By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Berkeley, CA – One of the more controversial bills this term is SB 9 which, if passed, would likely produce an increase in the state’s housing supply—which has been the subject of concern for some time. That said a report out of Berkeley finds that the new law, if passed, would not be likely to create large-scale redevelopment (a key fear that many opponents have).
The study was conducted by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley and was released last week.
SB 9 is just one of many bills that have been aimed at allowing “modest increases in smaller-sized units in existing single-family neighborhoods” as a way to address the current housing crises—to date, “the most ambitious of these efforts have not passed.”
SB 9 was introduced by Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins and, if approved by the Assembly, “it may be poised to be the most significant housing bill coming out of California’s current legislative session.”
In their analysis, Ben Metcalf, David Garcia, Ian Carlonton and Kate MacFarlane write: “SB 9 has potential to expand the supply of smaller-scaled housing, particularly in higher-resourced, single-family neighborhoods. In this way, SB 9 builds on recent state legislation that opened up access to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for virtually all California single-family parcels.
“What distinguishes SB 9 is that it allows for the development of new, for-sale homes, either on a newly subdivided lot or through the conversion of existing single-family homes into multiple units. This ability to create duplexes and/or split the lot and convey new units with a distinct title would allow property owners to pursue a wider range of financing options than are available for ADU construction to build these new homes.”
This creates the possibility of SB 9 opening up new homeownership opportunities at price points that are in reach of middle-class purchasers.
“Yet, the likelihood of creating new housing and homeownership opportunities as a result of SB 9 largely depends on local context,” they write. “While Senate Bill 9 does not apply to single-family parcels in historic districts, fire hazard zones, and rural areas, local market prices and development costs play a large role in determining where there is financial viability for the addition of new homes.”
So, what is the impact?
This analysis, the most detailed one yet on the impact of SB 9, “finds that SB 9’s primary impact will be to unlock incrementally more units on parcels that are already financially feasible under 
existing law, typically through the simple subdivision of an existing structure.”
However, in contrast to fears by many homeowners: “Relatively few new single-family parcels are expected to become financially feasible for added units as a direct consequence of this bill.”
Thus they conclude: “While this analysis does not attempt to measure the actual rate of uptake for adding new units to single-family parcels, it is reasonable to assume that SB 9 will modestly accelerate the addition of new units relative to the status quo by facilitating access to conventional mortgage products for multiple households able to purchase homes on newly subdivided single-family parcels.”
The study found that “the vast amount of single-family parcels across the state would not see any new development,” said David Garcia, policy director at the Terner Center, which supports the bill.
Their analysis found that, under the bill, a total of 714,000 new homes would become “market-feasible” if SB 9 is enacted. That’s analyzing the state-wide impact excluding counties with less than 45,000 people.
In Sacramento County, for instance, it would add 40,500 projected new units.
Contrary to the fear that opponents have spread—that this is going to lead to speculative buying and the death of single-family neighborhoods, the impact projected here is likely to be much more modest.
Garcia called the bill “a modest reform” and said, “It will make a modest but important impact [on supply] over time.”
“Under our assumptions about today’s regulations, market conditions, and development alternatives, we found that doing nothing was the most likely option for California’s single-family parcels: development is not feasible for 80 percent of parcels,” the study finds. “If SB 9 passed, 110,000 parcels would be newly developable, causing the share of infeasible parcels to tick down slightly to 78 percent.”
They find that “on 5.4 percent of current single-family parcels, SB 9 would enable new development. For 110,000 single-family parcels (1.5 percent of total single-family parcels), SB 9 would enable new development where none was financially feasible before, and for another 300,000 parcels, SB 9 would allow for more units than under our business-as-usual scenario.”
Most importantly: “For the majority of single-family properties, we find the most financially viable outcome is not to pursue any development whatsoever, both under our business-as-usual scenario and under our SB 9 scenario.”
In contrast, Livable California has called SB 9 a “bulldozer bill” that’s “the beginning of the end of homeownership in California.”
They worry that the upzoning would raise the land value of those homes, making it more difficult for first-time buys and that developers would target Black and Brown communities where land is cheaper, and demolish houses to build high-cost rentals.
“I see very expensive … rental units coming from this bill,” said Isaiah Madison, a board member with Livable California. “If this is happening in affluent communities, the affordability isn’t going to be as far off.”
Nothing to worry about, it’s all so benign until it’s your next door neighbor that decides to split their lot and build two duplexes.
Which is a problem because…?
How many times does this have to get explained?
Once might be helpful.
That lot splits and infill could make much of a dent in the housing shortage was never more than wishful thinking.
Ron G, you are correct… if the bill becomes law, in Davis, I suspect the total %-age of “conversions” for existing SF residential, developed, properties, to be ~ 0.0001%/per annum..
Here you go Eric, like I said, we’ve already had this discussion:
Keith Olsen July 14, 2021 at 2:43 pm
If the lot next to you splits then builds two duplexes tell the people living next-door it’s not four plexes. The result is pretty much the same, four families, four units and four times as many cars, noise and people.
Report comment↓
Eric Gelber July 14, 2021 at 2:52 pm
Housing for four families who likely couldn’t afford to buy or rent a single-family home. Oh! The horror!
Ignore Commenter
Report comment↓
Keith Olsen July 14, 2021 at 2:58 pm
Four units constructed right next door to someone who paid a premium price for their dream knowing they had bought in a SFR neighborhood just to have the rules changed and the rug pulled out from under their feet.
Oh! The Horror!
Having had the discussion doesn’t make the arguments any more valid. Claiming that a duplex vs. a single family residence next door would have more than a negligible impact on traffic or noise is simply an unsubstantiated assertion.
What is clear, however, is that duplexes provide housing for people who can’t afford to buy or rent a single family home. If someone’s “dream” was to live in a neighborhood without such households, their expectations were not reasonable.
If this bill passes, a four units could end up being constructed right next door. So four times the cars, four times the people, four times the noise, four times the conjestion, etc. That’s not negligible.
It’s totally reasonable if one bought a house in a SFR zoned neighborhood. I don’t think it unreasonable that their expectations would be that the zoning would remain in place.
I live in a quiet neighborhood full of duplexes, triplexes, and single family homes. Noise and traffic is simply not an issue. 4 x 0 = 0.
Zoning ordinances and statutes are always subject to modifications and variances—so, yes, the expectation that nothing would ever change is unreasonable.
(It wasn’t that long ago that people moved to the suburbs with the “dream” of living in all white neighborhoods. Times change.)
Wait for it, wait for it…
Awww, I knew it was just a matter of time…
You should educate yourself on the history and origins of single-family zoning. https://www.kqed.org/news/11840548/the-racist-history-of-single-family-home-zoning
That is so gratuitous… you should be ashamed, but I strongly suspect you believe that and you truly believe that was the motivation of most, and adamantly so… so won’t bother to try to change a closed, ‘reversely bigoted’ mind.
Many POC moved to the suburbs to dream of not living in urban ‘ghettos’… many folk (all ethnicities) didn’t want to live in highly urban areas…
But it appears that you are fully convinced of the “white flight” narrative… I’ll tell the POC’s in our neighborhood, who we consider as good friends and neighbors, that we live in Davis to fulfill the “dream” you ascribe to us… and ask their “forgiveness”…
Your bolded text is so classist, racist, untrue I will not engage on that further… “white guilt”? Is that the reason you live in the ‘burbs’?
What is “gratuitous” are your personal attacks. I never said that racism was a motivation for single family zoning today. Just pointing out some history for context. But, even today, single family zoning is explicitly a means of excluding multi-family, rental housing—i.e., housing for lower income households.
Eric… look@ time stamps on posts… as I composed mine, I had not a chance to see your clarification… I was going off your 10:18 post… had not seen the subsequent ones…
So, yeah, I see your condescending comment as me being ‘gratuitous’, as you had the benefit of the other exchange… I didn’t…
I’ve actually held copies of the 1940-50’s Davis CC&R’s in my hand… that banned all POC’s unless they were servants… abhorrent…
Get freaking real… “white flight” and zoning that you say was designed to be “segregation” was not ever a part of my life (only 66 years)… In San Mateo, there were white, Black, Asian families owning SF homes in the 60’s, 70’s… my Jr High was about 1/3 of each… many were close friends…
I assert again, given all those Black/Asian families moving to the suburbs, owning homes, what were THEIR dreams? I still content that the comment you made was gratuitous, in the real world…
Thou dost protesteth much… I wonder…
Seems to be implied these days, by some, that that in and of itself is racism. I see it as densism. We don’t want it more dense, not any direct exclusion of a group that has a lower percentage of people who are able to afford homes. Given that, building expensive duplexes or four-plexes, would be a forever chase to try to ‘make everyone whole’, which would mean only a very long trip to bring just a small number over the line – while in reality the problem of lack of investing in inner-city infrastructure and schools are the real issues, not trying to encroach a few higher-density units into ‘rich’ (anyone who has more than you do) neighborhoods.
Talk about anecdotal! Lucky you, living in a magic kingdom where there is zero noise. How many people can say that? With so many people working at home now, having a noise issue with neighbors (4x more likely with four neighbors) is huge. What if you are working at home, and neighbors move in with a dog that barks all day right out your office-room window?
Good point—because dogs who live in single family homes don’t bark.
People really have to stretch to find legitimate excuses for excluding duplexes from their their idyllic single-family-only neighborhoods.
Eric:
You really don’t have to stretch, if you take a look at what’s already been stated. For example:
https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/839413/Resolution_SB_9.pdf
Now, if they made it illegal to have cars for those who live in the new units, that might address one of those concerns, but not the other. But let’s also look further:
https://www.livablecalifornia.org/act-to-oppose-sb-9-and-sb-10/
But if that single family home next to you is turned into two duplexes you have four times the chance that you will have a noisy dogs next to you.
On the other hand, single family homes are more likely to have yards where the dogs are outside whereas, duplexes are more likely to have their dogs inside.
The real question is, where is Davis’ city council on this? And, why haven’t they put forth a resolution such as the one in the link below?
It would be interesting to know how many cities have done so.
Does the Davis council care more about impacts for its existing residents, or does it care more about housing non-residents into the future (regardless of impact)?
https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/839413/Resolution_SB_9.pdf
They discussed this at the first HEC meeting. They are waiting to see what the state comes down with.
Your comment is not clear, and doesn’t make much sense. The bill has already passed the Senate.
The time to influence legislation is before it’s finalized.
What is Ms. Aguiar-Curry’s position on this?
And, what is the Davis city council’s position on it? (Other than “waiting” to see what the state “decides”?)
She voted for it when it went before the Local Government Committee that she chairs in June
Please keep these discussions to the topic and avoid personal attacks.
I have read your comments several times Keith, I still don’t understand your objection if someone wants to put in a duplex next to your home. Can you please explain. I agree with others – it’s unlikely given the costs to actually do that.
I have explained, if you can’t comprehend what I’ve written then it’s on you.
What part of my question warranted the response that you gave? You posted a one-liner with no explanation.
Craig, I’ve already posted my explanation above. If you don’t like or understand my reasons, that’s fine, I really don’t care. Hint, look at 8:49 and 9:57 comments.
Craig, here’s a hint.
Check my 8:49 and 9:57 comments.
If you don’t like or understand my reasons that’s fine, I really don’t care.
Neither comment explains the why that I was asking for. I get it, you don’t someone to put a duplex or four-plex next to your home. I don’t really get why you think that will happen or why that matters to you. I suppose I never will Oh well.
How many times does this have to be explained to you? Craig, you seem to be an intelligent guy so why are you acting so obtuse about this?
It’s probably worth noting that this isn’t a whole lot different than remodels that have been occurring all over town, but especially close to UCD, where more bedrooms are added in order to facilitate renting to as many students as possible. Same outcome: more cars, more people next door. The remodels are legal presently, though they’ve sometimes been controversial.
adding a room to rent out adds one more person and their car to the community and the roads.
splitting a lot and creating a duplex possibly adds 2-3 more people and their cars.
I wonder if a more targeted zoning of this kind of thing would make sense. Like maybe next to the University where the added people are less likely to have a car to drive everyday?
Maybe more transit oriented zoning that allows for split lots? Implement this kind of zoning along and near the major bus lines?
Maybe limit the size of the garage and driveway for this kind of zoning in these areas?
That would be an irrelevant question, if SB 9 passes the Assembly (and is signed by the Governor). In every city throughout California.
Given their political influence, it would be interesting to know if the “sprawl” developers (the ones selling the “American Dream”) support this. I would assume so, or it wouldn’t have gotten this far.
It would also be interesting to know how this would impact proposals such as Chiles Ranch, how it interacts with CCRs, how it interacts with partially-built out developments, etc.
And again, how many cities are opposed to this (as well as SB 10).
You can tack on any additional building and zoning codes on top as long as it still meets the ability to split a single family zoned lot in two for a duplex.
Yes, how this law will effect CCRs will be interesting.
BILL MARSHALL
I’m not sure what your point is.
Can you? Sounds like grounds for a potential lawsuit by developers and/or the YIMBY-types. (Also, is there a difference between those two groups?)
Yeap.
I wonder what the sprawl developers (and their representatives) are telling their customers. Especially since many of these developments consist of more than one subdivision, and not all houses are built simultaneously – even within the same subdivision.
Probably the same type of thing they tell all their customers, regarding various concerns that they may have. I don’t see a great deal of difference between those people and used car salespeople.
I don’t think it’s that big of a deal for developers and customers. If the developers are already selling lots to customers than all the work and money has been put in for the subdivision and that goes doubly so for master planned communities that feature multiple builders. Builders aren’t going to go back to their maps to further subdivide their lots if they’re that far into the development and sales process. However for the lots that are for far off in the future near the end of the project’s development and sales cycle….yeah I could see a developer going back and remapping and subdividing to get more lots. Again, it would have to fit into the existing project. You can’t just plug in a bunch of duplexes next to a bunch of single family homes on a lake or a golf course. As far as Davis is concerned it’s all academic anyway since there aren’t any large scale developments here anyway.
Y’all are ‘straining at gnats’ as far as Davis is concerned…
De minimus likelihood of folk adding units (unless they have a huge lot [0.5 + Ac])…
Keith E: any garage can be converted to one or more ‘rooms’… all over town…
Somebody will bring up the project on B St, just n/Eighth… run-down house or two (thinking it was two lots)… new two story TH or condo (4-6 units)… the sky has not fallen…
The proposal will neither make a dent in providing housing opportunities, nor be Armageddon…
A bunch of ‘not so smart’ liberal arts majors, theorizing, and proposing a “feel good” solution to a real issue. It is what it is…
They may as well legislate that Covid ceases to exist, declare the moon to be Brie, and that unicorns be allowed to roam freely again. And next, they can take up how many angels can dance on the head of a pin… whatever…
Talk about “tools in a toolbox”… like me putting a plastic fork from Taco Bell in my toolbox… doesn’t hurt, doesn’t help…
I see little good that can come of this plan for lot splits. It comes from the simplistic idea that simply adding a little inventory will help the housing market. But the inventory will not be enough to make a dent in the housing supply to effect prices on a macro level. You know who it will help? The developers. You know who it may hurt? People looking for affordable market rate housing.
Nice upscale neighborhoods aren’t going to be the target for lot splits.
However, lower scale neighborhoods will be prime targets. Especially targeting the more rundown homes that can be more cheaply knocked down and rebuilt upon. But what does that do? In a neighborhood of homes that rent for $2400/month. Developers knockdown the one that rents out for $1900. The lot is split, you get duplexes that rent out for $2600/month. Another one in the neighborhood gets knocked down and a brand spanking new duplex gets built and rents out for $2650/month. Meanwhile the other homes in the neighborhood rent creep up to $2500 and $255o/month.
Duplexes are SF and/or permitted in a PD in Davis codes… many are split-lot duplexes. Think E Eighth just east of Pole Line… almost all are owned, as a pair, by a single owner… in existence from the 70’s, and no horrendous problems…
Reality.
uh…nice reality?
I have no idea what you’re talking about in context with my comment.
“If this bill passes, a four units could end up being constructed right next door. So four times the cars, four times the people, four times the noise, four times the conjestion, etc. That’s not negligible.”
If you are against this you should be against Measure D. If you can’t go out your options become limited to adding density.
Or, in the hearts and minds of some, ZPG or NPG… am not one of them…
The state itself is no longer growing.
Folks like Wiener and Atkins are trying to force it – even in cities that are losing population. If there was any logic to this, those cities should have “negative” RHNA numbers.
Dump these guys, along with the governor.
https://www.livablecalifornia.org/sb-10-would-let-california-city-councils-undo-voter-approved-land-protections-sb-10-fact-sheet/
The housing market is slowing down on its own, at this point. The media has declared the housing boom to be over, in much the same manner in which they say it had begun.