California Surveyors Forums

Is anyone aware of the new proposed SB 9 for California?
Lot splits and up to 8 units per lot???

I hope CLSA steps up and fights against this, and not let it slide through the cracks.

From what I hear and understand, this must be shot down ! ! !

Keith,

As I read it, it passed the Senate, and is now in the Assembly. It proposes a new section to be added to the SMA which provides that Cities - under specific circumstances - can ministerially approve a parcel map which has the potential for secondary housing units. This would allow for eight houses in a four parcel parcel map. Not unlike what can be accomplished under proper zoning today.

This has been determined to be emergency legislation to respond to the lack of housing units.

Warren,
What I heard is anyone can have up to 8 units per lot ! ! !
They can do a lot split ministerially at half of the current lot size, so a 6,000 SF lot can be subdivided into 2 - 3,000 S.F. lots with up to 8 units on each lot.

There are many landlords who would jump on this to tear down a nice house in a nice neighborhood, to split and build multi units.
THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD!

When you buy that home in a good neighborhood, just think if SB 9 passes, your next door neighbor would have every right to tear down, subdivide, and build multi units. Hope your neighborhood has lots of available parking as it is, cause adding these units has no requirements for parking.

DUMB DUMB DUMB ! ! ! Oh wait, this is California.

The Board of Directors needs to discuss this now if it already hasn't been discussed. Why did I hear about this from a realtor friend who is against this, and not our Legislator Committee? IMO, if CLSA doesn't object to this, and fight this, shame on you. Who needs a license (or surveyor) when things like this pass, and we don't fight!!!

Keith,

In reading through the language of the Bill, it establishes a an urban, ministerially approved lot split process. While it mentions the ability to approve an accessory dwelling unit on an approved parcel under certain conditions, I don't see where it addresses the issuance of more residential units than that on one parcel - perhaps an apartment complex, but that is subject to current zoning and building guidelines.

It seems to go hand in hand with SB 10 to functionally invalidate single family residential zoning.
I think SB 10 can overrule CC&R's like the ADU law did, not sure about SB 9.

I asked if anyone had heard of this at our last month chapter meeting. No one else spoke up so no
discussion was had.

Couldn't agree with you more, Keith!

Don't talk "population control" . . . just "pack 'em in there" like sardines! I guess the legislature is trying to emulate cities like Tokyo, Delhi, Shanghai, Mexico City . . . Now there's "quality of life"?! Do these legislative genius' think all will be "affordable"?

And what are the legislative genius' going to do when the San Andreas lets lose? Infrastructure is near the breaking point right now!

Here in Sonoma County we've experienced housing crisis over and over again after major conflagrations. Look at the current fire situation! A fireman's worst nightmare: four houses & possible life(!) to lose instead of one. The insurance industry is already chiming in with regards to wildland areas.

If the legislative genius' want to legislate something - outlaw Vacation Rentals that have removed housing inventory.

Quality. Not quantity!

that's Crazy Phil rant for the day - Surveyor to Recorder

hellsangle wrote:Couldn't agree with you more, Keith!

Don't talk "population control" . . . just "pack 'em in there" like sardines! I guess the legislature is trying to emulate cities like Tokyo, Delhi, Shanghai, Mexico City . . . Now there's "quality of life"?! Do these legislative genius' think all will be "affordable"?

And what are the legislative genius' going to do when the San Andreas lets lose? Infrastructure is near the breaking point right now!

Here in Sonoma County we've experienced housing crisis over and over again after major conflagrations. Look at the current fire situation! A fireman's worst nightmare: four houses & possible life(!) to lose instead of one. The insurance industry is already chiming in with regards to wildland areas.

If the legislative genius' want to legislate something - outlaw Vacation Rentals that have removed housing inventory.

Quality. Not quantity!

that's Crazy Phil rant for the day - Surveyor to Recorder

+1

I still haven't heard anything relative to OUR Board of Directors discussing this and taking a stance, so I guess CLSA is supporting this crap ! ! !

Jay and Warren are the only ones who have chimed in with no stance or comments, so I guess CLSA as a state doesn't care how this will effect surveying or quality of life?

Phil said it pretty clear, and since I'm following in the footsteps of the original surveyor, . . . you already know I'm crazy ! ! !

I have no opinion on this proposed legislation. I suppose that we have to do something....

I attended the last board meeting and I don't recall this matter being discussed. SB 9 and SB 10 do not appear in the agenda packet

With all due respect, I doubt that "population control" is a viable solution to the housing crisis. While I'm not crystal clear on what cousin Phil has in mind for a population control campaign, I would expect the financial liability for this endeavor to be rather high for a city or county to undertake. The state or feds may be able to afford it but there would certainly be pushback from ACLU etc...

Without a viable solution to the housing crisis the state is grasping at straws. The $75 fee for recording legal documents is apparently not making the dent they had hoped so there is now a proposal for relaxing of zoning laws happening (as Jay describes). In short, it seems to be an act of desperation, as in 'we have to do something because we are legislators and no one knows what to do and the city and county governments are not stepping up so let's see if the free market will fix it?'

I don't know Keith, what is your idea to solve the housing crisis? It appears that you don't appreciate this one but are you proposing an alternative solution or just playing whack a mole with the proposals you don't like?

If the best you come up with is the East Bay tent city under every highway bridge then I probably vote for SB 9

We need more houses. To do that we need more buildable lots. Tract Map conditions are onerous. No one wants the new houses in their neighborhood.

Fix it

David Kendall wrote:I have no opinion on this proposed legislation. I suppose that we have to do something....

I attended the last board meeting and I don't recall this matter being discussed. SB 9 and SB 10 do not appear in the agenda packet

Thanks David, so what is our Legislation Committee doing to keep us informed on issues? It was my understanding the committee is suppose to be up on this kind of information to keep us informed? Maybe they were granted a pass due to Covid this past year??? Covid, covid, covid, I know no one is busy working these days, lol.

As Warren said, the proposal includes items to be added to the SMA, so I guess surveyors shouldn't be aware of this and have a stance???
I thought we are supposedly licensed to "Protect the Public", guess I'm wrong again, and it won't be the last time.

PLS7393:

Is the issue you do not want an American version of favelas in your neighborhood? As surveyors, I do not recall anyone in our professional community having issues turning the local strawberry and bean fields into single family homes, apartments, shopping centers etc. I have watched thirty years of development. Orange County is nearly built out - the last big housing development is being built now. Who among us refused a subdivision job on moral grounds?

Did anyone else see the woman hanging out of a car window with an AK47 in San Francisco this week? It appears as though she wasn't to concerned about the 30+ round banana clips being illegal in California. The wider angle lenses may have captured someone defecating on the sidewalk, packing a bag of merchandise and walking out of a Walgreens, or the needles in the gutter. Apparently, according to our leadership, crime is going down.

Keith, heads up, these multiple units proposals usually have no parking space requirements. Restated, your new neighbors will be parking 8 more cars in front of your house - unless they have adult kids living at home, add another 8 cars. I believe the majority of these legislative proposals are initiated in your neck of the woods. Maybe the lack of having a yard will help the drought - especially if they decide to use outhouses rather than flushing toilets.

One weird thing, you know what is holding up these housing bills, besides League of California Cities? The labor unions. The labor unions want a mandate that requires at least 30% of the affordable housing be given to the union workers. Of course, the Legislature recognizes this isn't exactly lending itself to affordability. Nobody seems overly concerned about the unions unfunded pension liabilities and being generally unsustainable. On the other hand, it seemed to work out for, ah, Detroit?

If only we could pay more in taxes. Being one of the highest taxed states has given us...well, given us....hmm, next question.

Mr. Nofield, I understand your concern, but 8 units next door barely ranks as an issue in the Golden State. Enjoy the ride to the bottom with a smile on your face. Neither of us has more than 20 years or so to enjoy the scenery. It will go quickly, I promise.

DWoolley

Oroville hydroelectric: off-line due to draught.

No water = no life.

Let's not forget - the legislative genius' want electric-only homes! (Makes you wonder if utilities corporations donate & support this thinking?)

Maybe another vaccine-resistant strain will make the housing crisis moot . . .

Yep! Crazy Phil - with his crazy two sense

Link to proposal:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 2120220SB9

If anyone is looking for a painless way to oppose SB9 and SB10:

https://www.livablecalifornia.org/act-t ... and-sb-10/

There is plenty of online information available. There is a vote on August 19.

DWoolley

Thanks, Mr. Wooley.

Mailed my opposition to my legislators today.

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

"In poll by David Binder Research, both bills start with strong opposition: 63% oppose SB 9 and 67% oppose SB 10, with opposition increasing to 71% for SB 9 and 75% for SB 10 after messages and endorsers." Businesswire.com

Both bills passed last week (technically, SB10 goes to the Senate, but is expected to pass). As with many things in California, a majority of the people's will has little meaning. Maybe Governor Newsom will veto the bill? Don't hold your breath.

Keith, thank you for the public awareness message.

DWoolley

One core issue is Pro. 13 and subsequent parent to child propositions. Thusly one-million-dollar house pays $1,000 in property taxes while the person next door pays $10, 000 a year. This inequity makes it more difficult to purchase a home for new buyers. Also, it incentivizes the homeowners to stay put, thus taking supply off the market. Less supply = higher costs. The only way left is to pack the new buyers into refurbished crates, cabins on wheels, modulars, stack them up vertically etc. Oh, and hit up every recording document for $75. (Or move to another place).
One component of a solution is an equalized property tax with an overage that is distributed to residents of California as a dividend to the old people. This addresses the core issue of protecting older folks and if the dividend goes to all the old people, it raises all those leaky old boats, not just the house rich millionaires.
The rich can get a reverse mortgage and stay in their homes or have one less vacation abroad. Folks under a certain wealth and over a certain age, then something like Prop 13 kicks in so they don’t have to eat the proverbial dog food.
Spreading the property tax burden more evenly across society gives the young people a chance to buy a home.
George Marchenko

DWoolley wrote:As with many things in California, a majority of the people's will has NO meaning.

I fixed the above for you Mr. Wooley, this is the common theme not only in CA, but the entire country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

I suspect George Marchenko and I do not drink the same brand of coffee, but I really appreciate a well articulated talking point. Well done, sir. To get a sense of how those increases in property tax policies work out I have followed Illinois property tax remedies. Illinois has decided to strip the equity out of the homes by increasing the tax burden - resulting in folks moving to Indiana. Illinois is the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

kuerth, I enjoyed the video, thank you.

A house in our neighborhood had an open house last weekend. The house was approximately 2500 square feet. The lot was approximately 11,000 square feet. I paced out the backyard and estimated it to be 2600 square feet. The house has fresh cosmetics, but was mostly the original 1960's house. One primary marketing point? "Perfect for an ADU". The driveway 30'x 17' - two medium sized cars. In Orange County 55% of adult children - ages 18 to 34 - live with their parents. The statewide average is 37%. The point being, a couple buys the place and moves in with their 2.3 adult children there are four cars to the house. Place a couple more adults in a single ADU and there are now six cars. I cannot imagine what SB9 and SB10 will do to these neighborhoods. As a comparison, they still sell land by the acre in Texas Our issues in California are really complex.

DWoolley

Thanks Dave, I believe you are right. There could no increase in the net taxes collected. It would never pass and it would have negative impacts. So, I need to revise to a proposal with a net zero property tax increase.

That being said, I just started getting into SB 9- I need to go pace out my back yard, see if I meet the 40% rule!

George Marchenko

SB9 and SB10 will create an undesirable situation for folks living in a single family residence. Since this became a topic (hat tip to Keith) I have been noticing street parking everywhere I travel - especially neighborhoods with lots that will accommodate apartment complexes in the backyard.

SB679

In reviewing bills I found SB679 - which sets up new districts to receive and disperse affordable housing money. Everyone remembers the Redevelopment Agencies that were dismantled about 10 years ago, right? It is commonly reported there are millions, likely billions, of dollars allocated to affordable housing. The challenge appears to be not having enough fiscal laundromats to wash the money into circulation - imagine not being able to create another self-licking ice cream cone?! Former Mayor Garcetti threw hundreds of millions at the situation, building very few housing units, only to witness homelessness - or is "unsheltered" now? - escalate. He was handed a life vest off the sinking ship and is now an Ambassador to some country I will never visit.

Understandably, it is confusing to the constituents to see California government missing the opportunity to expand programs and spend taxpayers money - especially on such well funded contemporary concerns as affordable housing. As it turns out, the State Building and Construction Trades Council, reportedly representing 450k members, demanded the Legislature pay the vig on the money washed through the proposed district laundromats. Hardline on the no vig, no law, unsheltered folks be damned. The vig was to make affordable housing projects subject to prevailing wage laws and mandate 30% of the work be awarded to union labor. Res ipsa loquitur.

AB930 and SB297

Tough time to be an underground excavator and a utility purveyor responsible for marking underground lines. Fines are increasing and attorney's fees can be assessed. Let the litigation begin!

This should be interesting for the land surveying community - although unbeknownst to the excavators and purveyors - as the basis for the laws hinges in large degree on the accuracy of marking and mapping the utility locations. Apparently, PG&E falsified 137,135 records improperly marking the location of lines for constructions crews. If only, if only, there were licensees that were specifically qualified to offer opinions on mapping accuracies. Hot tip, read Bus. & Prof. 8726 (a) and 6731.1 (a).

This weekend I am measuring my backyard in hopes of replacing an old shed with a four-plex apartment unit.

DWoolley

In the post above I mentioned the California Redevelopment Agencies as though folks are sure to have remembered. It is worth a refresher as we discuss setting up agencies to administer affordable housing and wash money. Governor Brown ended the RDA, with more than 400 offices, in 2011 after 70-80 years of failed policies that consumed large amounts of property taxes.

The quote is from an online Forbes article, "California's Redevelopment Agencies: The Bad Idea That Won't Die" by Scott Beyer, February 13, 2019:

"One of the main failings was with affordable housing, which consumed one-fifth of RDAs’ budgets. Like many affordable housing programs, this money wound up getting spent inefficiently. According to a 2010 Los Angeles Times report, at least 120 municipalities combined to spend $700 million in housing funds without producing a single unit, as many instead spent 6-figure sums on “planning and administration.” In other cases, cities spent over $800,000 per affordable unit [2007 dollars]. The Times found that "many projects face inexplicable delays…Land ostensibly set aside for affordable housing was in some cases turned over to commercial developers, raising questions about whether cities ever intended to build the housing in the first place.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer ... 1424e05396

It is worth the time to read. Read again the sentence "...without producing a single unit...". The RDA was actually worse than I remembered. Amazing that after 70 years of failure we find ourselves in a position to recreate similar agencies with a similar mission to face similar failures. Interesting that the RDA was dismantled and yet, we are paying to essentially recreate a similar organization ten years later. No wonder Building and Trades wants the vig - it would be a fountain of money with no expectation of results or accountability that will likely roll on into perpetuity.

As a collective, the California taxpayers are ever the optimist and never discouraged by abject failures. There ought to be a law....

DWoolley

Update: Governor Newsom signed SB9 and SB10 yesterday. A recap of the bills:

Under SB9, a property owner could split their lot into two separate lots, each required to be at least 1,200 square feet, and build a two-residence duplex home on each half: so in place of the one original home, there could now be up to four.

SB10 allows a single-family property located in a high-traffic area or near public transit to be re-zoned without an environmental review, so the owner could tear down an existing home and replace it with a small apartment building of up to 10 units in its place.

DWoolley

The 2-sigma possibilities enabled by these laws are disconcerting, but an analysis (by others) of my local conditions indicates that they'll have little real impact due to the cost of construction -- tearing down a usable house in order to build one or more duplexes doesn't even come close to penciling out. In this college town it's a lot more profitable to pack a bunch of students into the existing house, do little or no maintenance, and collect obscene amounts of rent.

I had two parcel maps in the last 9 months fall just short of recording because the property owners figured out that constructing a new ADU on a single parcel with single family home brought more value to them than splitting their single parcel into two.