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