SB 9 Part One – Changes to California’s Planning and Zoning Law
Housing density proponents and opponents are making a lot of noise about SB 9. I am going to break down the controversial bill into three posts. This post addresses SB 9’s changes to California’s Planning and Zoning Law. The next two posts (here and here) will cover the impact of SB 9 on the Subdivision Map Act, CEQA, and California Coastal Act, and what we are hearing from proponents and opponents of the legislation.
What is SB 9?
In a nutshell: SB 9 will double density in single family residential zones. Some ADU proponents describe SB 9 as a financing bill, because it will allow a detached ADU to be mortgaged separately from the main house.
As of the date of this writing, SB 9 is on its way back to the Senate floor from the suspense file.
The underlying policy is something like “trickle down” housing. The proponents of California’s housing policy contend if we double, triple, or quadruple density, supply and demand economics mean that housing will become cheaper. I am unaware of any examples showing this actually works in practice. I am only aware of examples revealing the opposite – increasing density without mandating affordability on those new units actually increases the value of land, making housing more expensive. (See. e.g., Vancouver, as described in Sick City by Patrick Condon).
Technically, SB 9 would amend Section 66452.6 of the Government Code, and add Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to the Government Code, relating to land use.
SB 9 bill requires ministerial (over-the-counter) approval of a housing development of no more than two units in a single-family zone and the subdivision of a parcel zoned for residential use into two parcels.
Changes to Planning and Zoning Law
The Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code sections 65000 – 66035) provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions.
SB 9 would require that a proposed housing development containing no more than two residential units in a single family residential zone be approved ministerially if the proposed development meets certain requirements, including:
The development does not require demolition or alteration of housing subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. (Proposed Gov. Code 65852.21(a)(3)(A)).
The development does not allow for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls (with some exceptions). (Proposed Gov. Code 65852.21(a)(5)).
The development is not located within a historic district, on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or within a site that is listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. (Proposed Gov. Code 65852.21(a)(6)).
Side note: ministerial versus discretionary is a very important distinction in the development world. Ministerial means it must be approved over the counter by staff if the project checks certain boxes for objective criteria. Discretionary means it is subject to the judgment of a director or commission. For developers, a ministerial process saves time and money. It is negative for the existing community, because a ministerial process affords the neighbors little to no ability to object to or comment on the development.
Further, SB 9 would restrict what a local agency can require in approving the construction of two residential units, including:
Cities cannot physically preclude the construction of up to two units at least 800 square feet in floor area each. (Proposed Gov. Code 65852.21(b)(2)(A)).
Cities cannot impose any setback requirements under certain circumstances. (Proposed Gov. Code 65852.21(b)(2)(B)(i)).
Cities can only impose setbacks up to four feet in all other circumstances. (Proposed Gov. Code 65852.21(b)(2)(B)(ii)).
Stay tuned for the next post regarding the impact of SB 9 on the Subdivision Map Act, CEQA, and California Coastal Act, and what we are hearing from proponents and opponents of the legislation.
