Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 13a - Opposing Senat Bills 9 and 10 - Housing Development Approvals and Density DATE: August 17, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dominic Lazzaretto, City Manager By: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 7387 OPPOSING CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 9 – HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 10 – PLANNING AND ZONING: HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: DENSITY Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY At the August 3, 2021, City Council meeting, the City Council requested an agenda item to consider a resolution in opposition to California Senate Bills 9 and 10. Senate Bill 9 - Housing Development: Approvals (“SB 9”) would require local governments to ministerially approve housing developments containing two residential units on single- family zoned parcels, and to ministerially approve subdivisions of single-family zoned parcels into two parcels. Senate Bill 10 – Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Density (“SB 10”) would provide an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and authorize local governments to rezone single-family parcels in urban in-fill and/or transit-rich areas to allow up to 10 residential units and four Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADU’s”). It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7387 (Attachment “A”) opposing these measures and urging state legislators to vote No on SB 9 and SB 10. BACKGROUND On December 7, 2020, State Senators Atkins, Caballero, Rubio, and Wiener introduced SB 9, which would require local governments to ministerially approve housing developments containing two units and urban lot splits in single-family residential zones. This would essentially allow, by right, up to four units where a single home exists today. On February 22, 2021, the City submitted a letter to the California State Senate opposing SB 9 unless amended to address items in the bill that would undermine local control. The current, amended version of SB 9 (Attachment “C”) still retains many of the original provisions that the City opposed in its February 22, 2021, letter, including the following: Resolution No. 7387 Opposing Senate Bills 9 and 10 Housing Development: Approvals and Density August 17, 2021 Page 2 of 4 • Allows for additional accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) to be built on existing single-family zoned properties that construct two residential units. • Applies the provision citywide, including very high fire hazard severity zones, hillsides, and other locations without taking into account local conditions, public safety accessibility, and/or available infrastructure. • Remains subject to real estate speculation by large-scale investors and builders. • Overrides local zoning requirements including minimum setbacks, density, and minimum lot size. On December 7, 2020, State Senator Wiener introduced SB 10, which would provide an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and authorize local governments to rezone single-family parcels in urban in-fill and/or transit-rich areas to allow up to 10 residential units and four Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADU’s”). At their August 3, 2021, regular meeting, the City Council requested Staff to prepare a resolution for the next Council Meeting agenda to consider a resolution opposing both Senate Bills 9 and 10. Both items are expected to be considered in the fall legislative session. DISCUSSION Senate Bill 9 SB 9 would require local governments to ministerially approve two-unit residential developments on any single-family zoned lot, regardless of lot size or other lot characteristics. SB 9 would also override the City’s minimum setback requirements and require only a four-foot side-yard and rear-yard setback when it can be shown that a greater setback would prohibit the reasonable development of two residential units, each with a minimum area of 800 square feet. SB 9 also specifies that a maximum of one off- street parking space may be required for each new residential unit. However, for parcels located within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, no parking spaces may be required by the City as a development requirement1. SB 9 would also require the City to ministerially approve any request to subdivide a single- family zoned property into two separate parcels, provided that each new parcel is not less than 1,200 square feet in area and contains not less than 40% of the original parcel area. Given that most single-family residential properties in the City meet these minimum subdivision requirements, under SB 9 most of Arcadia’s single-family properties would be eligible to be subdivided into two separate parcels. Each of the new parcels could then 1 A high-quality transit corridor is defined as one with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. A major transit stop is defined as an existing rail or bus rapid transit station. Resolution No. 7387 Opposing Senate Bills 9 and 10 Housing Development: Approvals and Density August 17, 2021 Page 3 of 4 be developed individually with two residential units resulting in a total of four units on each qualifying single-family property. As ministerial actions, both the subdivision and the two- unit residential developments would be exempt from CEQA review. SB 9 does include a provision stating that local governments are not required to permit an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on any new parcel created under the SB 9 subdivision authority which is then developed with two residential units. There is also a provision in SB 9 that allows a local government to impose an owner occupancy requirement on an applicant for an urban lot split. Specifically, it states that the applicant must intend to occupy one of the units created under the provisions of this bill for one year after the approval of an urban lot split, or that the applicant must be a qualified nonprofit corporation. While the author of SB 9 asserts that the bill is a balanced approach to addressing the California housing crisis and includes safeguards to ensure responsible development, it ultimately strips local governments of the ability to control density, which has the potential to quickly and permanently alter single-family neighborhoods. The provisions in SB 9 would in essence result in single-family neighborhoods becoming multi-family neighborhoods that allow four full-size residential units on most existing single-family, one-unit properties. The City proactively takes steps to identify areas where higher density development would be appropriate, with a strong desire to engage citizens in the process and with significant consideration of the diverse neighborhood attributes that are a defining characteristic of the City of Arcadia. SB 9 would undermine these efforts. Senate Bill 10 SB 10 would authorize, but not require, local governments to adopt an ordinance to rezone parcels located in an urban in-fill site or within a transit-rich area to permit up to 10 residential units and four accessory dwelling units, and it specifies that this action would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Parcels located within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone, however, would be excluded from the provisions of SB 10. SB 10 defines an “urban in-fill site” as a residential or mixed- use zoned parcel located within a Census designated urban area and a minimum of 75% of the perimeter of the parcel or parcels adjoin other developed parcels and/or city streets. Based on this definition, most or all residential zoned properties in the City and in neighboring jurisdictions would meet the definition of an urban infill site. SB 10 defines a “transit-rich area” as a parcel or parcels within one-half mile of a major transit stop or located on a high-quality bus corridor. This includes both residential as well as commercial and industrial zoned properties that meet the definition of a “transit-rich area”. In the City and neighboring jurisdictions, this would include many commercial and/or industrial zoned properties. Although SB 10 does not require the City or other local government agencies to approve increased density levels on single-family and other qualifying properties, it would exempt Resolution No. 7387 Opposing Senate Bills 9 and 10 Housing Development: Approvals and Density August 17, 2021 Page 4 of 4 these approvals from CEQA review. As a result, SB 10 could open the door for neighboring jurisdictions to approve up to 10 residential units and four ADU’s on existing single-family (and other) properties without studying the potential environmental or traffic impacts of such action. Arcadia residents could be directly impacted if new multifamily projects are approved on existing single-family properties in neighboring jurisdictions near the Arcadia city limits. The development and enactment of local land use policies is integral to maintaining the established character of the community and preserving local democracy. SB 9 and SB 10 would essentially override the City’s existing zoning code and eliminate single-family zones in favor of higher density without regard for design, service impacts, potential environmental impacts, or neighborhood compatibility. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed action by the City to adopt a resolution in opposition to SB 9 and SB 10 does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and it can be seen with certainty that it will have no impact on the environment and is exempt under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)). The provisions of SB 9 and SB 10, however, would create new exemptions from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act and as such could result in unforeseen environmental impacts that would otherwise be mitigated or avoided. FISCAL IMPACT The financial impacts to the City, if any, are unknown at this time. While additional development may result in increased property taxes, it is not known if those increases would be offset by additional service costs or other impacts to the community from an increased density that is not fully studied prior to approval. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council determine that this action does not constitute a project and is therefore, exempt under, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and adopt Resolution No. 7387 opposing California Senate Bill 9 – Housing Development: Approvals and California Senate Bill 10 – Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Density. Attachments: “A” - Resolution No. 7387 “B” - February 22, 2021 Letter of Opposition to SB 9 Unless Amended “C” - Senate Bill 9 Text & Legislative Analysis “D” - Senate Bill 10 Text & Legislative Analysis Attachment "A" Attachment "B" SENATE BILL NO. 9 SHARE THIS:Date Published: 04/27/2021 09:00 PM SB-9 Housing development: approvals.(2021-2022) AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 27, 2021 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 05, 2021 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2021–2022 REGULAR SESSION Introduced by Senators Atkins, Caballero, Rubio, and Wiener (Coauthors: Senators Gonzalez Cortese, Gonzalez, and McGuire) (Coauthor: Assembly Member Robert Rivas)(Coauthors: Assembly Members Robert Rivas and Wicks) December 07, 2020 An act to amend Section 66452.6 of, and to add Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to, the Government Code, relating to land use. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 9, as amended, Atkins. Housing development: approvals. The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions. This bill, among other things, would require a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that is 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, that the proposed housing development does not allow for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, except as provided, and that the development is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving the construction of 2 residential units, including, but not limited to, authorizing a city or county local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to 2 units or physically precluding either of Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Attachment "C" the 2 units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification of those maps. Under the Subdivision Map Act, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map expires 24 months after its approval or conditional approval or after any additional period of time as prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 12 months, except as provided. This bill, among other things, would require a city or county local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map or tentative and final map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the urban lot split would not require the demolition or alteration of housing that is 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, that the parcel is located within a single-family residential zone, and that the parcel is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving an urban lot split, including, but not limited to, authorizing a city or county local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of 2 units, as defined, on either of the resulting parcels or physically precluding either of the 2 units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. The bill, until January 1, 2027, would prohibit a local agency from imposing an owner occupancy requirement on applicants unless specified conditions are met. The bill would also extend the limit on the additional period that may be provided by ordinance, as described above, from 12 months to 24 months and would make other conforming or nonsubstantive changes. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill, by establishing the ministerial review processes described above, would thereby exempt the approval of projects subject to those processes from CEQA. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for the planning and regulation of development, under a coastal development permit process, within the coastal zone, as defined, that shall be based on various coastal resources planning and management policies set forth in the act. This bill would exempt a local government agency from being required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for housing developments and urban lot splits pursuant to the above provisions. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a state- mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 65852.21 is added to the Government Code, to read: 65852.21. (a) A proposed housing development containing no more than two residential units within a single- family residential zone shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all of the following requirements: (1) The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is located within a city city, the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. (2) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (3) Notwithstanding any provision of this section or any local law, the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: (A) Housing that is 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. (B) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power. (C) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (4) The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is not a parcel on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application. (5) The proposed housing development does not allow the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior structural walls, unless the housing development meets at least one of the following conditions: (A) If a local ordinance so allows. (B) The site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (6) The development is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance. (b) (1) Notwithstanding any local law and except as provided in paragraph (2), a city or county local agency may impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that do not conflict with this section. (2) (A) The city or county local agency shall not impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to two units or that would physically preclude either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area. (B) (i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), no setback shall be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. (ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in all other circumstances not described in clause (i), a local government agency may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines. (c) In addition to any conditions established in accordance with subdivision (b), a local agency may require any of the following conditions when considering an application for two residential units as provided for in this section: (1) Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the following instances: (A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. (2) For residential units connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last five 5 years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. (d) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days. (e) Notwithstanding Section 65852.2, 65852.2 or 65852.22, a local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section and the authority contained in Section 66411.7. (f ) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), an application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. (g) Local agencies shall include units constructed pursuant to this section in the annual housing element report as required by subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400. (h) For purposes of this section, all of the following apply: (1) A housing development contains two residential units if the development proposes no more than two new units or if it proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit. (2) The terms “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a city or county, local agency, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances. (3) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered. (i) A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this section shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government agency shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for a housing development pursuant to this section. SEC. 2. Section 66411.7 is added to the Government Code, to read: 66411.7. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division and any local law, a city or county local agency shall ministerially approve, as set forth in this section, a parcel map or tentative and final map for an urban lot split that only if the local agency determines that the parcel map for the urban lot split meets all the following requirements: (1) The parcel map or tentative and final map subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than two new parcels of approximately equal lot area provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision. (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), both newly created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet. (B) A local agency may by ordinance adopt a smaller minimum lot size subject to ministerial approval under this subdivision. (3) The parcel being subdivided meets all the following requirements: (A) The parcel is located within a single-family residential zone. (B) The parcel subject to the proposed urban lot split is located within a city city, the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. (C) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (D) The proposed urban lot split would not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: (i) Housing that is 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. (ii) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power. (iii) A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application. (iv) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (E) The parcel is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance. (F) The parcel has not been established through prior exercise of an urban lot split as provided for in this section. (G) Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split as provided for in this section. (b) An application for a parcel map for an urban lot split shall be approved in accordance with the following requirements: (1) A local agency shall approve or deny an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split ministerially without discretionary review. (2) A local agency shall approve an urban lot split only if it conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)), except as otherwise expressly provided in this section. (3) Notwithstanding Section 66411.1, a local agency shall not impose regulations that require dedications of rights-of-way or the construction of offsite improvements for the parcels being created as a condition of issuing a parcel map or tentative and final map for an urban lot split. split pursuant to this section. (c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), notwithstanding any local law, a city or county local agency may impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards applicable to a parcel created by an urban lot split that do not conflict with this section. (2) A local agency shall not impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet. (3) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), no setback shall be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. (B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), in all other circumstances not described in subparagraph (A), a local government agency may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines. (d) In addition to any conditions established in accordance with subdivision (c), this section, a local agency may require any of the following conditions when considering an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split: (1) Easements required for the provision of public services and facilities. (2) A requirement that the parcels have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way. (3) Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the following instances: (A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. (e) A local agency shall require that the uses allowed on a lot created by this section be limited to residential uses. (f ) (1) A local agency may impose an owner occupancy requirement on an applicant for an urban lot split that meets one of the following conditions: (A) The applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of one year from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. (B) The applicant is a “qualified nonprofit corporation.” A “qualified nonprofit corporation” means a nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that has received a welfare exemption under either of the following: (i) Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for properties intended to be sold to low-income families who participate in a special no-interest loan program. (ii) Section 214.18 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for properties owned by a community land trust. (2) A local agency shall not impose additional owner occupancy standards, other than provided for in this subdivision, on an urban lot split pursuant to this section. (3) This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2027. (g) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days. (h) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a permit parcel map application for the creation of an urban lot split, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions. (i) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 65852.2, Section 65852.21, Section 65852.22, Section 65915, or this section, a local agency shall not be required to permit more than two units on a parcel created through the exercise of the authority contained within this section. (2) For the purposes of this section, “unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a unit or units created pursuant to Section 65852.21, a primary dwelling, an accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 65852.2, or a junior accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 65852.22. (j) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), an application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. (k) Local agencies shall include the number of applications for parcel maps for urban lot splits pursuant to this section in the annual housing element report as required by subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400. (l) For purposes of this section, both of the terms “objective following shall apply: (1) “Objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a city or county, local agency, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances. (2) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered. (m) A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this section shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (n) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government agency shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for urban lot splits pursuant to this section. SEC. 3. Section 66452.6 of the Government Code is amended to read: 66452.6. (a) (1) An approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall expire 24 months after its approval or conditional approval, or after any additional period of time as may be prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 24 months. However, if the subdivider is required to expend two hundred thirty-six thousand seven hundred ninety dollars ($236,790) or more to construct, improve, or finance the construction or improvement of public improvements outside the property boundaries of the tentative map, excluding improvements of public rights-of-way that abut the boundary of the property to be subdivided and that are reasonably related to the development of that property, each filing of a final map authorized by Section 66456.1 shall extend the expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map by 48 months from the date of its expiration, as provided in this section, or the date of the previously filed final map, whichever is later. The extensions shall not extend the tentative map more than 10 years from its approval or conditional approval. However, a tentative map on property subject to a development agreement authorized by Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4 of Division 1 may be extended for the period of time provided for in the agreement, but not beyond the duration of the agreement. The number of phased final maps that may be filed shall be determined by the advisory agency at the time of the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map. (2) Commencing January 1, 2012, and each calendar year thereafter, the amount of two hundred thirty-six thousand seven hundred ninety dollars ($236,790) shall be annually increased by operation of law according to the adjustment for inflation set forth in the statewide cost index for class B construction, as determined by the State Allocation Board at its January meeting. The effective date of each annual adjustment shall be March 1. The adjusted amount shall apply to tentative and vesting tentative maps whose applications were received after the effective date of the adjustment. (3) “Public improvements,” as used in this subdivision, include traffic controls, streets, roads, highways, freeways, bridges, overcrossings, street interchanges, flood control or storm drain facilities, sewer facilities, water facilities, and lighting facilities. (b) (1) The period of time specified in subdivision (a), including any extension thereof granted pursuant to subdivision (e), shall not include any period of time during which a development moratorium, imposed after approval of the tentative map, is in existence. However, the length of the moratorium shall not exceed five years. (2) The length of time specified in paragraph (1) shall be extended for up to three years, but in no event beyond January 1, 1992, during the pendency of any lawsuit in which the subdivider asserts, and the local agency that approved or conditionally approved the tentative map denies, the existence or application of a development moratorium to the tentative map. (3) Once a development moratorium is terminated, the map shall be valid for the same period of time as was left to run on the map at the time that the moratorium was imposed. However, if the remaining time is less than 120 days, the map shall be valid for 120 days following the termination of the moratorium. (c) The period of time specified in subdivision (a), including any extension thereof granted pursuant to subdivision (e), shall not include the period of time during which a lawsuit involving the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map is or was pending in a court of competent jurisdiction, if the stay of the time period is approved by the local agency pursuant to this section. After service of the initial petition or complaint in the lawsuit upon the local agency, the subdivider may apply to the local agency for a stay pursuant to the local agency’s adopted procedures. Within 40 days after receiving the application, the local agency shall either stay the time period for up to five years or deny the requested stay. The local agency may, by ordinance, establish procedures for reviewing the requests, including, but not limited to, notice and hearing requirements, appeal procedures, and other administrative requirements. (d) The expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map or parcel map of all or any portion of the real property included within the tentative map shall be filed with the legislative body without first processing a new tentative map. Once a timely filing is made, subsequent actions of the local agency, including, but not limited to, processing, approving, and recording, may lawfully occur after the date of expiration of the tentative map. Delivery to the county surveyor or city engineer shall be deemed a timely filing for purposes of this section. (e) Upon application of the subdivider filed before the expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map, the time at which the map expires pursuant to subdivision (a) may be extended by the legislative body or by an advisory agency authorized to approve or conditionally approve tentative maps for a period or periods not exceeding a total of six years. The period of extension specified in this subdivision shall be in addition to the period of time provided by subdivision (a). Before the expiration of an approved or conditionally approved tentative map, upon an application by the subdivider to extend that map, the map shall automatically be extended for 60 days or until the application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first. If the advisory agency denies a subdivider’s application for an extension, the subdivider may appeal to the legislative body within 15 days after the advisory agency has denied the extension. (f ) For purposes of this section, a development moratorium includes a water or sewer moratorium, or a water and sewer moratorium, as well as other actions of public agencies that regulate land use, development, or the provision of services to the land, including the public agency with the authority to approve or conditionally approve the tentative map, which thereafter prevents, prohibits, or delays the approval of a final or parcel map. A development moratorium shall also be deemed to exist for purposes of this section for any period of time during which a condition imposed by the city or county could not be satisfied because of either of the following: (1) The condition was one that, by its nature, necessitated action by the city or county, and the city or county either did not take the necessary action or by its own action or inaction was prevented or delayed in taking the necessary action before expiration of the tentative map. (2) The condition necessitates acquisition of real property or any interest in real property from a public agency, other than the city or county that approved or conditionally approved the tentative map, and that other public agency fails or refuses to convey the property interest necessary to satisfy the condition. However, nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to require any public agency to convey any interest in real property owned by it. A development moratorium specified in this paragraph shall be deemed to have been imposed either on the date of approval or conditional approval of the tentative map, if evidence was included in the public record that the public agency that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein may refuse to convey that property or interest, or on the date that the public agency that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein receives an offer by the subdivider to purchase that property or interest for fair market value, whichever is later. A development moratorium specified in this paragraph shall extend the tentative map up to the maximum period as set forth in subdivision (b), but not later than January 1, 1992, so long as the public agency that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein fails or refuses to convey the necessary property interest, regardless of the reason for the failure or refusal, except that the development moratorium shall be deemed to terminate 60 days after the public agency has officially made, and communicated to the subdivider, a written offer or commitment binding on the agency to convey the necessary property interest for a fair market value, paid in a reasonable time and manner. SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Sections 1 and 2 of this act adding Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to the Government Code and Section 3 of this act amending Section 66452.6 of the Government Code apply to all cities, including charter cities. SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code. SB 9 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 22, 2021 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT David Chiu, Chair SB 9 (Atkins) – As Amended April 27, 2021 SENATE VOTE: 28-6 SUBJECT: Housing development: approvals SUMMARY: Requires ministerial approval of housing developments with two units and subdivision maps that meet certain conditions. Specifically, this bill: 1) Enables the development of two-unit housing developments as follows: a) Requires local agencies to ministerially approve a proposed housing development project containing two residential units on parcels zoned for single-family residential development if all of the following conditions are met: i) The parcel where the housing development will take place is located either: (1) Within a city that includes some portion of an urbanized area or urban cluster as designated by the United States Census Bureau within its boundaries; or (2) In an unincorporated area and the parcel is wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urbanized cluster as designated by the United States Census Bureau. ii) The parcel where the housing development will take place is not located on or within: (1) Environmentally unsafe or sensitive areas, as specified in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K), such as a coastal zone, wetlands, a high or very high fire severity zone unless the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures required by existing building standards, a hazardous waste site, an earthquake fault zone, a flood plain or floodway, lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, and lands under conservation easement; (2) A state or local historical district or property, as defined; (3) A parcel where the owner of residential property has withdrawn accommodations for rent or lease within the last 15 years. iii) The housing development will not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: (1) Housing that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income; (2) Housing that is subject to rent or price control; or SB 9 Page 2 (3) Housing occupied by tenants within the last three years. iv) The housing development will not require the demolition of more than 25 percent of the exterior walls of an existing structure, unless such demolition is allowed by ordinance, or the development has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. b) Prohibits local agencies from imposing objective design, subdivision, and zoning standards that would: i) Physically preclude the development from including up to two units of at least 800 square feet each; ii) Require setbacks for an existing structure, or for a structure built in the same location and to the same dimensions of an existing structure, if the required setbacks would physically preclude the development from including up to two units; or iii) Require setbacks of more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines, if those setbacks would preclude the development from including up to two units. c) Allows local agencies to require a development eligible for ministerial approval under the bill to provide one off-street parking space per unit, unless: i) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, as specified; or ii) A car share vehicle is located within one block of the parcel. d) Allows cities and counties to require residential units connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system that are eligible for ministerial approval under the bill to have a percolation test completed within the last five years or recertified within the last ten years. e) Provides that an application for a housing development must not be rejected solely because it includes adjacent or connected structures, provided that those structures meet existing building code and safety standards that are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. f) Requires a local agency to require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to this bill be for a term longer than 30 days. 2) Enables the subdivision of parcels for an “urban lot split” as follows: a) Requires local agencies to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split if the parcel map: i) Subdivides a parcel that is zoned for single-family residential use; ii) Subdivides a parcel that is located: SB 9 Page 3 (1) Within a city that includes some portion of an urbanized area or urban cluster as designated by the United States Census Bureau within its boundaries; or (2) In an unincorporated area and the parcel is wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urbanized cluster as designated by the United State s Census Bureau. iii) Subdivides a parcel that is not located on or within: (1) Environmentally unsafe or sensitive areas, as specified in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K), such as a coastal zone, wetlands, a high or very high fire severity zone unless the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures required by existing building standards, a hazardous waste site, an earthquake fault zone, a flood plain or floodway, lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, and lands under conservation easement; or (2) A state, or local historical district or property, as defined. iv) C reates two new parcels, where neither of the new parcels are: (1) Less than 40 percent of the size of the original parcel; and (2) Smaller than 1,200 square feet, unless a smaller minimum lot size is allowed by an ordinance adopted by a local agency. v) Would not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: (1) Housing that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income; (2) Housing that is subject to rent or price control; (3) A parcel where the owner of residential property has withdrawn accommodations for rent or lease within the last 15 years; or (4) Housing occupied by tenants within the last three years. vi) Would not subdivide either of the following types of parcels: (1) A parcel previously established through an urban lot split; or (2) A parcel where the owner or a person acting in concert with the owner previously subdivided an adjacent parcel through an urban lot split. b) Requires local agencies to approve urban lot splits that conform to the objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act in accordance with the following: i) Ministerially and without discretionary review; and, SB 9 Page 4 ii) Without the imposition of regulations that require dedications of rights -of-way, or the construction of offsite improvements as a condition of approval. c) Allows local agencies to impose objective design and subdivision standards to parcels created by an urban lot split provided that the standards do not conflict with the standards established in the bill and the standards do not: i) Physically preclude the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels; ii) Result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet; iii) Require setbacks for an existing structure, or structure built in the same location and to the same dimensions of an existing structure if the required setbacks would physically preclude the development fro m including up to two units; or iv) Require setbacks of more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines, if those setbacks would preclude the development from including up to two units. d) Provides that local agencies may impose or require any of the following conditions on an urban lot split: i) Easements required for the provisions of public services and facilities; ii) Requirements that parcels have access to or adjoin the public right-of-way; and iii) Off street parking of up to one space per unit, unless the parcel is located within one - half mile walking distance of public transit, as specified, or a car share vehicle is located within one block of the parcel. e) Requires local agencies to: i) Limit parcels created through urban lot splits to residential uses ; ii) Restrict the rental term of any unit created through an urban lot split to a term of more than 30 days. f) Prohibits a local agency from i) Requiring the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions as a condition of approval of an urban lot split; or ii) Rejecting the urban lot split solely because it includes adjacent or connected structures, provided that those structures meet existing building codes and safety standards that are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. g) Authorizes a local agency to, until 2027, impose only the following owner occupancy requirements on an applicant for an urban lot split : i) The applicant must intend to occupy one of the units created under the provisions of this bill for one year after the approval of an urban lot split; or SB 9 Page 5 ii) The applicant must be a qualified nonprofit corporation, as defined. 3) Provides measures that affect both the two-unit and lot-split provisions, as follows: a) Allows local agencies to adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of this bill allowing for ministerial approval of two-unit housing developments and urban lot splits, and specifies that the action to adopt the ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b) Specifies that a local agency is not required to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) on lots that have utilized the provisions of this bill to both subdivide the lot and construct two units on the subdivided parcel. c) Requires local agencies to include information on the number of applicants for urban lot splits and the number of units constructed under the provisions of this bill in the annual housing element report submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 4) Allows local agencies to extend the life of subdivision maps by an additional 12 months, from the existing 12 months to 24 months. 5) Provides that the provisions of the bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and therefore its provisions are applicable to all cities, including charter cities. 6) Provides that no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code. EXISTING LAW: 1) Allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all lo cal, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws” (California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7). 2) Establishes Planning and Zoning Law, which requires every city and county to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan, and requires the general plan to include seven mandatory elements, including a land use element, and requires major land use decisions by cities and counties, such as development permitting and subdivisions of land, to be consistent with their adopted general plans (Government Code Section 65000 through 66301). 3) Requires ministerial approval by a local agency for a building permit to create an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) provided the ADU was contained within an existing single-family home and met other specified requirements. Requires a local agency to ministerially approve an ADU or junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU), or both, as specified, within a proposed or existing structure or within the same footprint of the existing structure, provided certain requirements are met (Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22). SB 9 Page 6 4) Provides, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections 66410 - 66499.38), the following related to the subdivisio n of land: a) Requires a city or county to require a tentative and a final map for all subdivisions of land creating five or more parcels, except for subdivisions which meet specified conditions; b) Requires a city or county to require a parcel map for subdivisions meeting specified conditions; c) Limits the improvements a city or county may require for a subdivision of land that is less than five parcels; and, d) Requires a legislative body of a city or county to deny approval of a tentative map or a parcel map if it makes any of the following findings: i) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; ii) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; iii) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development; iv) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; v) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause environmental damage, injure wildlife, or are likely to cause serious public health problems; or, vi) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with certain easements providing access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 5) Establishes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which generally requires state and local government agencies to inform decision makers and the public about the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects, and to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible. CEQA applies when a development project requires discretionary approval from a local government (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq). FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. COMMENTS: Author’s Statement: According to the author, “Senate Bill 9 provides options for homeowners by streamlining the process for a homeowner to create a duplex or subdivide an existing lot. Building off the successes of ADU law, SB 9 strikes an appropriate balance between respecting local control and creating an environ ment and opportunity for neighborhood housing that benefits the broader community. To that end, the bill includes numerous safeguards to ensure that it responsibly creates duplexes and strategically increases housing opportunities for homeowners, renters, and families alike. This bill will provide more options for families to maintain and build intergenerational wealth – a currency we know is crucial to combatting SB 9 Page 7 inequity and creating social mobility. SB 9 provides flexibility for multigenerational housing by allowing homeowners to build a modest unit on their property so that their aging parent or adult child can have an affordable place to live. SB 9 is part of the Senate’s Housing Package, ‘Building Opportunities For All’ that establishes opportunities to make real progressive and positive changes in our communities to strengthen the fabric of our neighborhoods with equity, inclusivity, and affordability.” California Housing Crisis: California is in the midst of a housing crisis. Only 27 percent of households can afford to purchase the median priced single -family home – 50 percent less than the national average. Over half of renters, and 80 percent of low-income renters, are rent- burdened, meaning they pay over 30 percent of their income towards rent. At last count, there were over 160,000 homeless Californians. The burden of this crisis is disproportionate ly born by communities of color, as Black and Latinx households are one-third less likely to own a home as White households, and 20 percent more likely to be rent-burdened.1 A major cause of our housing crisis is the mismatch between the supply and demand for housing. According to the Roadmap Home 2030 (Housing CA and California Housing Partnership Corporation, 2021), to address this mismatch, California needs approximately 2.6 million units of housing, including 1.2 million units affordable to lower income households . And according to HCD, the state needs 180,000 units of housing built a year to keep up with demand. By contrast, production in the past decade has been under 100,000 units per year, further exacerbating the housing crisis. Local Restrictions on Housing Development and their Implications: Planning for and approving new housing is mainly a local responsibility. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public – including land use authority. Cities and counties enforce this land use authority through zoning regulations that restrict and shape development, such as maximum densities of housing units, maximum heights, minimum numbers of required parking spaces, required setbacks, and maximum lot coverage ratios. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other particular site-specific considerations. While local governments do not build housing, the restrictions they p lace on new housing production contribute to a lack of housing in the state. Historically, the provision of housing was highly correlated to market demand. However, that shifted with the rise of local zoning, which came to prominence just over 100 years ago. Zoning laws that limit housing to single-family homes on larger lots are the most prominent form of zoning in California.2 The result of this zoning is that it locks in allowable density, independent of demand for new housing, even as the demand for new housing in California exceeds millions of units (as discussed above). This excessive demand drives up home prices and values. This increase in home values benefits existing homeowners, who are disproportionately White ; in 2019 California homeownership 1 HCD, 2018, California’s Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities Final Statewide Housing Assessment 2025: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy -research/plans -reports/docs/sha_final_combined.pdf 2 UC Berkeley Terner Center, 2018, Land Use in California survey of cities and counties: https://californialanduse.org/ SB 9 Page 8 rates were 68 percent for White households, 49 percent for Latinx households, and 41 percent for Black households.3 The increased cost of housing disproportionately hurts communities of color, who are less likely to have assets to purchase a home or afford the rent, as White households have a median wealth of $188,200, whereas for Latinx households it is $36,100 and for Black households that figure is $24,100.4 Second Units as a Solution: In California, most of the land developable for housing has already been developed. The remaining developable areas are typically far from job centers, in high-risk wildfire areas, and/or land that is environmentally sensitive or important for agriculture. Therefore, addressing the housing crisis in an environmentally responsible way will require an increase in density in already developed areas. Increasing density can occur in multiple ways. In recent decades, this has often meant high- density housing near major transit stops. However, such housing is both expensive to build, and limited in geographic scope. Recently, there has been a national trend to allow for more “gentle density,” e.g., duplexes, four -plexes, townhomes, and other moderately dense developments that were common before the imposition of zoning. This includes adopted measures in Oregon, Minneapolis, and Berkeley, as well as measures under consideration in Sacramento, South San Francisco, and Connecticut. In recent years, the Legislature has taken a more active role in facilitating such gentle density. In 2016 SB 1069 (Wieckowski) and AB 2299 (Bloom) permitted accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right on all residentially-zoned parcels in the State. By permitting an ADU as a second unit on all single-family lots, these laws effectively doubled their allowed density. Before 2016, approximately 1,000 ADUs were permitted statewide annually; in the past two years, that number has exceeded 10,000 (Per HCD’s Annual Progress Report Dashboard). This number is expected to grow quickly as the ADU construction and financing industry matures, given that market demand makes it economically feasible build approximately 1.8 million ADUs in California.5 This bill proposes to build on and complement the success of the state’s ADU program by allowing by right the development of two units on single-family lots. Unlike existing ADU law, newly constructed units permitted by this bill would not be limited to a single story and 1,200 square feet. This bill would not apply those size constraints. This bill contains other guardrails to help ensure that new housing projects that result in two units on a lot are built in a manner that is in keeping with neighborhood character, as well as in environmentally-appropriate locations. Such guardrails include that the new homes must comply with all of the following:  A city or county’s objective standards, such as building height, setbacks, and lot coverage, as long as these constraints do not unduly preclude the development of two units of at least 800 square feet; 3 US Census data 4 Bhutta et al, 2020, Disparities in Wealth by Race and Ethnicity in the 2019 Survey of Consum er Finances, US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds -notes/disparities -in -wealth -by-race-and- ethnicity -in -the-2019-survey -of-consumer-finances -20200928.htm 5 Monkonnen et al, 2020, One to Four: The Market Potential of Fourplexes in California’s Single -Family Neighborhoods, UCLA Working Paper Series : https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market -potential-fourplexes/ SB 9 Page 9  Geographic parameters that require them to be built in or proximal to already urbanized areas;  Environmental parameters than preclude development in environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, fault zones, and areas protected by conservation easements, as well as proof that the site can handle onsite wastewater;  Cultural parameters, such that these units may not be built in state or locally-designated historic districts; and  Equity standards, by ensuring that the new homes do not require the demolition of housing designated for lower income renter households. By increasing development capacity, this bill will increase land values. A concern being raised about this bill is that the increased land value will facilitate speculative purchases of land by corporations, including institutional investors. Such concerns were also raised before and after the passage of the legislation that allowed ADUs. However, thus far this concern does not appear to have been borne out: while corporations own 17 percent of California’s housing stock, only eight percent of ADUs have been built on their property.6 One reason that corporations are not building as many secondary units is that construction is not part of their business model, which is instead predicated on rising rents providing a greater return than other investment alternatives. While this bill would enable a second unit on existing property, the demolition of the existing home is subject to the provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Skinner, Chapter 654, Statutes of 2019), as proposed to be clarified by SB 8 (Skinner, 2021). These provisions require that any unit that has housed a lower income households within the past five years cannot be demolished without being replaced by a unit affordable to lower income households, and that any lower or moderate-income occupants displaced by the demolition receive relocation benefits and be offered right of first refusal at affordable rents or costs in the new unit. “Urban Lot Splits” and the Subdivision Map Act: The Subdivision Map Act establishes a statewide regulatory framework for subdividing land. For subdivisions of single parcels (“lot splits”), the Act requires a city or county in which the land is situated to approve a parcel map. Approval of parcel maps is discretionary, and cities and counties can require certain improvements as part of the parcel map. This bill amends the Subdivision Map Act to require local agencies to ministerially approve subdivision maps for lot splits that qualify as an “urban lot split.” To qualify, an urban lot split must meet the same geographic, environmental, cultural, and equity requirements and standards as listed above for two-unit development. In addition, a proposed urban lot split is limited to subdivisions that:  Divide a parcel that is zoned for single family residential use;  Create two new parcels where neither of the new parcels is less than 40 percent of the size of the original parcel;  Create parcels no smaller than 1,200 square feet, unless a smaller size is specifically allowed by local ordinance; and 6 Chapple et al, 2020, Reaching California’s ADU Potential: Progress to Date and Progress to Date and the Need for ADU Finance, UC Berkeley’s Terner Center and Center for Community Innovation : https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ADU-Brief-2020.pdf SB 9 Page 10  Do not divide a parcel that was previously created by an urban lot split, or is adjoined to a parcel previously created by an urban lot split by the same property owner. The urban lot split provision of this bill has the potential to facilitate a substantial amount of housing beyond what is permitted by existing ADU law. This is because the split lot can be developed with for sale housing in addition to rental housing, and does not rely on the capital of the existing homeowner to develop the new home. Additionally, in conjunction with the two-unit provision, the lot split could result in a total of four units on the lot. This bill provides that the lot split provisions, in combination with the two-unit provisions, may only result in a maximum of four units on the lots – including ADUs. The sale of a split lot will enable homeowners to realize the value of their property without requiring them to leave it. This is particularly important for lower and moderate income homeowners, as these homeowners often lack the assets to construct a second unit on the property. Arguments in Support: Supporters of the bill argue that it has the potential to facilitate a substantial amount of new housing at a small-scale, neighborhood level, and that this new housing will help address the housing crisis by lowering rents and home prices. According to the Homebuilding Alliance, a coalition of organizations committed to supporting legislation that will increase housing production in California, “California’s continued housing shortage is a major source of stress on the state’s economic recovery and fiscal health, as well as its social welfare, medical and public safety systems. The severe mismatch between demand and available housing supply disproportionately impacts the state’s lowest-income families and puts them at greater risk for housing instability and homelessness, while lowering their chances for upward mobility. SB 9 strikes an appropriate balance between respecting local control and creating the environment and opportunity for small-scale neighborhood development that benefits the broader community.” Arguments in Opposition: Opponents of the bill argue that it would override the traditional ability of localities to control the development process. According to the League of California Cities, “State-driven ministerial or by-right housing approval processes fail to recognize the extensive public engagement associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and housing elements that are certified by the [HCD].” Other opponents argue that SB 9 will increase land value while simultaneously promoting gentrification because it will increase profitability for speculators. According to Livable California, “SB 9 will promote gentrification in stable neighborhoods, especially neighborhoods of color, the naturally occurring targets for speculators. Speculators will seek these area’s cheaper parcels in seeking higher profits, turning stable Black and Latino neighborhoods into targets for speculators/investors to buy up and turn homes into high-cost rentals without garages or yards.” Related Legislation: SB 1120 (Atkins, et al.), 2020: Substantially similar to SB 9, in that SB 1120 would have required ministerial approval of housing developments with two units (duplexes) and subdivision maps that meet certain conditions, and would have increased the length of time that cities and counties can extend the validity of existing subdivision maps. This bill died pending concurrence in the Senate. SB 9 Page 11 SB 8 (Skinner), 2021: Clarifies that the anti-demolition protections of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Skinner, Chapter 654, Statutes of 2019) would apply to the construction of single -family homes, thereby requiring that any demolished home with a lower income resident be replaced, and that the current residents get relocation benefits and a right of first refusal to the new unit at an affordable rent or cost. This bill is pending in this committee. SB 50 (Wiener), 2020: Would have required a neighborhood multifamily project containing up to four dwelling units to be subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process . Also would have required a local government to grant an equitable communities incentive, which reduces specified local zoning standards in “jobs-rich” and “transit rich areas,” as defined, when a development proponent meets specified requirements, if the local government has not adopted a local flexibility plan approved and certified by HCD, by January 1, 2023. This bill failed passage on the Senate floor. SB 1069 (Wieckowski), Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016: This bill made several changes to reduce the barriers to the development of ADUs and expanded capacity for their development, including changes to parking, fees, fire requirements, and process. AB 2299 (Bloom), Chapter 735, Statutes of 2016: This bill requires a local government to ministerially approve ADUs if the unit complies with certain parking requirements, the maximum allowable size of an attached ADU, and setback requirements. Double referred: This bill was also referred to the Assembly Committee on Local Government where it passed on June 9, 2021 on a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no, and 2 not voting. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Bridge Housing Corporation Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce California Apartment Association California Community Economic Development Association (CCEDA) California YIMBY City Council Member, City of Gilroy City of Alameda Clear Advocacy County of Monterey Eden Housing Facebook Facebook, INC. Fathers and Families of San Joaquin Inland Empire Regional Chamber of Commerce Inner City Struggle League of Women Voters of California LISC San Diego Local Government Commission Long Beach Yimby SB 9 Page 12 Mountain View Yimby Orange County Business Council Palo Alto Forward San Fernando Valley YIMBY Santa Barbara Women's Political Committee Santa Cruz YIMBY South Bay YIMBY The Central Valley Urban Institute YIMBY Democrats of San Diego County Support If Amended California Association of Realtors California Community Land Trust Network California State Association of Counties Rural County Representatives of California Urban Counties of California I California Community Land Trust Network Opposition AIDS Healthcare Foundation Alameda Citizens Task Force Albany Neighbors United California Cities for Local Control Catalysts Century Glen HOA Cities Association of Santa Clara County Citizens About Responsible Planning Long Beach CA City and County Association of Governments of San Mateo County City of Arcata City of Atascadero City of Bellflower City of Beverly Hills City of Burbank City of Camarillo City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Chino City of Chino Hills City of Crescent City City of Cypress City of Downey City of El Segundo City of Glendora City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Beach City of Irwindale City of LA Canada Flintridge SB 9 Page 13 City of Lafayette City of Laguna Niguel City of Lake Forest City of Lomita City of Menifee City of Mission Viejo City of Modesto City of Norwalk City of Oakley City of Ontario City of Palm Desert City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Pasadena City of Pismo Beach City of Placentia City of Pleasanton City of Rancho Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Signal Hill City of South Gate City of Sunnyvale City of Thousand Oaks City of Torrance City of Yorba Linda Coalition for Economic Survival Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods Comstock Hills Homeowners Association Eastside Voice Long Beach CA Grayburn Avenue Block Club Indivisible 43 Indivisible Ca-43 Indivisible California Green Team Indivisible Marin Indivisible Normal Heights Indivisible Ross Valley Indivisible San Jose Las Virgenes-Malibu Council of Governments Latino Alliance for Community Engagement League of California Cities Los Angeles Urban League Magnolia Ave Residents Association Mangan Park Neighborhood Association Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers� Miracle Mile Residential Association Mission Street Neighbors Montecito Association Neighbors for a Better San Diego SB 9 Page 14 New Livable California Dba Livable California Old Agoura Homeowners Progressive Democrats of America Progressive Democrats of Santa Monica Mountains Riviera Homeowners Association Rooted in Resistance S.B. Residents for Responsible Development Save Lafayette Seaside Neighborhood Association Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association SoCal 350 South Shores Community Association Sunnyvale United Neighbors Sustainable TamAlmonte Temecula Valley Neighborhood Coalition The City of Lakewood The Valley Village Homeowners Association Town of Woodside Tri-valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of Danville Truckee; Town of United Neighbors Ventura Council of Governments Verdugo Woodlands West Homeowners Association West Pasadena Residents' Association Westwood Hills Property Owners Association Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Association Oppose Unless Amended Build Affordable Faster CA Carlsbad; City of City of Bradbury City of Brea City of Del Mar City of Half Moon Bay City of Indian Wells; City of Laguna Beach City of Lakewood City of Los Altos City of Rancho Cucamonga City of San Marcos City of Santa Paula City of Simi Valley City of Stanton City of Whittier San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Town of Apple Valley Analysis Prepared by: Steve Wertheim / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 SENATE BILL NO. 10 SHARE THIS:Date Published: 07/05/2021 09:00 PM SB-10 Planning and zoning: housing development: density.(2021-2022) AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 05, 2021 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 24, 2021 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 14, 2021 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 26, 2021 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 27, 2021 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 13, 2021 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 22, 2021 AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 24, 2021 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2021–2022 REGULAR SESSION Introduced by Senator Wiener (Principal coauthors: Senators Atkins, Caballero, and Skinner) (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Robert Rivas) (Coauthor: Assembly Member Wicks) December 07, 2020 An act to add Section 65913.5 to the Government Code, relating to land use. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 10, as amended, Wiener. Planning and zoning: housing development: density. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. This bill would, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, authorize a local government to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Attachment "D" height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site, as those terms are defined. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting an ordinance pursuant to these provisions on or after January 1, 2029. The bill would specify that an ordinance adopted under these provisions, and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction’s General Plan, ordinance, or other local regulation adopted to be consistent with that ordinance, is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. The bill would prohibit an ordinance adopted under these provisions from superceding a local restriction enacted or approved by a local voter initiative that designates publicly owned land as open-space land or for park or recreational purposes. The bill would impose specified requirements on a zoning ordinance adopted under these provisions, including a requirement that the zoning ordinance clearly demarcate the areas that are subject to the ordinance and that the legislative body make a finding that the ordinance is consistent with the city or county’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. The bill would require an ordinance to be adopted by a 2/3 vote of the members of the legislative body if the ordinance supersedes any zoning restriction established by local voter initiative. The bill would prohibit an ordinance adopted under these provisions from reducing the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance and would prohibit a legislative body from subsequently reducing the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance. The bill would prohibit a residential or mixed-use residential project consisting of 10 or more units that is located on a parcel zoned pursuant to these provisions from being approved ministerially or by right or from being exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, except as specified. This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: no Local Program: no THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 65913.5 is added to the Government Code, to read: 65913.5. (a) (1) Notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances enacted by the jurisdiction, including restrictions enacted by a local voter initiative, jurisdiction that limit the legislative body’s ability to adopt zoning ordinances, including, subject to the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b), restrictions enacted by local initiative, a local government may adopt an ordinance to zone a parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified by the local government in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in one of the following: (A) A transit-rich area. (B) An urban infill site. (2) A local government shall not adopt an ordinance pursuant to this subdivision on or after January 1, 2029. However, the operative date of an ordinance adopted under this subdivision may extend beyond January 1, 2029. (3) An ordinance adopted in accordance with this subdivision, and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction’s General Plan, ordinance, or other local regulation adopted to be consistent with that zoning ordinance, shall not constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to either of the following: (A) Parcels located within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This paragraph does not apply to sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. (B) Any local restriction enacted or approved by a local voter initiative that designates publicly owned land as open-space land, as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 65560, or for park or recreational purposes. (b) A legislative body shall comply with all of the following when adopting a zoning ordinance pursuant to subdivision (a): (1) The zoning ordinance shall include a declaration that the zoning ordinance is adopted pursuant to this section. (2) The zoning ordinance shall clearly demarcate the areas that are zoned pursuant to this section. (3) The legislative body shall make a finding that the increased density authorized by the ordinance is consistent with the city or county’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to Section 8899.50. (4) If the ordinance supersedes any zoning restriction established by a local voter initiative, the ordinance shall only take effect if adopted by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body. (c) (1) Notwithstanding any other law that allows ministerial or by right approval of a development project or that grants an exemption from Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code, a residential or mixed-use residential project consisting of more than 10 new residential units on one or more parcels that are zoned pursuant to an ordinance adopted under this section shall not be approved ministerially or by right and shall not be exempt from Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (2) This subdivision shall not apply to a project located on a parcel or parcels that are zoned pursuant to an ordinance adopted under this section, but subsequently rezoned without regard to this section. A subsequent ordinance adopted to rezone the parcel or parcels shall not be exempt from Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Any environmental review conducted to adopt the subsequent ordinance shall be based on consider the change in the zoning applicable to the parcel or parcels before they were zoned or rezoned pursuant to the ordinance adopted under this section. (3) The creation of up to two accessory dwelling units and two junior accessory dwelling units per parcel pursuant to Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 of the Government Code shall not count towards the total number of units of a residential or mixed-use residential project when determining if the project may be approved ministerially or by right under paragraph (1). (4) A project may not be divided into smaller projects in order to exclude the project from the prohibition in this subdivision. (d) (1) An ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall not reduce the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance. (2) A legislative body that adopts a zoning ordinance pursuant to this section shall not subsequently reduce the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance. (e) For purposes of this section: (1) “High-quality bus corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service that meets all of the following criteria: (A) It has average service intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the three peak hours between 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive, and the three peak hours between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday. (B) It has average service intervals of no more than 20 minutes during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., p.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday. (C) It has average intervals of no more than 30 minutes during the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., inclusive, on Saturday and Sunday. (2) “Transit-rich area” means a parcel within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, or a parcel on a high-quality bus corridor. (3) “Urban infill site” means a site that satisfies all of the following: (A) A site that is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if, and only if, the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel or parcels wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. (B) A site in which at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. For the purposes of this section, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined. (C) A site that is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development designated for residential use. (f ) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring the adequate production of affordable housing provision of adequate housing, in light of the severe shortage of housing at all income levels in this state, is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including charter cities. SB 10 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 10 (Wiener) As Amended July 5, 2021 Majority vote SUMMARY Authorizes a city or county to pass an ordinance that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to upzone any parcel for up to ten units of residential density if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site. Major Provisions 1) Authorizes a city or county to pass an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to ten units of residential density, notwithstanding any local or voter-mandated restrictions on zoning ordinances, as long as the parcel meets the following geographic parameters: a) The parcel is located in either a transit-rich area, as defined, or an urban infill site, as specified; b) The parcel is not located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone, as defined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFire), except for sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development; and c) The parcel is not subject to a local restriction enacted or approved by a local initiative that designates publicly owned land as open-space land, as defined, or for park or recreational purposes. 2) Specifies that neither an ordinance adopted pursuant to this bill, nor any resolution, ordinance or any other local regulation adopted to amend the jurisdiction's general plan to be consistent with that ordinance, is a project for purposes of CEQA. 3) Requires a local agency that adopts an ordinance pursuant to this bill to do all of the following: a) Make a finding that the increased density is consistent with the city's obligation to affirmatively further fair housing; and b) If the ordinance supersedes a zoning restriction established by a local initiative, adopt the ordinance by a two-thirds vote. 4) Specifies, regarding housing development projects on sites rezoned pursuant to this bill that are of more than ten units, that such projects are prohibited from receiving ministerial or by right approval, or being exempt from CEQA, if it the parcel on which it is located was rezoned using the provisions of this bill; 5) Prohibits a local government from utilizing this bill to reduce the density of parcels, or subsequently reducing the density of any parcels upzoned pursuant to this bill. SB 10 Page 2 6) Includes a sunset date such that a local government cannot pass an ordinance dis cussed in 1) after January 1, 2029. Specifies that the ordinances themselves may extend beyond that date. COMMENTS California Housing Crisis: California is in the midst of a housing crisis. Only 27 % of households can afford to purchase the median priced single-family home – 50% less than the national average. Over half of renters, and 80% of low-income renters, are rent-burdened, meaning they pay over 30% of their income towards rent. At last count, there were over 160,000 homeless Californians. The burden of this crisis is disproportionately born by communities of color; according to (CA Department of Housing and Community Development) HCD's 2018 Statewide Housing Assessment, Black and Latinx households are one-third less likely to own a home as White households, and 20% more likely to be rent-burdened. A major cause of our housing crisis is the mismatch between the supply and demand for housing. According to the Roadmap Home 2030 (Housing CA and California Housing Partnership Corporation, 2021), to address this mismatch, California needs approximately 2.6 million units of housing, including 1.2 million units affordable to lower income households. And according to HCD, the state needs 180,000 units of housing built a year to keep up with demand. By contrast, production in the past decade has been under 100 ,000 units per year, further exacerbating the housing crisis. Planning for and Approving Housing Development: Planning for and approving new housing is mainly a local responsibility. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to "make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public – including land use authority. Cities and counties enforce this power through zoning regulations that restrict and shape development, such as maximum densities of housing units, maximum heights, minimum numbers of required parking spaces, required setbacks, and maximum lot coverage ratios. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other particular site - specific considerations. The state's role in housing production is to ensure that cities and counties plan for and approve new housing. Cities and counties are required to complete a housing element as part of their General Plan. Among other things, the housing element must demons trate how the community can accommodate its share of its region's housing needs. To do so, each community establishes an inventory of sites designated for new housing that is sufficient to accommodate its fair share. Where a community does not already contain the existing capacity to accommodate its fair share of housing, it must undertake a rezoning program to accommodate the housing planned for in the housing element. Moderate-Density Housing: As discussed above, a major cause of our housing crisis is the mismatch between the supply and demand for housing. This mismatch involves not just the amount of housing, but the type of housing being built. In recent decades, almost all of the housing built in California was large single -family development (which can be an inefficient use of land) and mid- and high-rise construction (which are expensive to build). One strategy to lower the cost of housing is to facilitate the construction of housing types that accommodate SB 10 Page 3 more units per acre, but are not inherently expensive to build. This includes moderate-density typologies such as town homes, duplexes, and four-plexes, Local zoning restrictions are a barrier to denser housing. According to the UC Berkeley Terner Center's 2019 residential land use survey, in California most jurisdictions devote the majority of their land to single-family zoning, and in two-thirds of jurisdictions, multifamily housing is allowed on less than 25% of land. Many local governments in California are motivated to increase density in these neighborhoods to address the housing crisis, and others are required by state law to do this as part of their Housing Element. However, such upzonings typically face several impediments – one of which is the requirement for the upzoning to be analyzed unde r CEQA. New housing typically requires multiple levels of CEQA review, including at the housing element level, for a rezoning that increases development capacity, and for the project itself. This bill would remove the requirement to complete CEQA review when jurisdictions rezone to increase the amount of housing allowed, up to a maximum of ten units, on parcels that are either infill locations and/or near high quality transit. The jurisdiction's decision to utilize the provisions of this bill are voluntary. However, if a jurisdiction decides to do so, this bill enables elected officials to override, with a 2/3 vote, voter initiatives that have restricted the zoning on these parcels. Parcels upzoned pursuant to the bill cannot be both greater than ten units and benefit from by right approval or a CEQA exemption. This provision could make it more difficult to build projects than under existing law in the instances where a developer could already have built more than ten units on a parcel upzoned by this bill, such as when they assemble multiple parcels or utilize a density bonus. For example, under existing law, supportive housing developments can use a by right process to avoid CEQA review (AB 2162 (Chiu) Chapter 753, Statutes of 2018) and may qualify for additional density that would produce more than ten units (AB 1763 (Chiu), Chapter 666, Statutes of 2019). The Legislature established these benefits to expedite the production of much needed affordable housing units. According to the Author "California's massive housing shortage is driving people into poverty and homelessness and threatening our environment, economy, and diversity. SB 10 provides cities with a powerful, fast, and effective tool to allow light-touch density exactly where it should be: near jobs, near public transportation, and in existing urbanized areas. Specifically, SB 10 allows cities, if they choose, to rezone these non-sprawl location for up to ten-unit buildings in a streamlined way without CEQA. Given that cities face significantly increased housing production goals under the revised Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and are required by the state Housing Element Law to complete rezonings to accommodate these goals, SB 10 is a powerful new tool for cities to use in their comprehensive planning efforts. SB 10 will help ease California's housing crisis, spurred by a statewide shortage of 3.5 million homes, and move the state away from a sprawl-based housing policy and toward a more sustainable, equitable, and effective housing policy." Arguments in Support Supporters of the bill include organizations that support new housing development. They argue that the bill would maintain local control while helping cities address the state's housing shortage and affiliated burdens on lower income households. According to California YIMBY, the SB 10 Page 4 sponsor of the bill, "SB 10 creates a path to adding modest density to address California's housing shortage, preserves significant local control for local jurisdictions, and makes it faster, less expensive, and less risky for a city to undertake a community process to increase density in our communities." Arguments in Opposition Opponents of the bill include include cities who are concerned that nearby cities will allow more housing without studying the implications to traffic in adjacent cities. According to the City of Beverly Hills, "While this measure seeks to address California's housing crisis by providing local governments with an additional tool to increase housing production in their jurisdictions, it fails to ensure local governments are not able to overturn the democratic will of their residents." Opponents also include environmental justice organizations who are concerned that bypassing CEQA, when combined with project-specific exemptions, could result in housing being built on toxic or polluted land. FISCAL COMMENTS Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel. VOTES SENATE FLOOR : 27-7-6 YES: Archuleta, Atkins, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hueso, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Leyva, McGuire, Min, Pan, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener NO: Allen, Bates, Hertzberg, Ochoa Bogh, Portantino, Stern, Wilk ABS, ABST OR NV: Becker, Kamlager, Limón, Melendez, Newman, Nielsen ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 6-1-1 YES: Chiu, Gabriel, Kalra, Kiley, Quirk-Silva, Wicks NO: Seyarto ABS, ABST OR NV: Maienschein ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 6-1-1 YES: Aguiar-Curry, Lackey, Ramos, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Voepel NO: Boerner Horvath ABS, ABST OR NV: Bloom UPDATED VERSION: July 5, 2021 CONSULTANT: Steve Wertheim / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0000973