WHAT SB-9 MEANS FOR HOMEOWNERS IN CALIFORNIA

There’s been much rave and ruckus over the new California housing bill, Senate Bill 9 - or more popularly, SB9 - proposed by Sen. Tony Atkins (D-San Diego), and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newson in September, 2021, to take effect from January 2022. The controversial bill has gotten many California homeowners gripping the edge of their seats, wondering what exactly this new bill means for them especially because of its approach to alter the character of housing and the single-family zoning system that has prevailed in California over the years.

The bill, which is one of the many attempts of California law makers to create policies that address the State’s housing shortage and affordability crisis, allows smaller-sized units to enjoy slight increases in existing single-family neighborhoods.

With the implementation of the bill comes a potential to multiply the supply of smaller-scaled housing, especially in the high-priced single-family neighborhoods.

The bill seems to expand on an earlier legislation by the state, SB 1069, which popularized accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for virtually all California single-family parcels. However, SB 9 differs from this legislation because it allows for the development of new homes which are for sale, either as a newly split lot, or by converting existing single-family homes into multiple units.

The idea of splitting a lot or building duplexes or fourplexes would allow homeowners pursue a wider range of financing options than those made available by the ADU legislation. This could open up new homeownership opportunities to prospective purchasers at more affordable prices, and enable them to apply for a traditional mortgage to buy the home.

However, the truth is that these prospects of creating new housing and home ownership opportunities depend, to a large extent, on local context and acceptance. Apart from the obvious constraints to the application of the SB9 bill on single-family homes in certain areas such as in fire hazard zones and rural areas, there are still more restraints to the bill such as local market prices and development costs. These two forces play a huge role in ascertaining the financial feasibility of adding new homes to a former single-family unit. Again, there is the issue of physical restrictions to the application of the bill, such as small single-family lot sizes and local regulations.

These all can limit the scope and impact of the bill’s application with regards to the number of new homes to be built. The primary impact of SB9 would be the addition of more units on single- family parcels that are already financially feasible under existing law, typically through the subdivision of an already existing structure. Speculations reveal that this bill will directly affect only a few single-family parcels to become financially feasible for added units.

To state it as honestly as possible, SB9 would not make as much impact as the opponents of the bill fear. Its impact would only be modest and would not happen as rapidly as is feared. It is completely unrealistic to believe that the bill will radically affect every single-family lot in California and require each one of them to be either split, or demolished and replaced with two or four new units.

For instance, some lots may be too small to qualify for these splits or revamping, others may already have other existing structures or ADUs attached to them which, according to the contents of the bill, disqualifies such single-family homes from being split or converted to new units. The bill also limits its reach from those with a history of renting within the last fifteen years.

Again, several physical conditions could prevent some single-family homes from adopting the stipulations of the bill.

Furthermore, the State isn’t going to force their bill down people’s noses, as democracy and freedom of action are something the 21 st century homeowner doesn’t take for granted. Some single-family homeowners may just not have the faintest interest in converting their property to such as stipulated in the bill, and where such an interest does exist, trying to carry out such development in view of current market-rate rental or sales may be financially non-feasible in numerous instances.

It is already believed by opponents of the bill believe that the bill is an attempt to eradicate single-family neighborhoods and override local control over zoning are direct attacks on democracy. Municipal planning departments are gradually turning into administrators of state policy, rather than being guides of the jurisdictions into a sustainable and formidable future. This could strengthen the opposition to adopt the bill by local homeowners.

Another thing to take into consideration is whether the cities within California have carrying capacities for the number of new housing units that the bill will foster. In reality, these cities have a certain limit to not just the buildings, but also the persons they can accommodate. Schools should be put into consideration, as the bill will increase the number of students who will be resident in the areas.

Traffic conditions, sewer limitations and water supply should also be put into the plan for the implementation of SB9. The State should not just create policies on housing that could lead to a greater influx of residents, but also develop programs that aid the overall planning and development of the State.

Conclusively, if the State complemented its efforts towards addressing the affordability crisis by creating fast and reliable transportation, better traffic control systems, etc. then the SB9 could have greater impact than it would under the current circumstances. A combat against single-family zoning policies is not the panacea to the State’s housing and affordability crisis as it would not have the intended outcome, except it is backed up by multiple other actions by the State.