Marin planners pivot to adapt to new state housing rules

The first proposals for development under Senate Bill 9 — the state’s latest effort to boost housing in established neighborhoods — are arriving in Marin as cities and towns move swiftly to approve ordinances aimed at satisfying the new law.

SB 9, which took effect Jan. 1, streamlines the process for property owners to split large lots and build additional homes without a long process involving public hearings and neighborhood feedback. The law enables homeowners to build duplexes or divide their property, as long as the development meets environmental standards and basic city design guidelines.

Proponents said the new laws will boost much-needed affordable housing. Critics say SB 9’s rules will ruin established communities, bringing traffic and an unsustainable demand for services.

In Marin, where resistance to growth and new development has been an issue for years, planners and city leaders are working out how to implement and interpret the new rules with existing ordinances. This as they face increasing pressure to meet new state housing allocations set by the Association of Bay Area Governments.

In Sausalito, Mayor Janelle Kellman said since December, the city has received less than a dozen inquiries from property owners.

“Most of the SB 9 inquiries have been primary related to the possibility of subdividing the single-family zoned properties,” she said.

Kellman said the city is drafting rules for guidance to implement SB 9, to be considered at a City Council meeting on Tuesday.

In San Anselmo, which opposed SB 9’s language to create more housing with less review with a letter of opposition to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office last year, Planning Director Elise Semonian said her major concern is that SB 9 will be used to replace existing single-family homes with new properties without design or environmental review.

“This would not actually add any new housing to the town,” Semonian said.

The town adopted regulations that went into effect Jan. 1, allowing lot splits and multifamily development with limited size for new residences. Semonian said already several residences have been approved.

“This is expected to encourage units that are more affordable to moderate- and low-income residents, and discourage ‘tear downs’ of existing single-family homes for new single-family units,” she said.

Semonian said the Planning Commission will consider incentives, such as allowing more than 800 square feet per residence, to encourage moderate- to low-income housing in single-family neighborhoods. She said several subdivision inquiries have come in, with one project already underway.

In Corte Madera, a town facing fire and flood concerns, Planning Director Adam Wolff and senior planner Martha Battaglia recently presented several ordinance changes to the Planning Commission. The commission is bringing back options to the Town Council for an urgency ordinance to comply with SB 9 while a new ordinance is in the works, expected by May.

The goal is “to strike a balance that limit potential impacts to neighboring properties, while not precluding the legislation from being utilized,” Wolff said.

Wolff said there has not been much public comment about SB 9, compared to pushback to the state assigned housing mandate to identify locations for 725 residences by 2023. The town has received proposals from property owners hoping to split up their properties, but not yet from developers, possibly because the legislation is difficult to understand, he said.

The confusing nature of SB 9 could mean any modifications to city building ordinances are likely “going to be a point of contention or debate with builders,” Wolff said.

“We have a challenge, as do other cities, in trying to comply with this law. We haven’t really received any official guidance from the state on how to implement this,” he said.

Wolff said the town staff is recommending adjustments, such as limiting the size of residences created under SB 9 to a maximum of 1,000 square feet.

The town’s staff also does not recommend that residences created under the bill be subject to affordability requirements, such as requiring homes to be deed-restricted for very low-, low- or moderate-income households.

”Anytime you deed restrict … or you basically reduce what can be charged for renting a unit or selling a unit, you’re making it more financially challenging to recoup the cost of development, because that money has to come out of somewhere,” Wolff said.

“We think any restriction on what these units can be rented for is going to impact the ability to build any units under SB 9,” he said.

Organizations advocating for more housing say cities need to consider how to incentivize housing at all price levels, even if SB 9 does not require it.

Cynthia Castillo, a policy advocate for the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said every city and county has a legal obligation to “break down patterns of segregation and exclusion and ensure that there are housing opportunities at all income levels.’

“In highly exclusionary places like Marin County — especially given the strong desire to preserve natural and working landscapes rather than ceding more open spaces to housing — this should be a no-brainer,” Castillo said.

“If these communities are this opposed to adding even additional market-rate single-family homes in existing neighborhoods, imagine how difficult it is to create true affordable housing opportunities in these places,” she said. “Without intentional efforts to create more affordable housing opportunities, we end up exacerbating the housing crisis for low-income Californians — predominantly people of color — and fueling further segregation.”

Valerie Feldman, staff attorney at the Public Interest Law Project, said because SB 9’s purpose has no requirement for affordability or equity, cities would have to take the initiative to decide if they will try to open up locally feasible opportunities for affordable housing.

Feldman said there could be less expensive housing resulting from the law, “but that is an unknown, since the law is so new.” She said cities still have freedom in implementing SB 9 rules while not necessarily having to overhaul a local ordinance and rules for their community’s development.

”SB 9 imposes some limit on the local control. But in terms of affordability and density … certainly local control still exists,” Feldman said.

Matt Regan, senior vice president of public policy at the Bay Area Council, said change is likely to come slowly, as homeowners, city planners and developers figure out how to make projects work.

“It’ll take a little while to percolate,” he said.

The Bay Area News Group contributed to this report.