New CA Senate Housing Density/Development Bills
(introduced Dec. 7, 2020 – 2021-2022 session1)
SB 10 (Wiener) – successor to SB 902 (failed in legislature last session)
Bill text & status: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB10

In a nutshell: This bill would allow local governments to pass an ordinance to upzone single-family residential parcels in order to permit multi-family dwellings of up to 10 units (seemingly with streamlined approval), as long as the parcel is located in a “jobs-rich” area, or a “transit-rich” area, or on an urban landfill site (as defined in the bill). This upzoning would be allowed notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, including restrictions enacted by voter initiatives. Sen. Wiener describes this as “light touch” upzoning.
Comments/questions:
• State agencies (without local input?) would determine and keep maps of so-called “jobs-rich” areas.
• CEQA provisions apparently would not apply to upzoning ordinances or projects under this bill.
• The bill seems to limit ADUs on these rezoned parcels to 2 regular and 2 junior ADUs per parcel.
• Projects of more than 10 dwelling units on parcels that have been upzoned under the bill would apparently be subject to discretionary review (10 or less could be approved ministerially?).
• The bill contains an exemption for parcels in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHZS), but the
language suggests that this is a conditional exemption and would not apply if fire hazard mitigation
measures are in place (e.g., if fire resistant materials are used in construction). PPCC and BCC have stressed
repeatedly in connection with prior bills that this “exception to the exception” fails to address the serious
risk to life and safety from increased density impeding emergency ingress/egress in the VHFHSZ.
• Would Coastal Act/Coastal Development Permit (CDP) requirements still apply in Coastal Zone areas?
• Would this bill incentivize or encourage spot-zoning (more than is already occurring in Los Angeles)?
• Would this bill in fact result in more affordable housing (there appear to be no requirements for any level or amount of affordable housing to be built under its provisions)?
SB 9 (Atkins) – successor to SB 1120 (failed in legislature last session)
Bill text & status: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9
In a nutshell: This bill would require local governments to approve lot splits and/or housing developments of 2 dwelling units on parcels in a single-family residential zone ministerially/by right, if the projects meet certain requirements (as detailed in the bill). Note: the bill is somewhat complicated and contains several provisions detailing what local agencies can or cannot do in terms of approvals, setbacks, design standards, etc.

Comments/questions:
• The bill provides that CEQA does not apply to projects under the bill.
• Although it appears that CDPs would still be required in the Coastal Zone, local governments would be exempt under this bill from the requirement of holding hearings on CDP applications for development projects; does that square with Coastal Act/CDP requirements?
• The bill contains no exemption (conditional or unconditional) for the VHFHSZ; public safety is put at risk.
• If a lot is split in two, would 4 dwelling units now be allowed by right on the former single-family parcel?
• Local agencies “shall not be required” to permit ADUs on parcels authorized under the bill; does this mean that they would be allowed to permit multiple ADUs per parcel?
• Would this bill in fact result in more affordable housing (there appear to be no requirements for any level or amount of affordable housing to be built under its provisions)?

Dec. 7 Sen. Portantino also reintroduced his bill (former SB 1299 — failed last session) that would incentivize (via grants/funding to local governments) the rezoning and use of “idle sites” — vacant big box stores & shopping centers — for workforce housing.

Prepared by Chris Spitz
WRAC Vice-Chair & PPCC Secretary/rep to WRAC

1 As of this writing (12/12/20), neither bill has been assigned to a cmtee and Senate cmtee membership has not yet been set for the 2021-2022 session. Interested persons should read the full text of the bills and not rely on this brief report.