Legislators pass ‘duplex bill’
SACRAMENTO — Legislation that would allow new multifamily housing developments in some California communities was on its way to the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday after final passage by lawmakers — a proposal that was likely to provide only limited relief to the state’s housing crunch.
Dubbed the “duplex bill,” Senate Bill 9 would offer homeowners new options to build additional structures on their lots, the most modest in a string of efforts by Sacramento lawmakers in recent years to permit more housing density in singlefamily-home neighborhoods. Newsom has not taken a position on the bill and could delay action until after the Sept. 14 recall election.
“This bill would give homeowners the tools to help ease our state’s housing shortage while creating a new source of income in their
own backyard,” said its author, Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), in a statement.
SB 9 would allow up to four new housing units on a single property in certain neighborhoods that are currently zoned for standalone houses. But how a property owner could get from one to four is complicated.
Under the legislation, cities would have to allow any property owner to build two units on a formerly singlefamily lot. They would also have to approve homeowner applications to subdivide their property into two lots and build one or two units on the new ones — for a potential total of four homes where one originally stood.
The bill had bipartisan votes in both houses of the Legislature but was controversial in some communities. Carolyn Cole, executive director of the League of California Cities, said Monday that SB 9 would “circumvent” the need for local input and approval.
“And because there are no provisions in SB 9 that require new housing to be affordable, the new units will remain out of reach for many working-class families,” she said in a statement.
If signed into law, the plan could create a variety of housing types; for example, property owners could convert a standalone home to a duplex, keep one house as is and build another standalone home in the backyard, or demolish a house and build up to two duplexes.
Supporters argued that the bill would lead to lowercost ownership opportunities in middle- to high-income areas by creating housing that aligns with the look and feel of existing neighborhoods. Opponents warned that it could leave vulnerable neighborhoods open to gentrification.
SB 9 was further narrowed toward the end of the legislative process when it was amended to include a requirement that property owners who want to subdivide their property and build new units be residents on that property for at least three years — a change that was requested by the California Assn. of Realtors as a way, the organization said, to limit developers and gentrification in low-income communities of color. It was also changed to allow local governments to block projects that community officials believe would adversely affect public health and safety, including homes with high fire risk.
The bill exempts homes in rural areas, historic districts and properties where a tenant has lived for at least three years. Cities can impose certain design standards, and the bill does not outlaw single-family homes or mandate any new development.
SB 9 rose from the ashes of a more sweeping, highprofile proposal that sought to allow fourplexes in singlefamily neighborhoods and mid-rise apartments near public transit — a clash that pitted suburban homeowners and tenants rights groups against housing advocates who see density as key to alleviating the state’s affordability crisis.
Atkins introduced a similar proposal last year after forging a compromise between opposing lawmakers on the issue. It was passed by both houses but failed to advance before the Legislature’s deadline.
“This is not a radical bill,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who has spearheaded many of the Legislature’s most ambitious housing bills in recent years and is coauthor of SB 9. “These zoning bills are planting seeds for the future. That means gradual change in neighborhoods, not some immediate dramatic transformation.”
Another bill by Wiener, SB 10, would give city governments the option to streamline permits for new housing developments of up to 10 units in single-family neighborhoods. That bill also received final approval Monday and is headed to Newsom for a signature or veto.
After decades of population growth coupled with meager housing construction, there are not enough homes for people who want to live in California, particularly in communities near job centers, schools and public transit. Estimates of that shortage range from 1 million to 3 million homes.
An analysis by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center, a research group that supports the bill, found that SB 9 could spur the construction of 700,000 homes over several years. The vast majority of California’s 7.5 million single-family lots would not be likely to see new development, meanwhile, because high land and construction costs create limited opportunities for profit, according to the report.
The analysis found that with the requirement that property owners who want to develop new housing be residents, the number of new units made possible by SB 9 would decrease by about 40,000, roughly 6%. Home demolition would be rare, and property owners would be most likely to convert a single-family home into a duplex or build in the backyard.
Unlike developers, most homeowners don’t have the resources to reconfigure their properties, so such projects could be rare, said David Garcia, policy director at the Terner Center.
“It’s less likely an individual homeowner will decide to undertake a major construction project in their backyard if they’re not able to sell to a third party . ... Constructing a duplex through a lot split in your backyard is complicated, and a lot of homeowners will decide not to do it, but that’s not a number we can quantify,” he said.
Sanjay Wagle, vice president of the California Assn. of Realtors, said the aggregate number of homes spurred by SB 9 might not decrease if small-scale developers and lending institutions find ways to work in tandem with homeowners.
“It all depends on how you believe the market would respond to new opportunities,” he said. “The homeowner can do a lot split and build units without a developer swooping into a neighborhood and completely changing it. We believe we’re striking a balance.”
However, Isaiah Madison, a South L.A. resident and board member of Livable California, a statewide group advocating to preserve local control over development decisions, said the bill leaves lower-income neighborhoods vulnerable to real estate speculation.
“We don’t feel the [owner occupancy] requirement is enforceable,” he said, raising questions about what would happen if a homeowner applicant has to sell soon after initiating a project or what penalty landowners would face for skirting the rule.
Maria Pavlou-Kalban, founder of the United Neighbors coalition, said the three-year residency requirement “doesn’t do anything to discourage land speculators,” adding that average homeowners won’t qualify for loans to subdivide their property.
Last week, the Los Angeles City Council passed resolutions opposing both SB 9 and SB 10 with an overarching message about its aim to maintain control over residential construction — market rate or affordable.
West L.A. Councilman Paul Koretz said the bills will “kill communities and the environment,” while some members, including Nithya Raman, referenced the discriminatory aspects of single-family zoning and called on the city’s affluent communities to welcome more neighbors.
“Every bill that comes out of Sacramento feels like it starts with the developers and then figures out which of the others they can get on board,” Councilman Mike Bonin said. “I think we’d have a much better chance ... if the conversation started with affordable-housing advocates.”
Michael Manville, a professor of urban planning at UCLA, said SB 9 is a key opportunity to build housing in California, despite what he called predictable political concessions in Sacramento.
“These two amendments are basically a step away from the bill’s original vision,” he said. “A bill like SB 9 was always going to produce the most housing when there weren’t restrictions on who might occupy the housing that gets built on one of these parcels.
“Now you’re talking about a homeowner that wants to be a developer,” he added, “and that’s very different from a homeowner that’s looking to sell their parcel.”