SB 9

[LS_8750]

ADU in my mind typically means a one bedroom, studio, or granny flat. But a two-bedroom ADU might allow for much greater flexibility in terms of rentability, etc.... I don't see how folks want to split their 5000 square foot lots as opposed to constructing an ADU.

We shall see I guess.

[Jim Frame]

But a two-bedroom ADU might allow for much greater flexibility in terms of rentability

The one just on the other side of the fence from us is a 2-bedroom unit built a couple of years ago. Add those rooms to the 3 bedrooms in the house plus the "living room" (now a bedroom), and you can pack a lot of students onto that lot. It's currently serving as an informal sorority annex, a couple years before that it housed a bunch of guys from the UCD men's soccer team. Before that it was rented to grad students, and prior to that it was owner-occupied.

Mind you, I'm not complaining -- at least not yet. The landlords, who live in Saratoga, have been good about keeping the place up, and the kids have been totally reasonable. There have been a few big parties that have run late, but they've always toned it down the few times it's been loud enough for us to say anything to them. But I do wonder if we've just been lucky. And I lament the fact that each one of those students comes with a car, which means I sometimes have to get creative in finding curbside spots for my trash/recycling/greenwaste containers on garbage day.

Densification does have its downside...

[DWoolley]

[From the Los Angeles Times article over the weekend]
…
• Local governments can still impose safety standards and regulate the appearance of units and, to some degree, their placement on a lot. They cannot, however, require more than one off-street parking spot per unit, or any off-street parking if the units are within half a mile of public transit.
• Units built under the terms of this act may not be offered for short-term rentals.
• Anyone applying to subdivide a lot must commit to living in one of the units there for at least three years.
• The subdivided lots have to be at least 1,200 square feet each and roughly the same size. Cities would have to permit units to be at least 800 square feet, and could not bar them from being adjacent or connected.

Between the Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times articles this last week the premise is to create more housing by eliminating/limiting restrictions the single-family residence i.e. R1 zoning to create a more inclusive California – according to the articles.

Apparently, the modified Californian American dream is to own an 800 square foot house facing another mirrored 800 square foot house built in the backyard of an existing single-family residence or to have four 800 square foot houses on a 2400 square foot lot that can be subdivided – each with limited parking restrictions or designations.

Read for yourself (above) the lack of parking requirements.

I looked up 800 square foot homes internationally and found 800-900 square feet to be commonplace in the UK, Hong Kong, China (are China and Hong Kong the same thing now?), Finland, Portugal, Italy and others.

The more the merrier or so it has been said.

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

I looked up 800 square foot homes internationally and found 800-900 square feet to be commonplace in the UK, Hong Kong, China (are China and Hong Kong the same thing now?), Finland, Portugal, Italy and others.

In my area 900-1000 s.f. homes (3 br, 1 ba, 1-car garage) are common in the post-war neighborhoods built through the mid-1960s. They're generally interspersed with larger (1200-1500 s.f.) houses. Lot sizes run around 6000 s.f., so many of these smaller houses have been added onto, but there are still plenty remaining in the original footprint. They were of modest construction, and thus affordable at the time.

We could do a lot for housing affordability if we could figure out a way to get more of these modest homes built, but no developer is going to do that when there's plenty of demand for McMansions on tiny lots. So the state is trying to encourage densification as a lower-cost way of adding small-A affordable housing. I don't know if it's going to make a material difference.

[Anthony Maffia]

This opens up possibilities. In a particular neighborhood in a Never Build City, the lots are 1/4 acre and the houses up front are 30+ feet between. Hmmm....

[LS_8750]

We will see an uptick in the number of site plans and parcel maps, etc.
Don't expect any notable changes in the communities I normally work in.
Have a feeling the affluent areas won't see much more than the occasional ADU.

The local jurisdictions have three months to get their land use laws adjusted to suit.

Should be interesting.

[btaylor]

I had done a topo for an architect client of mine and he wants to immediately submit for a tentative parcel map based on this, so I look forward to hearing what happens at his town. His property is about an acre in a more expensive area here, and of course normally he could not split the lot.

This will be one of those deals where neighbors get upset and then turn around and do the same thing once they see the project come to fruition.

[hellsangle]

The attached is a picture of a car that I see frequently parked in front of a unit of a recently completed "affordable housing" project, (Sonoma).
Obviously the "affordable housing" is open to and any and all - not just the local community . . . because I speculate the car in the picture may be someone coming from an affluent area - new Mercedes convertible to show the neighbors what they don't have.

Have a nice weekend, all and stay safe.

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

[marchenko]

Now the PDF is attached.

It is of an article I wrote for my CLSA Chapter (search CLSA Parallax and you should see it) newsletter regarding SB 9. I hope you enjoy reading it.

Sincerely, George Marchenko LS 6964

[subman]

Does anyone see a prohibition in the SMA of a designated remainder parcel being shown on an Sb9 lot split? A client has an existing house that is a rental on a 2 acre parcel in the center of the city. Plenty of room for the remainder parcel (with existing rental house) to meet existing zoning parameters and create two lots under Sb9 that are 70’x200’(two dwelling units on each new lot). The lot is a corner lot so a traditional parcel map would be cost prohibitive to build all the fronting improvements. All the FEMA flood zone would be contained in the remainder parcel. City planner is balking by saying that is not the intent of Sb9. I asked him to speak to the city attorney and show me where it says I can’t. Appreciate any and all opinions. Thanks in advance

PS. Existing zoning is 20,000 SF and 100’ minimum width.

[DWoolley]

Subman:

One issue, if I am reading your post correctly, is a designated remainder must be 5 acres or more. See SMA 66434 (2).

Thanks for the article, George.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

The aspect of SB9 that got me thinking the most is that it is controlled by the Census "urban area or urbanized cluster" which if you pull the maps are rather arbitrary, and pays little to no heed to actual neighborhood configuration (at least in the Sonoma County maps I checked). There are literally communities/roads that will have one side being able to split and the other side of the road not.

Personally I think this law is awesome, as anything that allows people to do anything they want with their land is generally good in my mind. There are several easy solutions to the tragedy of the commons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) issues like parking. When I lived in Davis (go Aggies?) each neighborhood had parking permits, so they have already asserted/established a private use to the common road... Just limit those permits to amount of curb each house has. Make curb length be part of a house's positive attributes. Or install parking meters everywhere and give each home a portion of the total collected proceeds of the parking meters. Hi users pay for their use, and those getting parked on will get a benefit.

I would assert that the underlying issue to the shortage of housing is the built in costs required by building codes/laws. I am a believer of Hanlan's Razor, so I will give all the public policy makers the courtesy of assuming they are just ignorant/dumb(more likely they are compromising and settling for half a puppy, not realizing that half a puppy is just a bloody mess), but if you look at the result of all of the code requirements, its a death from a thousand cuts. Hi efficiency windows? More cost... Earthquake straps everywhere? more cost... Hurricane bolts in the foundation? more cost... Foundations that account for expansive clays? more cost...After having to rebuild my house after 2017 I have seen first hand how much these seemingly benign requirements that ostensibly are for my benefit make building a new house way more expensive than it needs to be. Even in comparison to 2005 when I was a carpenter working on spec homes. Once you price a house out of certain income brackets, your only choice to make money is to proceed with McMansions so you can sell the house.

Land prices are also part of that, and those prices are ONLY because of the ever increasing requirements of laws. When anyone could split their land by writing a description on their kitchen table and giving half their land to a child, the cost of a subdivision was the recordation costs. Now splitting land is measured in the 10's of thousands, or the 100's of thousands. In an attempt to forestall the "but what about" arguments that will likely be brought up, IE considerations of water, parking, waste etc, just build those costs into the activities not the construction. Defering to developers the costs is like making all first graders pay for their schooling before they start. Public goods should be paid by the public. If an area wants more curbs/sidewalks, tax the residents with their approval and build it. Don't want to pay for water hookups? Make it legal to install a few tanks and buy trucked water. Sewer hookup too pricey? Use a composting toilet. Let the individuals do their own spreadsheet and choose.

Arguments for protecting a neighborhoods "feel" or high $$ value generally seem very short sighted to me, and seem to be based on the "I got mine, go get yours somewhere else" aka nimby, with little perspective on just how they got theirs. Just ask all the ag folks how much they love a new subdivision going in next door with the subsequent complaints of dust and smell. Or go farther and ask the locals how much they liked the changes the Spanish, Russians and Americans brought? Change happens, you can't change that :)

Mikey Mueller
Sonoma County

P.S. I think it will all be moot as there are rumors of a new initiative to stop AB9. It will be couched in terms of "local control" and sidestep what "local" is defined as, and poll well, and then the legislature will provide exemptions for NIMBYs, and the initiative will be pulled. Kinda like the privacy dance Mike Belote explained.

[DWoolley]

Personally I think this law is awesome, as anything that allows people to do anything they want with their land is generally good in my mind. There are several easy solutions to the tragedy of the commons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) issues like parking.
...
If an area wants more curbs/sidewalks, tax the residents with their approval and build it. Don't want to pay for water hookups? Make it legal to install a few tanks and buy trucked water. Sewer hookup too pricey? Use a composting toilet. Let the individuals do their own spreadsheet and choose.
...
Arguments for protecting a neighborhoods "feel" or high $$ value generally seem very short sighted to me, and seem to be based on the "I got mine, go get yours somewhere else" aka nimby, with little perspective on just how they got theirs. Just ask all the ag folks how much they love a new subdivision going in next door with the subsequent complaints of dust and smell. Or go farther and ask the locals how much they liked the changes the Spanish, Russians and Americans brought? Change happens, you can't change that :)

Mikey Mueller
Sonoma County

Mikey Mueller:

I enjoy reading a well articulated post. I write that compliment in all sincerely.

I can agree with you - because I will be long gone by the time this idea comes into full bloom. I smile at the idea of future Californians hauling drinking water like in the Sudan or using outhouses for residential properties (do they only come in blue?).

The idea of homes without government intervention or permitting is not a new idea. In fact, millions of people are housed this way throughout the world. For South America, Google "favela", for India "Dharavi", for Kenya "Kibera", for Pakistan "Orangi Town" and then, click "images" for the best perspectives. Using their respective models each single family residence in California with one home is a ranch comparable to the Ponderosa. Yeah, pretty darn awesome.

DWoolley

[subman]

Subman:

One issue, if I am reading your post correctly, is a designated remainder must be 5 acres or more. See SMA 66434 (2).

Thanks for the article, George.

DWoolley

Dave
I read SMA 66434 (2) differently. If the Remainder Parcel is larger than 5 acres, it need not be shown on the map and its location need not be indicated as a matter of survey, but only by deed reference to the existing boundaries of the remainder parcel.

If smaller than 5 acres, then 66434(e)(1) applies: The exterior boundary of the land included within the subdivision shall be indicated by distinctive symbols and clearly so designated. The exterior boundary of the land included within the subdivision shall not include a designated remainder or omitted parcel that is designated or omitted under Section 66424.6. The designated remainder or omitted parcel shall be labeled as a designated remainder parcel or omitted parcel. The map shall show the definite location of the subdivision, and particularly its relation to surrounding surveys.. I interpret this to mean it needs to be shown with bearings & distances and not included within the distinctive border.

See sample of recent parcel map in Simi Valley, Ventura County. Remainder Parcel is 0.70 acres.

https://maps.ventura.org/RecordMaps/pm/071/071pm059.pdf

[CBarrett]

Subman, you are correct, remainders over 5 acres need not be shown on their entirety. Just had to deal with this in last couple of months.

[Jim Frame]

When I lived in Davis (go Aggies?) each neighborhood had parking permits, so they have already asserted/established a private use to the common road... Just limit those permits to amount of curb each house has.

Only select Davis neighborhoods -- primarily those close to the university -- have special parking districts, as they're expensive to administer and complicate the overall parking situation. One condition of the permit is that the permitted car must be parked within 100' of its registered address, at least in my district (I'm a block off campus). I've been lobbying -- without success so far -- for the city to impose a limit on the number of permits that can be issued to a given address; the informal sorority annex next door to us has at least six (might be more) women in residence, each with a car, making it difficult to find a space within 100' of our house when we have visitors.

[CBarrett]

Yes, yes, it is so nice to smile wistfully from the privilege of having an SFR at the unwashed masses.

It would be very nice if CLSA took up the cause of protecting the SFR's, unfortunately, 90% of the surveyors don't own one. Convincing them that this is something where CLSA should spend their time and effort will be tough.

A much worthier cause may be raising professionalism, so that surveyors can charge more money (as opposed to undercutting each other) so more can afford to live in better conditions. As leaders you are supposed to represent the interest of surveying community, not your personal interests.

[Jim Frame]

Yes, yes, it is so nice to smile wistfully from the privilege of having an SFR at the unwashed masses.

There's nothing wistful about my smile, I'm just a friendly guy. And the "unwashed masses" living next door to me all drive cars that are much fancier than mine -- Mercedes, Audi, I even saw a late-model Hummer in their driveway yesterday. Those young ladies all come from very well-heeled families, so there's no need to feel sorry about their housing options.

[Edward M Reading]

...It would be very nice if CLSA took up the cause of protecting the SFR's, unfortunately, 90% of the surveyors don't own one...

Cool stat, where'd you get it?

[CBarrett]

...It would be very nice if CLSA took up the cause of protecting the SFR's, unfortunately, 90% of the surveyors don't own one...

Cool stat, where'd you get it?

Good question. Thank you for that.
Why do you ask?

[CBarrett]

Yes, yes, it is so nice to smile wistfully from the privilege of having an SFR at the unwashed masses.

There's nothing wistful about my smile, I'm just a friendly guy. And the "unwashed masses" living next door to me all drive cars that are much fancier than mine -- Mercedes, Audi, I even saw a late-model Hummer in their driveway yesterday. Those young ladies all come from very well-heeled families, so there's no need to feel sorry about their housing options.

That's exactly my point. It takes a lot more than a median surveyor salary (published at around $60,000 for 21) to get a median house in california (published at around $800,000 for '21)

Even top earning salaried surveyors in california which I gather are around $150,000 can't buy an $800,000 dollar house without having access to additional capital.

[Edward M Reading]

...It would be very nice if CLSA took up the cause of protecting the SFR's, unfortunately, 90% of the surveyors don't own one...

Cool stat, where'd you get it?

Good question. Thank you for that.
Why do you ask?

Ah, the old answer a question with a question. Oddly, I think that does answer my question. As a surveyor, I like to know the source of data. That statistic certainly doesn't represent the conditions in my county.

[CBarrett]

Cool stat, where'd you get it?

Good question. Thank you for that.
Why do you ask?

Ah, the old answer a question with a question. Oddly, I think that does answer my question. As a surveyor, I like to know the source of data. That statistic certainly doesn't represent the conditions in my county.

Cool stat, where'd you get it?

[Edward M Reading]

Good question. Thank you for that.
Why do you ask?

Ah, the old answer a question with a question. Oddly, I think that does answer my question. As a surveyor, I like to know the source of data. That statistic certainly doesn't represent the conditions in my county.

Cool stat, where'd you get it

I didn't make up a stat, I made an observation that your "stat" did not fit my knowledge of the central coast. Almost all of the LS's that I know, own an SFR. So where did the 90% come from?

[CBarrett]

..