Governor Newsom signed SB 9 yesterday, but it won’t change much because building an ADU is cost prohibitive. How many people need one bad enough that they would spend $50,000 to $100,000 and go through the hassle? Plus the number of available parcels will limit how many could get built:
https://calmatters.org/housing/2021/08/california-housing-crisis-zoning-bill/
An excerpt:
Senate Bill 9, one of several measures alluded to by the signs, would technically allow as many as two duplexes, two houses with attached units, or a combination — capped at four units — on single-family lots across California, without local approval.
On Sept. 16, two days after winning the recall election, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law, despite pleas from cities to veto it.
But some analysts say the linchpin of the Senate’s housing package would probably have a negligible impact on the California housing crisis, at least in the short-term. As for the nightmare scenario described by opponents? There simply isn’t enough evidence to back that up, either.
That’s because a change to zoning means very little in reality, starting with the number of units that would actually get built, these analysts say.
Development would be realistic in only about 410,000 parcels in California at most, or 5.4% of land now occupied by single-family houses, according to a new study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley based on the version of the bill without the new amendments.
That could add a total of 700,000 new units across California, if every single homeowner for whom the change made sense chose to develop. “Overall, that’s a sliver of the 7.5 million single-family homes throughout the state,” said David Garcia, policy director for the Terner Center.
One of the new amendments — which requires owners to live in the home for at least three years after they split their lots and build as many as four units — cuts the potential total of new units by 40,000, or 6%.
The analysis was conducted using current land values and development costs, so the number of feasible units could change. But Garcia said that was unlikely in the near-term. The study found that the typical property owner could not afford to build a second unit, much less a third or fourth. Other barriers: The new split lot couldn’t be less than 1,200 square feet, and historic districts, fire hazard zones and some rural areas would be barred from development.
“You would not see the wholesale bulldozing of single-family homes, as we’ve seen characterized in many of the public comments in committee hearings,” Garcia said. “There’s just no financial basis for that fear.”
https://calmatters.org/housing/2021/08/california-housing-crisis-zoning-bill/
Now I know why I got a cold text this week asking if I was interested in selling one of my lots.
I just replied “no” because I don’t explain to cold calls but I’ll explain here. The lot in question is adjacent to a mountain cabin we also own. There is no reasonable price for the lot being sold and developed that would compensate for the loss of value of the cabin from losing the exclusivity/privacy.
And this is what I expect from this new “law.” Neighbors suing for loss of quiet enjoyment and value that until now was protected by zoning.
Neighbors suing for loss of quiet enjoyment and value that until now was protected by zoning.
How do you put a dollar amount on that? I’d like to sue my neighbor because of his barking dog that just won’t quit!
I cannot believe this has almost zero news coverage. I like it but see the other ugly side
Seems like a lot of older homes in coastal areas will be instantly way more valuable scraped and turned into 2 duplexes. Just gotta be an owner willing to put in 3 years of occupancy.
Agnostic on the law, but curious how the occupancy requirement will be enforced / punished.
Not sure but the punishment would be interesting.
City sends letter to the property accusing the homeowner of not living there, and to prove they do.
Homeowner sends in the water bill.
City says that’s not good enough, try again.
Homeowner sends in the SDG&E bill, and last tax return, showing the property address as the mailing address.
City says ok.
Neighbor complains (again) that homeowner doesn’t live there, and demands punishment.
What will the city do? Make the homeowner tear the unit(s) down? Red-tag it saying it can’t be occupied and force residents to move out?
If they come up with a system of fines, then like the AirBnB abusers, they will just pay the fines as part of doing business.
There’s probably more threat of punishment coming from the neighbor, than the city – which will have little else to do besides administrative threats.
It allows property owners to split a single-family lot into two lots and place up to two units on each, creating the potential for up to four housing units on certain properties that are currently limited to single-family houses.
Under the new law, cities and counties across California will be required to approve development proposals that meet specified size and design standards.
What are the caveats?
If someone chooses to split their property into two lots, each new lot must be at least 1,200 square feet in size, according to the new state law.
A proposed project or property split cannot result in the demolition or alteration of affordable or rent-controlled housing or market-rate housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the past three years. Properties listed as historic landmarks or those located within a historic district are off-limits for new development under this law.
Any unit created as a result of this law cannot be used for short-term rentals. They must be rented for a term longer than 30 days, according to the law.
Who can do this?
Homeowners or landlords can apply to upzone their properties through their local jurisdiction but only if they plan to live on the property.
Property owners must sign an affidavit stating they will occupy one of the housing units as their primary residence for at least three years after splitting their property or adding additional units.
Does this law allow for offices and new housing units on single-family properties?
No. Any new units created under SB 9 must only be used for residential purposes.
Do cities and counties have to abide by this new law?
Under SB 9, local government officials may only deny a development application if they find the proposed project would have a “specific, adverse impact” on “public health and safety or the physical environment” and there are no feasible and satisfactory mitigation options.
Will local rules about maximum square footage, building height and parking apply?
Proposals under this new law must adhere to objective zoning and design review standards established by local cities and counties.
Will this law put a dent in California’s housing shortage?
A recent study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley estimated that just 5.4% of the state’s current single-family lots had the potential to be developed under Senate Bill 9, making the construction of up to 714,000 new housing units financially feasible. That’s only a fraction of the 3.5 million new housing units Gov. Newsom wants to see built by 2025.
What is Senate Bill 10?
Senate Bill 10 eases the process for local governments to rezone neighborhoods near mass transit or in urban areas to allow for increased density with apartment complexes of up to 10 units per property. The new legislation also allows cities to bypass lengthy review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act in an attempt to help reduce costs and the time it takes for projects to be approved.
To understand how the abolition of single-family zoning might play out in California, consider the state’s long, slow shuffle toward permitting accessory dwelling units, such as granny flats, backyard cottages, or garage apartments. The state first required cities to permit ADUs in 1982, but cities and suburbs erected so many regulatory barriers that it was really hard to build a legal ADU, and most existing ADUs were illegal. It took another 34 years for the statehouse to get serious about ADU legalization, and it still took the passage of no fewer than five separate bills, starting in 2016, to dismantle the various local impediments once and for all.
Today, California is cranking out ADUs, with Los Angeles alone issuing more than 5,000 permits a year. Even so, at this rate it will take hundreds of years for the state to reach what the Terner Center reckons are the 1.8 million ADUs that could be economically and legally built today.
With respect to duplexes, municipalities can (and probably will) throw up a number of obstacles to stifle SB 9’s impact, including height limits, floor-area ratio rules, minimum lot sizes, and development fees. Many of those issues may need to be addressed by the California Legislature in a future session, overriding local politicians who fear homeowner revolts and relish the power they wield to issue exemptions to strict zoning laws.
“I see this as an iterative process similar to how ADUs progressed,” said David Garcia, the policy director at the Terner Center and one of the authors of the SB 9 impact analysis. “It wasn’t enough to say they were allowed. Lawmakers had to be proactive about eliminating setback requirements, reducing impact fees, wiping away owner-occupancy requirements—those were all separate bills.”
Zoning is a hurdle, but it’s not everything. The reason SB 9’s potential effect is so modest is not regulatory barriers, but development costs. Buildings costs in California are really high, on account of both labor and materials. Duplexes are a low-margin business, and the law is all but designed to discourage industrial-scale duplex production. In much of the state, costs have gotten so high it may take more substantive upzoning to justify buying and demolishing a single-family home.
Neighborhoods comprised exclusively of single-family homes are technically obsolete now, but in reality, they aren’t going anywhere.
Any thoughts on the affordable home in the new Olivenhain development Woodbridge Pacific Group’s Loden at Olivenhain sold to a La Jolla-based investor that was approved by the City of Encinitas? Investor purchased the multi-million dollar property for about $112k when there were over 80 low-income applicants. The investor and City say the investor did nothing wrong because the property can only be rented to low-income residents for a period of 55 years. Not a bad deal to purchase a $2 million property for $112k and having to rent it supposedly below market. This was a controversial project to begin with and now look at outcome. This is not right. Thoughts please.
“Under SB 9, local government officials may only deny a development application if they find the proposed project would have a “specific, adverse impact” on “public health and safety or the physical environment” and there are no feasible and satisfactory mitigation options.”
Parking, traffic, curb cuts, lot setbacks,.. I can think of a lot of ways to oppose.
30 year Encinitas Man on September 18, 2021 at 8:21 am
Any thoughts on the affordable home in the new Olivenhain development Woodbridge Pacific Group’s Loden at Olivenhain sold to a La Jolla-based investor that was approved by the City of Encinitas? Investor purchased the multi-million dollar property for about $112k when there were over 80 low-income applicants. The investor and City say the investor did nothing wrong because the property can only be rented to low-income residents for a period of 55 years. Not a bad deal to purchase a $2 million property for $112k and having to rent it supposedly below market. This was a controversial project to begin with and now look at outcome. This is not right. Thoughts please.
I have been following the story hoping to hear the method the city used to select the winner.
If the city decided the contest to be first come, first serve and he was the first to register, then good for him. Boo-hoo on the city though – bad way to decide anything.
If the city collected all the applications and picked him out of a hat, then good for him – but another boo-hoo on the city though – terrible way to decide anything.
If the city reviewed the applications and consciously selected him to be the best candidate, then they deserve to be sued. How do you decide that any one of the applicants is better than the other when they are all making the same legitimate offers?
It would be interesting to know if the resale of this unit after 55 years was considered. They could make the case that an investor who agreed to the 55 years was a key ingredient – but did they ask the others?
Wow. This guy also bought 813 Dolphin Circle, Encinitas, CA 92024 several years ago. Super cool Encinitas officials. Great job! Follow the money like follow the science.
Doubt that his name was pulled out of the hat two times in a row. Rigged perhaps? Indeed.
Indeed – very bad optics for the city.
Did someone mention Encinitas tomfoolery?
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/encinitas-approves-selling-homes-meant-low-income-buyers-to-investors-instead/509-db4cb2c4-d39a-4fa8-a008-353170eeb9ab