SB 6 - The Neighborhood Homes Act (AKA Dead Malls to Housing) - Part 1
SB 6 is one more in the barrage of bills aiming to increase housing production and end local control over zoning in California. This one is as long and complicated as the others. If we want to make housing fair and accessible to all, drafting simple straightforward laws would be a great place to start. Due to the length and complexity of the bill, I’m breaking this post down into three parts so it’s easier to digest.
The Week in Land Law - SB 9, SB 10, Cedar Point Nursery and Coastal Commission cases
Real estate and land use law in California is rapidly changing. I am going to keep tabs on it and share information here every Friday.
SB 9 Part Three: Housing v. Environment
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.
SB 9 Part Two - Urban Lot Splits and Subdivision Map Act Changes
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).
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 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’s next for the AES power plant after the failure of Measure B?
Measure B would have phased out power generation from the AES site, and would have established new land use and development standards for the site by amending the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Harbor/Civic Center Specific Plan, Coastal Zoning, Zoning, and City Charter. The new land use would have allowed 600 residential units, 85,000 square feet of commercial development, 250 hotel rooms and require 10 acres of public open space.
Rebirth of Redevelopment?
Cities have since struggled to find an effective alternative to finance blight-fighting projects. In September 2014, Governor Brown signed into law SB 628, allowing public agencies to create a new redevelopment-like creature called an “Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District” (“EIFD”). The law, which should help kick-start dormant projects and transform land into more productive uses, enables local agencies to fund infrastructure and community revitalization projects using tax increment revenue.
LA’s Business Tax Cut and Lessons for the South Bay
There is much room for improvement on the part of California and its municipalities in the revitalization of the business climate. It remains to be seen whether LA’s business tax cut will convince businesses to stay, especially considering the impending minimum wage hike. One clear lesson is that cities cannot remain complacent when friendlier states like Texas and Florida come knocking on the doors of their most profitable businesses.