This week, housing advocates challenged SB 10 in court, and the Ninth Circuit struck down a sweeping District Court injunction against the City and County of Los Angeles relating to the homelessness crisis.

Less than 48 hours after surviving the recall, Governor Newsom signed SB 9 and SB 10 into law. YIMBYs rejoice. Local government staff, local elected officials, affordable housing advocates, and people who fled dense neighborhoods for more open space and comfortable living conditions panic.

This week, SB 9 and SB 10 passed both houses of the State Legislature and made it to Governor Newsom’s desk. A couple of interesting new decisions came down regarding evidence in support of wrongful eviction and violation of a rent stabilization ordinance, and federal grazing laws.

Big news this week. SB 10 passed on the Assembly Floor August 23, and SB 9 passed on the Assembly Floor on August 26. Both SB 9 and SB 10 need a final vote in the Senate, at which point the Governor has a month to decide whether to sign or veto the bills. Also on August 26, the United States Supreme Court ended the CDC eviction moratorium.

SB 9 goes to another committee vote this week, the CEC adopted new building standards, the Tournament of Roses filed a notice of appeal, the Oakland A’s will get expedited review for the Howard Terminal ballpark project, and the CDC eviction moratorium lives on (for now).

As we enter fire season, which is projected to be the worst in recent history, it’s important to ask ourselves if we’re actually solving a problem or if this is performative politics. Are we creating affordable home ownership opportunities for Californians, or are we enabling developers and venture capitalists to profit from worsening the quality of life for those who currently live here?

Anecdotally, a significant number of homes in the Coastal Commission appealable jurisdiction are not used as primary residences and are often vacant. Publicly available applications suggest that development projects in those areas use new housing development laws to construct larger properties, to avoid parking, setback, and lot size requirements, and to minimize public processes that slow down and increase the cost of development. I have yet to see construction of affordable housing in the appealable jurisdiction.

SB 9 does not provide homeownership or home retention opportunities. It is designed for investors to buy and develop more multifamily rental properties without regard for the environment or infrastructure. Increasing rental stock may be helpful for some people – but the State should at least be honest about what is going on. If we are going to further stress our environment and infrastructure in the name of creating affordable housing, we should at least mandate affordability on those new units.  (See, e.g., Cambridge Massachusetts 100% affordable housing overlay.) If we fail to do that now, it will be nearly impossible once the new housing development projects begin construction.

In a nutshell: SB 9 would require cities and counties to ministerially approve the subdivision of an urban parcel zoned for residential use into two approximately equal parcels.

SB 9 would allow up to four homes on single family lots where currently only one home exists. It would do so by allowing existing single-family homes to be converted into duplexes; it would also allow single-family parcels to be subdivided into two lots, while allowing for a new two-unit building to be constructed on the newly formed lot. (See May 22, 2021 Senate Floor Analysis).