Wood Smoke Reduction Incentive Program

The Wood Smoke Reduction Incentive Program was developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to improve local air quality and reduce wintertime particulate matter pollution by helping Bay Area homeowners and landlords replace their wood-burning heating devices with cleaner options.

To be eligible, applicants must own a property that (1) is a residential unit located within the Air District’s jurisdiction, and (2) contains an operational wood-burning stove or fireplace, used for heating purposes. Qualifying wood-burning devices do not include those meant for cooking purposes.

Applicants may apply for one project option per property. Project options and base award for each project option are listed below:

In addition to the base funding shown above, applicants may be eligible to receive additional funding if they or their property meet one or more of the following Highly Impacted Resident conditions shown below:

For more information and to learn how to apply, visit the Bay Area Air Quality Management District website.

Santa Clara County Local Disclosures

Read more

Call for Action — Tell the San Jose City Council: Don’t Impose Expensive New Mandates on Rental Property Owners

In the City of San Jose REALTORS® and their clients own many rental properties and play a vital role in providing safe well-maintained housing. On Tuesday, April 18th the San Jose City Council will consider new measures that attempt to make housing more affordable; instead, the proposals make the costs of maintaining and managing rental property more uncertain and expensive for good tenants and landlords alike, while giving bad actors the tools to abuse the new laws. SCCAOR supports efforts to help renters in San Jose, but does not believe costly mandates make housing more affordable for all.

The Ellis Act Ordinance:

  • Under the Ellis Act, if you choose to redevelop your property but continue to operate it as a rental property, all the replaced units and any additional units you might add will be subjected to rent control. Tell the Council to support policies that add more housing not limit it. Ask them to exempt new units from the rent control law.
  • If you choose to redevelop your rent controlled property as for sale housing you will be required to pay out each tenant thousands of dollars. This is on top of other development fees and costs the city already imposes.
  • Read the proposed Ellis Act Ordinance by clicking here.
The Tenant Protection Ordinance:
  • Tenants have the ability to file frivolous claims for repair because the City does NOT require verification that the claims are legitimate. This will grant tenants the ability to file frivolous claims to extend their just cause protection endlessly.
  • Tenants have no responsibility to prove that any claims they make are true, they are essentially given unlimited protection under this new law. The burden of proof is on the landlords to prove the tenants are being truthful.
  • Under this law, a landlord would have to provide evidence of a lease violation or proof that an illegal act was committed to evict a tenant. This harms a landlord’s ability to keep their good tenants safe from their bad ones.
  • Read the proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance by clicking here.

How Can You Help?

Attend the San Jose City Council Meeting on April 18th
Where: 200 E Santa Clara St, San Jose, CA 95113
When: Tuesday, April 18th at 1:30 PM

Sign the Petition: Say NO to the proposed Ellis Act and Tenant Protection Ordinance by Clicking Here.

Contact the Mayor and City Council:

Mayor Sam Liccardo (408) 535-4800 mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov
Councilmember D1 Chappie Jones (408) 535-4901 District1@sanjoseca.gov
Councilmember D2 Sergio Jimenez (408) 535-4902 District2@sanjoseca.gov
Councilmember D3 Raul Peralez (408) 535-4903 District3@sanjoseca.gov
Councilmember D4 Lan Diep (408) 535-4904 District4@sanjoseca.gov
Vice Mayor Magdalena Carrasco (408) 535-4905 District5@sanjoseca.gov
Councilmember D6 Dev Davis (408) 535-4906 District6@sanjoseca.gov
Councilmember D7 Tam Nguyen (408) 535-4907 District7@sanjoseca.gov
Councilmember D8 Syliva Arenas (408) 535-4908 District8@sanjoseca.gov
Councilmember D9 Don Rocha (408) 535-4909 District9@sanjoseca.gov
Councilmember D10 Johnny Khamis (408) 535-4910 District10@sanjoseca.gov

Low Flow Disclosures

Many REALTORS® have asked about the new law requiring that Water-Conserving Plumbing Fixtures be installed in homes by 2017.

First, some background on this issue:

In 2009 SB 407 was introduced which would have required that residential and commercial properties be retrofitted at point-of-sale with low-flow toilets, showerheads, and faucets. At the time, C.A.R. argued that the point-of-sale approach would burden escrows and have a negative impact on the already weak housing market. As a result, SB 407 was amended to remove the point-of-sale provision and instead require all properties to be retrofitted by 2017. In other words, instead of point-of-sale, a “date-certain” approach would be implemented.

In 2011, C.A.R. sponsored SB 837 to add language to the Transfer Disclosure Statement (TDS) notifying the purchaser of a property of the impending requirements of SB 407. The inclusion of this information in the TDS will ensure that sellers and buyers are aware of these water efficiency retrofit requirements and provide disclosure liability protection to REALTORS®. This measure went into effect on January 1, 2012.

Do you have more questions? If so, read the C.A.R. Legal Q and A, which will answer many common questions, including:

  • Does the water conservation law create any point of sale requirements?
  • What is the significance of it NOT creating a point of sale requirement?
  • Are there any forms that allow the seller to meet their disclosure obligations?
  • Should this box on the TDS be checked if the seller is uncertain about whether there are WCP fixtures installed?
  • How should a seller answer the question on the SPQ, “Are you aware of any noncompliant plumbing fixtures?” if they are uncertain?
The full FAQ can also be found on the C.A.R. website.

Demand Changes to San Jose’s “Just Cause” Ordinance!

For the past several months, the City of San Jose has been developing two ordinances that impact the rental housing industry: An Ellis Act Ordinance and a Tenant Protection Ordinance. Both of these would have a drastic impact on how you manage your property. The public comment period for the Tenant Protection Ordinance and the Ellis Act will close this Friday, March 3rd at 5:00 p.m.

Below is a sample letter that addresses the major issues with the two ordinances. You can take this letter and send it on your behalf to the Housing Department to let the City of San Jose know that there are serious problems with these ordinances. It is important that the City hears from you and that they receive a volume of letters opposing these measures and favoring laws that do not place onerous restrictions on property owners. 
 
You must email the San Jose Housing Department by Friday, March 3rd at 5:00 p.m.

Sending Instructions:
1.  Copy the text of the letter below and paste it into an email
2.  Edit the “Your Name” section at the end so the letter is written on your behalf
3.  Send the letter to the following recipient: tpo@sanjoseca.gov

 

Dear San Jose Housing Department,
 
I am writing to you as a rental housing provider in the City of San Jose. I am concerned that the Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO) is overly complicated and convoluted. As someone who owns rental property, I want to urge the Housing Department to adopt changes to the TPO that would simplify it. This would eliminate the need for each property owner to require a legal interpretation for each application of the ordinance. The ordinance, as written, will have a number of unintended consequences.

 As a property owner, I have a limited awareness of the conditions inside my units unless there is an inspection or the tenant reports a code violation. Therefore, it is difficult to determine if the reports of code violations are being rationed out to extend the term of the good cause protection. The ordinance is written to allow for repeated instances of good cause protections up to 6 months at a time if used strategically. Instead, we ask that a tenant only be permitted one instance of a 6-month good cause protection per lease term.
 
Under TPO, owners must show that code violations have been corrected prior to beginning an eviction for just cause, such as non-payment of rent. If the tenant commits an illegal act but the code violation has not yet been corrected, then the property owner is powerless from preventing further criminal activity until the code violation is corrected. Instead, we ask that any illegal activity is exempt from the TPO. As property owners, we must provide our tenants a safe place to live. This ordinance, as written, prevents that.
 
Under the Ellis Act, a property owner is required to provide one year of just cause protection to the tenant prior to filing a notice of intent to withdraw. This provision requires us to know a full year in advance of our intent to utilize the Ellis Act, which is an unreasonable expectation. This ordinance would also hurt the resale ability of our buildings as this one year requirement would impact the subsequent owner. Instead we ask that you strike the requirement that good cause protection be provided to tenants for one year prior a notice to intent to withdraw the property is served.
 
Sincerely,
 
[Your name]

 

You can read the full draft recommendations from the San Jose Housing Department by using the links below:

Draft Recommendations for the City of San Jose Ellis Act

Draft Recommendations for the City of San Jose Tenant Protection Ordinance

Santa Clara Impact Fees

The City of Santa Clara is considering adding additional fees to new construction of residential housing to pay for affordable housing projects. This will impact the ability of new housing to be built at prices affordable to the average family. The dream of homeownership is already difficult for many families to achieve and these new fees could push this dream completely out of reach.
 
Santa Clara has commissioned a nexus study, which is a specific study that legally allows the city to justify adding hidden taxes to the cost of housing; these taxes are known as impact fees. This study would justify up to $71,800 in added impact fees for the construction per single-family home and $43,400 per apartment unit. This will not make housing more affordable in Santa Clara. Additionally, these fees will hurt property values, as the study shows the fees would decrease land values by 10% to 40% depending on how high the fees are set.
 
What can you do?
  • Email and call the Mayor and City Council with your stories about how adding tens of thousands of dollars of new fees will hurt your clients as they try to afford the American dream of homeownership.
  • Click here to read the nexus study justifying the fee increases on homebuyers and renters.
,

New California Laws that will Impact your Business

The real estate business and its relevant laws are always changing. Keeping up with these new laws each year can be tough, so here are three important new laws that may affect your business:
  1. Uniform Advertising Standards
    Beginning Jan. 1, 2018, all first point of contact solicitation materials must include: the name and number of the licensee; and the responsible broker’s “identity,” meaning the name under which the broker is currently licensed by the BRE and conducts business in general or is a substantial division of the real estate firm. The broker’s license number is optional.
  2. Broker Associates Searchable Information
    Beginning Jan. 1, 2018, CalBRE’s public licensee information, as provided on CalBRE’s website, will indicate whether a licensee is an “associate licensee” and, if the associate licensee is a broker, will identify each responsible broker with whom the licensee is contractually associated. This law also requires the responsible broker to immediately notify CalBRE in writing whenever a broker-associate is hired or terminated.
  3.  Disciplinary Action Records Petition
    Beginning Jan. 1, 2018, a licensee may petition CalBRE to remove a past disciplinary action record from his or her online profile after 10 years. CalBRE retains discretion to grant the petition.

For more details on these laws, download this PDF from car.org

SCCAOR Endorsements for 2016 Election

rp_buttons_final_vote_strokeDear SCCAOR Member,

Your vote matters! As you fill out your ballots please take the time to read about candidates and measures that the Santa Clara County Association of REALTORS® have endorsed or opposed for the November 8, 2016 general election.

SCCAOR studies the issues and candidates and endorses those share the REALTOR® Party values of homeownership and support a friendly climate for you to operate your business.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”

And remember, every vote counts. In San Jose City Council District 4 only 14 votes separated the winning and losing candidate in the June 7 election earlier this year, so get out and vote!

Sincerely,

Trisha Motter
2016 SCCAOR President

SCCAOR Endorsements:

San Jose Endorsements
Steve Brown – District 2
Devora “Dev” Davis – District 6
Jimmy Nguyen – District 8

Santa Clara Endorsements
John McLemore – Seat 3
Mario Bouza – Seat 6

Milpitas Endorsements
Debbie Giordano – Mayor
Mark Tiernan – City Council

Campbell Endorsements
Rich Waterman

Morgan Hill Endorsements
Steve Tate – Mayor
Larry Carr – City Council

Gilroy Endorsements
Dan Harney – City Council

NO – Gilroy Measure H

There is a housing crisis and a need to spread jobs more evenly across our county and region. Measure H will make it more difficult to address either issue as each new housing or business development outside the existing city limits would need to go back to voters for approval. An urban growth boundary outlined in Measure H is not a smart growth planning tool. Instead it will make housing more expensive and jobs more scarce in Gilroy while also impacting the city budget in a negative way.