Concerned local residents continue to closely monitor the legislative paths of two pro-housing bills that some believe could be the most impactful since Proposition 13.
Currently in the State Senate’s Appropriations Committee, Senate Bills 9 and 10 both would allow ministerial approvals encouraging higher-density housing that supersede local zoning regulations.
SB 9, as currently amended, allows for a split of a single-family home lot into two lots, with up to two houses on each lot. SB 10 would authorize local governments to adopt ordinances zoning any parcel up to 10 units if the parcel is located in what’s defined as a “transit-rich, jobs-rich” area or “urban infill site.” “Ministerial” means plans can be
approved if they meet a set list of criteria, with no special circumstances. Projects approved under both bills also would not be subjected to environmental review.
Local observers expect reconsideration of the bills before the end of the month.
Housing proponents see the bills as steps toward addressing the state’s ongoing housing shortage. With more opportunities for housing and ADUs, proponents presume more affordable housing would become available.
But opponents see the bills as threats to single-family neighborhoods, creating congestion, overflow parking and impacts on city infrastructures. Opponents also contend that neither addresses the need for affordable housing and would only encourage developers to increase profits by charging market rates. Neither bill specifies affordable housing.
Consequential bills
Los Altos Hills resident Barry Smith called SB 9 and 10 the most impactful bills since Proposition 13 was adopted in 1978.
“I have cross-checked this statement with people much more politically aware than I, and they replied, ‘Yes, unquestionably the most transformative housing bills in over four decades,’” Smith said last week.
But whereas voters approved Proposition 13, Smith said the rise of SB 9 and 10 has occurred outside voter control – or awareness. He noted that 6.8 million people voted for the 1978 proposition, while 40 senators and 80 assemblymembers in the California State Legislature are doing the voting – and most of their constituents are unaware.
“I did a survey of 100-plus contacts in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area, and less than 5% even knew these bills existed, and only one person could accurately describe what these bills did,” Smith said.
Smith added that many of the representatives themselves are uninformed and have failed to solicit input from constituents.
“As people are beginning to understand what’s really at stake here, people are speaking up,” said Los Altos Hills Mayor Kavita Tankha, who opposes SB 9.
The Los Altos Hills City Council is on record opposing SB 9, while the Los Altos City Council is on record opposing the bill unless amended. At its May 11 meeting, the Los Altos council authorized Mayor Neysa Fligor to send a second letter in opposition. The League of California Cities last week also altered its stance from “oppose unless amended” to a straight “opposed.”
“SB 9 as currently drafted will not spur much needed housing construction in a manner that supports local flexibility, decision making, and community input,” wrote Jason Rhine, assistant legislative director for the League in a May 11 letter to Toni Atkins, one of the bill’s authors. “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 California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).”
Meanwhile, the League of Women Voters California has endorsed both SB 9 and 10.
The bills, particularly SB 9, have sparked passionate debate both for and against. On the affirmative side, members of the Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance see advantages to SB 9.
“I think the key is that it is an attempt to allow gentle density instead of single-family zoning, which is in place in over 70% of the state and even more in Los Altos,” noted Sue Russell, LAAHA steering committee member, who cited minimal impact on neighborhoods.
LAAHA member Anne Paulson put it this way: “A builder would still be able to split a lot and build two houses, but they would be small, because the maximum allowable house size is based on the lot size. Half the lot, half the house size. And this is good. Splitting a lot and putting a small house on each side means those houses would be cheaper. Two families moving into my neighborhood, no McMansions, what’s not to like?”
Residents in Los Altos Hills, which has 1-acre minimum lot sizes, have been especially active in opposing SB 9. In addition to an earlier petition with more than 600 signatures, residents organized a town hall this week, inviting State Sen. Josh Becker to hear their concerns.
Tankha said additional housing allowed under SB 9 would increase fire risk – a concern given the abundance of wildfires in recent years and the town’s proximity to wooded areas.
