Why am I writing about this, at the risk of alienating clients over what has become a hot-button political topic? I write because under the sensational polarized madness we see in the media, there are millions of rightfully concerned parents spanning the full political spectrum who want to help their children, but have no idea what to do or how to start. Every time I speak at a meeting, parents I’ve never met reach out to me to show me pictures of their children’s facial rashes, to cry about the institutionalization of their children for anxiety, depression, and eating disorders, to express fear over the financial burden they’ve taken on because they had to send their kids to private school, to vent frustration over the cruel and nonsensical rules that have essentially turned our schools into sterile, prison-like environments. I want to help you.

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).

This week we talk about the Hyperion sewage spill, LA’s anti-camping ordinance, and the LA County Assessor’s plea to get you to shut up and accept your excessive tax assessment.

This was a quiet week for land law. It brought us an appellate decision upholding the Coastal Commission’s setback requirements and basement prohibitions on a blufftop property, a 9th Circuit rejection of an environmental challenge to immigration policies, and an announcement from PG&E that the company plans to underground 10,000 miles of power lines in high fire areas.

This week we have more federal case law relating to the CDC’s eviction moratorium, a dismissal by the District Court of the Tournament of Roses Association’s case against the City of Pasadena, and the death of AB889.

There are a few new updates this week, one of the biggest being President Biden’s selection of LA Mayor Eric Garcetti to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to India. Not directly land law related, but certainly of interest to those in the business of real estate in Los Angeles. If Garcetti is confirmed by the Senate, LA will have to find a new mayor. City Council President Nury Martinez would automatically assume the role of acting mayor. The City Council would then need to call a special election or appoint someone to the position. The mayoral primary will take place in June 2022, and the council is unlikely to schedule a special election before then.

We’ve survived another wild week in California. Here’s what happened in land law:

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.

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).