Early results show NIMBYs, YIMBYs both wrong on California HOME Act

Maybe mountain lion sanctuary exemptions and ultra-specific landscaping requirements weren’t necessary to keep Senate Bill 9 at bay after all, as both promises and fears of the “death of the single-family home” have failed to come to fruition.

A recent study from UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that since taking effect in January 2022, the contentious state law has not fully materialized into the prime opportunity to expand California’s housing stock that housing advocates had hoped for—and that NIMBY neighborhoods feared.

SB 9—also known as the California HOME Act—allows property owners and developers to construct up to two housing units on parcels where only one home was previously allowed. They can also opt for a “lot split” of properties that are at least 2,400 square-feet, in order to build up to four units of housing on a plot.

The Terner Center study, authored by Muhammad Alameldin and David Garcia, found “limited or nonexistent” SB 9 permitting activity across 13 different cities that appeared to be prime locations to take advantage of the law—totaling less than 300 units in some of California’s largest metro areas.

When Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law in late 2021, supporters hailed the move as a victory for reform in historically exclusionary communities. Opponents feared the law would lead to unfettered growth at the expense of a neighborhood’s “character,” or lead to added gentrification of available land.

While it’s still early, Alameldin said the sheer number of people invested in SB 9’s fate from both sides of the aisle may have led to an overestimation of its potential impacts.

“Political forces and personalities really made people forget the intent of the legislation, which was to facilitate more options for homeownership in California,” Alameldin said in an interview. “We need to remember that we have a housing crisis and need to start looking towards bigger and better solutions towards it.”

In Berkeley, only seven applications and two “pre-applications” have been submitted to construct SB 9 developments, according to public city planning records.

A two-lot split is planned in the southwest corner of Berkeley near San Pablo Avenue, and two others—including a lot spilt to build a new single-family home next to an existing residence—are tucked within the Elmwood neighborhood south of Ashby Avenue. Three of the four other projects slated for the northern Berkeley hills, a wealthier residential area that often boasts Bay views, take advantage of vacant and uphill properties.

The potential for these housing applications had extra significance in Berkeley, where the first single-family restrictions were enacted in the United States. The city’s 1916 zoning decision—implemented across roughly half of the city—was an attempt to exclude Black and Brown residents from moving into certain areas of town.

The city’s push to end its historically racist policy—led by now-former Berkeley City Councilmember Lori Droste in early 2021—arrived months before SB 9 kicked in and was even more permissive; Droste called for changes to allow subdivision of existing single family homes and construction of triplexes, fourplexes and bungalow courts.

Yet, that didn’t help Berkeley get ahead of the pack in developing denser SB 9 housing in any of its neighborhoods, despite estimates that nearly 14,000 of the city’s 17,700 single-family properties are eligible.

Except for Los Angeles’ notable 211 applications, Berkeley is not alone in having very few SB 9 projects in the pipeline.

There were 11 application received in San Jose, 25 in San Francisco, nine in Sacramento and seven in San Diego.

Alameldin and Garcia pointed to several ways state and local governments could streamline the application process to boost the number of SB 9 applications, such as cutting often-exorbitant development fees, expanding the number of parcels that are eligible and reconsidering owner-occupancy requirements that might help make SB 9 projects more appealing than other housing options.

“One of the things that is really hindering basic adoption of SB 9 is that ADUs are significantly cheaper than building a duplex—ADU laws are already figured out and there’s already an industry,” Alameldin said, adding that residents are usually hesitant to deal with the burdens of construction and local government. “If I’m a homeowner, and I know three people that built an ADU, why would I pursue an SB 9 project, even if I’m eligible?”

But SB 9 has taken off in two smaller, wealthier enclaves.

By Nov. 2022, Danville had received 20 applications for lot splits, while Saratoga in the South Bay received 36 total SB 9 applications—21 for lot splits and 15 for new units.

Planners from each city credited the success to higher land values and larger lot sizes, which can make SB 9 projects more financially appealing for developers, according to the Terner Center study.

But until the state law can be expanded, streamlined and more successfully implemented, Alameldin said these underwhelming results might just take time to improve across California.

“Implementation of this bill is something that a lot of people are keeping close eyes on, and people are really surprised by the numbers,” Alameldin said. “But ADU laws took five years to get right, and now they’re one-fifth of the housing production in cities like Los Angeles. For SB 9, it may take multiple years from something to happen. It’s not going to be one and done.”