Chris Craiker, The Architex Angle: The Death of California Single Family Housing? Part II | Home and Garden

For many, these are the silver rings to help solve California’s chronic housing shortage. For others, it is a bizarre attempt by Sacto politicians to punish rural and suburban communities by forcing them to accept up to six housing units on every existing plot of land for one family.

Both are completely incorrect, although there are ammunition for both sides. Let’s take a look at each invoice.

In short, SB 8 allows local municipalities to lower fees and speed up the housing approval process. Whether this helps produce any housing faster with lower fees is not yet known, especially as municipalities have reduced their staff and telescope processing time to years, rather than months. A dream that did not come true.

SB 9 has a greater impact at the state level. Until September 2021, any California homeowner can have up to three living units on their plot of land: a primary home; ADU or granny flat up to 1,200 square feet; Attached small volume unit, or JADU.

The SB 9 allows the homeowner to split an individual’s parcel into two parts and each new parcel can support up to 3 units. Thus, any piece of land located in California can contain up to six living units. The SB 9 will likely benefit mostly wealthy landowners who have the land and resources to fly through the operation, under the neighborhood audit radar. There are more details, so do your research before contacting your preferred engineer (www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/bills-california-senate-making-housing-advocates-upset/103-d6ea3b11-ff40-4bd3- 9884-1edde3a0fb56)

However, SB 10, passed just two weeks later, authorizes local governments to independently redistrict neighborhoods with housing density of up to 10 units per lot. SB 10 expands Sacto’s takeover of local zoning with little interest in reviewing local design, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or expressing any local opinions. There are provisions that do not allow developers to subdivide many sub-blocks and significantly affect the neighborhood, but these judgments are subjective. As one engineer once said, “The devil is in the details.” (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB10)

SB 8, 9, and 10 won’t see our roads suddenly explode with millions of new cars, flood our communities with high-rise apartment building or make millions of homeowners rich, although many homeowners will benefit from building ADUs and reap higher-rated properties.

But out of 7.5 million lots per family in California, if 5% or 400,000 lots were developed under SB 8, 9 or 10, that would be staggering. With the cost of housing and development rising, this is only a drop in the sea and perhaps just a moment of complacency for Sacto politicians as an empty attempt to make more housing available.

Here’s the deal: Sacto’s involvement in local zoning could help some pro-housing towns expand the supply of housing by re-zoning different parcels, potentially making many homeowners rich by splitting up their expensive plots or building backyard ADUs Luxurious. I’m not a big fan of self-reviewing local design and planning processes used in most North Bay cities, but they are essential to the health and well-being of our community.

One could argue that SB 9 and 10 are equivalent to the voter suppression laws sweeping our nation by reducing CEQA requirements, eliminating local processing, and reducing public votes to protect neighborhood. This is anti-democratic and will not produce more housing.