As has been true in recent legislative sessions, the Legislature began this year with a stack of bills to change state housing policy – this in response to the California’s much-reported housing crisis; but that crisis is complicated. There’s no question that California has fallen far short on building enough affordable housing, but there’s disagreement even within the RCPC Board over whether Oakland is meeting its state goals for market rate housing. (More on that in a future article.) At any rate, most people agree that affordability is important.
Many of the bills have already died – either withdrawn by their authors, voted down in committee, or failing to pass out of their house of origin (Assembly or Senate) by the deadline of early June. The remainder have moved on into their second house, and will be considered in committee over the next few weeks. Those that survive will then go to a “floor vote” – a vote of all of the legislators in that house – and then potentially on to the Governor for his signature or veto.
Some of the remaining bills would not affect Rockridge, although they might affect other cities. This article will focus only on those with greatest potential impact on Rockridge.
SB 9 (Atkins/Wiener/Wicks) – Trumpeted by both supporters and opponents as ending single-family zoning throughout California, this is a complicated bill. SB 9 requires municipalities to approve a lot-split (i.e., making one lot into two) for any parcel currently zoned for one single-family house, and also to allow two units (i.e., a duplex) on any lot zoned for single-family housing. In essence, it would allow by right four housing units where two (one home and one ADU) were previously allowed.
While the bill appears to exclude its application in hazardous or environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., high fire risk, high earthquake risk, or wetland areas), in reality, it would still apply.
Many pro-housing groups and the cities of Oakland and San Diego support the bill. Many other cities, local community groups, and the League of California Cities oppose the bill as interfering with local control of land use. It could also be problematic for emergency evacuation in areas with narrow streets, like the Oakland/Berkeley Hills.
SB 10 (Wiener/Atkins/Skinner) – Unlike SB 9, this bill is permissive rather than mandatory. It also has now been limited to apply only through 2029. It would let any municipality adopt zoning allowing up to ten housing units per parcel if the area involved is either urban infill or in a “transit rich” area – i.e., within ½ mile of a major transit stop or along a “high quality” bus route (e.g., AC Transit 51A or B). The bill could apply to almost anywhere in Oakland, including all of Rockridge.
The bill exempts any such rezoning from environmental review under CEQA and overrides any local law restricting zoning (e.g., permanently designating an area as open space), including local initiatives. Once the zoning has been enacted, projects to construct more than ten housing units (not including ADUs) would still require CEQA review. Smaller projects would not. It also has an “anti-backsliding” provision – once enacted, the rezoning could not later be undone.
SB 10 is supported by many pro-housing groups (it was put forward by California YIMBY), the California League of Women Voters, and the City of Oakland. It is opposed by numerous cities, local neighborhood groups, and the Sierra Club.
AB 1401 (Friedman/Wiener/Skinner) – This bill is nominally not about housing, but off-street parking requirements. However, providing off-street parking, especially in a parking structure, is a major cost for new housing (as well as other) developments. This bill would prohibit placing any off-street parking requirement on new development located in a transit rich area (same definition as in SB 10). It would continue to allow off-street parking requirements for electric vehicles or the disabled. Significantly, the bill has no exception for high fire hazard severity areas, meaning no off-street parking could be required in new projects in those parts of Upper Rockridge within ½ mile of Rockridge BART. It would apply to almost all of Lower Rockridge.
Like the other two bills, AB 1401 is supported by many pro-housing groups. It is opposed by some local neighborhood groups and the League of California Cities.
For more information on these bills, go to: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ and search for the bill you’re looking for. The bills will go to the floor soon.
UPDATE: (6-23-21)Both SB 9 and SB 10 passed the Assembly Housing Committee by lopsided margins. AB 1401 will be heard soon in Senate Governance and Finance and Senate Housing Committees. It will likely pass both easily. All three will probably go to the floor of their respective houses in early July, and could be on the Governor’s desk by mid-July.