Ariosa – Ariosa Petitions for Cert. by: Warren Woessner
  • THE CLOCK IS TICKING: Huge TCPA Appeal to Sixth Circuit May Result in... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Uber and Lyft Drivers Hurt in Rideshare Accidents by: Richard P. Console, Jr.
  • Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana User May Proceed With Disability... by: Catherine A. Cano
  • Pilgrim’s Pride Settles Poultry Price-Fixing Charges by: Mogin Rubin
  • Proposals to amend working time protections denied – “public... by: David Whincup
  • Episode 05: Data Monetization in Autonomous Vehicles [VIDEO] by: Steven Lundberg and Suneel Arora
  • Excellus Health Pays $5.1 Million to Resolve HIPAA Breach Involving... by: Danielle L. Dietrich
  • FTC Settles Allegations of Deceptive Practices by Photo Storage App... by: Glenn A. Brown
  • 340B Administrative Dispute Resolution Goes Live Amid a Flurry of... by: Daryl M. Berke and Ellyn L. Sternfield
  • Want to Know if Your Employees Received the COVID-19 Vaccine? Some... by: Joseph J. Lazzarotti
  • FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Issues Declaratory... by: Paul C. Besozzi
  • Supreme Court Rejects Appeal to Overturn UK's First Unexplained... by: Nicholas Holland

January 17, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • U.K. Investigates Market Impact of Change in Google Ad Targeting Tools by: Mogin Rubin
  • TCPA Quick Hitter: Contract Requiring TCPA Compliance Not Enough to... by: Brent Owen
  • Episode 04: Data Monetization in Retail and Consumer [VIDEO] by: Steven Lundberg and Suneel Arora
  • May we? Must we? Should we? Shall we? What Can Schools Do About Non-... by: Pamela Wilkins Connelly

January 16, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Episode 03: Data Monetization in Manufacturing, Industrial & B2B... by: Steven Lundberg
  • Political Action Committee & Personal Political Contributions... by: Bruce M. Hennes
  • United States Bans Cotton and Tomato Products from Xinjiang Citing... by: Deepti B. Gage and Kirstin K. Gruver
  • IT Security Trends in the Era of COVID: Our Top Five Tips for Making... by: Jason G. Weiss and Peter Baldwin
  • Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Vacates MD Anderson HIPAA Penalty by: Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Ninth Circuit Upholds Federal Preemption of California’s Meal and... by: Cary G Palmer
  • McDermottPlus Check-Up: January 15, 2021 by: Mara McDermott and Kristen O’Brien
  • Massachusetts Makes Broad Changes to the Zoning Act by: Daniel J. Bailey and Paula M. Devereaux
  • DoD Launches New Platform to Connect Inventors with “Trusted” Venture... by: Christopher W. Adams and Pablo E. Carrillo
  • Army Corps Finalizes Certain Nationwide Permits Two Years Ahead of... by: Duncan M. Greene and Jonathan D. Simon
Article By
Jennifer E. Renk
Daniel S. Maroon
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Real Estate, Land Use & Environmental Law Blog
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP full service Global 100 law firm handling corporate law
  • Real Estate
  • Construction Law
  • Election Law / Legislative News
  • California
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • Download PDF
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Tweet
Advertisement

Housing in California in 2020: A Look Ahead and a Lesson in Try, Try Again

Friday, January 31, 2020

Indisputably, 2019 was an important year for housing in California. As we noted in our prior blog post, Governor Newsom signed legislation creating statewide rent control, preventing discrimination against people paying rent with vouchers, and preventing cities from downzoning in order to inhibit new construction projects. And, according to legislators involved in these efforts, the State wants to keep up this momentum in 2020.

Below are a few of the most important housing issues to watch heading into 2020.

Housing Production Legislation

The Legislature reconvened in January for the second half of its two-year session, and pressure to act on the state’s housing crisis has not subsided. According to a recent Public Policy Institute of California statewide survey, 68% of Californians say housing affordability is a big problem in their part of the State. Therefore, we expect 2020 to bring a number of additional housing production bills.

Senator Scott Weiner’s More HOMES Act (SB 50) was the highest-profile housing bill of the bunch. The bill offered some flexibility to local governments while still requiring significant residential upzoning near major transit stops. For example, rather than automatically upzoning these areas, the bill gave cities two years to develop “local flexibility plans” to zone for the same amount of housing required by SB 50 without increasing vehicle miles travelled. Failing to prepare an Department of Housing and Community Development-approved plan would have triggered SB 50’s default statewide standards, including project waivers from maximum density controls, height limitations, and parking requirements depending on the project’s location.

Controversially, the bill also allowed most California homeowners to convert existing single-family homes into duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes—even when located within single-family zones—through a streamlined ministerial approval process.

After similar versions were rejected in 2018 and 2019, the reintroduced, revised bill again failed to garner enough votes to pass the Senate. On January 30 the bill received 18 “aye” votes and 15 “no” votes, four short of what was required to pass out of the Senate. However, Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins vowed that SB 50’s failure “would not be the end of this story.” And Senator Weiner remains fully committed to advancing a strong housing production bill this year.

Stay tuned for further updates on these efforts.

State Funding for Affordable Housing

Governor Newsom’s 2019-2020 budget allocated $1 billion to help cities build shelters and long-term housing. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates a $7 billion surplus for 2020-2021, and there has been significant pressure to spend more money on affordable housing production. While Governor Newsom’s proposed budget asks for $1.4 billion for additional homeless services, it does not directly address production issues.

Senator Jim Beall’s SB 795, introduced last year as SB 5 and vetoed by Governor Newsom, represents one way of promoting affordable housing production. The original bill was drafted to restore some of the revenue lost when the state’s redevelopment agencies were abolished. If the original bill’s language is remains unchanged, it would create a State-level Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program to assist cities and other local entities in financing new affordable housing. The Program would be funded by allowing cities to reduce their contributions to Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds in favor of financing affordable housing projects, transit-oriented developments, or other infill projects.

Rent Control and Split Roll on the Ballot and Housing Accountability Act in the Courtroom

Industry members should also expect a series of significant housing-related ballot measures in the November election. First, two years after decisively rejecting expanded statewide rent control, voters could be asked to weigh in on the issue yet again. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (“AHF”), which sponsored the unsuccessful 2018 effort, has submitted over 1 million signatures supporting a new and similar measure, currently dubbed the Rental Affordability Act.

The measure was submitted despite lawmakers passing a statewide rent cap last session, which set a maximum annual rent increase of 5% plus inflation and included eviction protections for longtime tenants. AHF opposed this legislation on the grounds that it did not go far enough.

Now, the measure allows cities, for the first time since the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act was enacted in 1995, to enact vacancy controls. Specifically, it allows landlords to increase rent on a vacated property by up to 15%, plus whatever rent control increase is allowed by the local jurisdiction, once every three years.

The measure would give cities more latitude to create rent controls for housing built after 1995, but would exempt units less than 15 years old. Having just compromised with the Legislature and Newsom administration on last year’s rent control legislation, industry groups like the California Apartment Association oppose the new measure.

Voters may also be asked to vote on a “split roll” initiative, which would amend Proposition 13 to exclude commercial property from its restrictions on property tax increases.

Finally, industry members should expect a significant clarification of the scope of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) from the courts in 2020. A recent San Mateo County Superior Court order upheld the City of San Mateo’s denial of a housing project on grounds that it was inconsistent with the City’s design guidelines. Rather than stopping there, the court held that charter cities, which cover 58% of the state’s population, are not bound by the HAA under the home rule doctrine. The court also that the HAA constitutes an unlawful delegation of municipal affairs to private parties. The order has been appealed, and the California Attorney General recently intervened in the case.

In all, if Governor Newsom hopes to meet his goal of building 3.5 million homes by 2025, his administration will have to work with the Legislature to further streamline housing approvals and help developers and local governments creatively finance affordable housing. This portends another busy year on housing issues in 2020.

Advertisement
Copyright © 2020, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 31
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • Download PDF
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Court Affirmed An Order Modifying A Trust Where The Complaining Beneficiaries Were Not Affected By The Modification, Where The Modification Was Not Contrary To The Purpose Of The Trust, And Where The Beneficiaries Waived Their Right To A Jury Trial
By
Winstead
Dynamex is Retroactive Says the California Supreme Court – The Independent Contractor Law Now Looks Back and Forward (US)
By
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Court Holds That Bank Did Not Owe Fiduciary Duties To Depositor/Customer
By
Winstead
ENOUGH ALREADY: Court Issues Injunction Preventing Harrassing Robocalls– Deems Defendants’ Promises to Stop “Unconvincing”
By
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Illumina v. Ariosa – Ariosa Petitions for Cert.
By
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
THE CLOCK IS TICKING: Huge TCPA Appeal to Sixth Circuit May Result in Biggest Decision of All Time– Here’s How YOU Can Help
By
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Uber and Lyft Drivers Hurt in Rideshare Accidents
By
Console and Associates, P.C.
Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana User May Proceed With Disability Discrimination And Retaliation Claims
By
Jackson Lewis P.C.
Pilgrim’s Pride Settles Poultry Price-Fixing Charges
By
MoginRubin
Proposals to amend working time protections denied – “public unconvinced” shock (UK)
By
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Episode 05: Data Monetization in Autonomous Vehicles [VIDEO]
By
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Excellus Health Pays $5.1 Million to Resolve HIPAA Breach Involving Over 9 Million People
By
Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky
FTC Settles Allegations of Deceptive Practices by Photo Storage App Provider
By
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
340B Administrative Dispute Resolution Goes Live Amid a Flurry of 340B Litigation
By
Mintz
Want to Know if Your Employees Received the COVID-19 Vaccine? Some Best Practices to Consider
By
Jackson Lewis P.C.
FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Issues Declaratory Ruling on TCPA and Calls to Recruit Clinical Drug Trial Participants
By
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal to Overturn UK's First Unexplained Wealth Order
By
McDermott Will & Emery
U.K. Investigates Market Impact of Change in Google Ad Targeting Tools
By
MoginRubin
TCPA Quick Hitter: Contract Requiring TCPA Compliance Not Enough to Escape TCPA Liability
By
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Episode 04: Data Monetization in Retail and Consumer [VIDEO]
By
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Jennifer E. Renk Real Estate Lawyer Sheppard Mullin Law Firm
Jennifer E. Renk
Partner

Jennifer Renk is a partner in the Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco office.

Areas of Practice

Jennifer’s practice focuses on land use and environmental law, with particular expertise in the California Environmental Quality Act. She advises clients on the regulatory and political hurdles facing development projects across California, with an emphasis on commercial, residential, mixed-use, and high tech projects.

Over the course of her career, Jennifer has worked on a diverse range of projects, including...

jrenk@sheppardmullin.com
415-774-3143
www.sheppardmullin.com/
Daniel S. Maroon
Daniel Maroon, Sheppard Mullin Law Firm, San Francisco, Real Estate and Environmental Law Attorney
Associate

Daniel S. Maroon is an associate in the Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental Practice Group on the firm's San Francisco office.

Areas of Practice

Mr. Maroon’s practice focuses on land use and environmental matters and land use litigation. He assists developers and property owners in complying with CEQA and planning and zoning regulations, obtaining development entitlements and regulatory approvals, and litigating land use and real estate cases involving CEQA, planning and zoning laws, development...

dmaroon@sheppardmullin.com
415-774-2969
www.sheppardmullin.com
Advertisement
Advertisement
National Law Review
  • Antitrust Law
  • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
  • Biotech, Food, & Drug
  • Business of Law
  • Election & Legislative
  • Construction & Real Estate
  • Environmental & Energy
  • Family, Estates & Trusts
  • Financial, Securities & Banking
  • Global
  • Health Care Law
  • Immigration
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Insurance
  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation
  • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
  • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
  • Tax
  • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
  • Law Student Writing Competition
  • Sign Up For NLR Bulletins
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs

 

As a woman owned company, The National Law Review is a certified member of the Women's Business Enterprise National Council

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC