What would impact be of state housing bills?

SB 9 would allow owners of some single-family lots to build up to four units of housing on their property by splitting lots into two and building two units on each new lot, while SB 10 would streamline the process for cities to rezone some single-family lots to contain up to 10 housing units in transit-rich or already urban areas.

Proponents of the bills say denser housing is necessary to meet growing needs while limiting urban sprawl which has had devastating environmental impacts, while critics say the bills will erode local governments’ control, imposing one-size fits all state rules onto communities who don’t want them. 

Others have raised concerns that the bills don’t specifically require new housing be affordable, and believe home prices could actually increase as developers bid up properties in hopes of building denser housing to turn a profit, causing neighborhoods to gentrify in the process. 

Concerned homeowners have alleged the bills will hurt neighborhood character, and that apartment buildings or duplexes don’t belong in some low-density suburbs.

“Anything to do with where we live is going to be taken personally,” said David Garcia, policy director for the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley. “As a result we are sometimes subject to a fear of change.”

According to Garcia, though Californians are largely supportive of changes that would be made under bills like SB 9 and 10, opposition from “some of the loudest voices in the room” often take center stage.

But groups like Livable California, which claims most Californians actually oppose such measures, have organized en masse against the bills and others like them. And many vocal residents worry about how such legislation will affect their communities.

“Everyone’s terrified about what’s going to happen to our neighborhoods, they’re terrified seeing already what’s happened for displacement and gentrification and that’s going to continue,” said Lisa Taner, a San Mateo resident and board member of the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association, who was speaking for herself and not the association.

According to Taner, the bills are all “for the benefit of developers, special interests.” 

SB 9 and 10 are part of the Building Opportunities for All package, a handful of bills put forward by state legislators aimed at tackling housing shortages. Their authors, Senate President Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, in SB 9’s case, and state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, in SB 10’s case, have tried to pass similar legislation in the past.

Atkins nearly passed SB 1120 last year, a bill similar to SB 9, which failed after legislators ran the clock down, leaving the bill no time for approval from the Senate. Wiener attempted to pass SB 50 last year, a similarly aimed, though bolder than SB 10 piece of legislation, which died on the Senate floor. 

Softer approach

The current bills, approved in both houses and headed for the governor’s desk for his signature, represent a much softer approach over previous attempts.

SB 9, for example, would require local governments to approve the splitting and/or upzoning of lots only if the project meets a broad list of requirements: if the project is within an already urban area, meets size requirements and local design standards, falls outside historic and environmentally sensitive districts, and does not require the demolition of housing that is rent-restricted or has been occupied by tenants in the past three years.

These stipulations would disqualify 1.4 million of the state’s 7.5 million single family parcels, according to a July study from the Terner Center.

Further amendments state that even with all those boxes ticked, local governments could still deny upzoning if the determined project would have an “adverse impact” on public health or safety. Land owners who split their lots would also be required to live on the property for at least three years, an amendment made to reduce the likelihood of speculation.

The Terner Center study, which notably was conducted prior to the amendment requiring land owners live on the property for three years, projected that just 410,000 lots would be either physically able or financially feasible for splitting or upzoning under SB 9, allowing for the creation of approximately 700,000 new housing units.

“Senate Bill 9 will be helpful in creating more housing, but on its own will not alleviate the broader housing shortage,” said Garcia. “We know that just because something is zoned to be built, or allowed to be built, so many factors go into whether or not a new home ends up being constructed.”

The owner-occupancy stipulation, combined with high construction costs, are key limiting factors, Garcia said.

According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the state currently builds 80,000 homes per year despite needing to build 1.8 million new homes by 2025 to meet demand.

Local control

And in the case of SB 10, it would be local governments that would be required to take the first step toward upzoning. Local legislative bodies would need to pass a resolution by a two-thirds vote to adopt the law — if they don’t, the law would have no effect locally.

If the law were enacted locally, it would allow local governing bodies to upzone residential lots to contain up to 10 housing units, so long as those lots were within an already urbanized area as well as within a half mile of a major transit stop or on a high-quality bus corridor.

Currently, local governments wishing to upzone face an uphill battle, needing first to pass the California Environmental Quality Act, which often snarls such efforts in drawn-out and expensive legal battles. SB 10 would streamline the upzoning process, allowing legislators to circumvent CEQA.

According to Garcia, it would likely be larger cities taking advantage of the option, particularly those which have already signaled interest in upzoning like Sacramento, Berkeley and San Jose.

“It’s really impossible to speculate how cities would apply it,” said Garcia, noting that cities that do take advantage of the rule could so selectively, choosing which areas would be allowed to upzone or decreasing the number of units per building allowed.

Locally, it’s unclear which cities would enact SB 10, which would expire in 2029.

The South San Francisco City Council voted to not support SB 10 and the San Carlos City Council, which had originally planned to send a letter of support for SB 10, chose not to do so. 

Gov. Gavin Newson has a month to either sign or veto the bills. 

corey@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200, ext. 105