SB 1120 contains both "duplex" provisions and "urban lot split" provisions. Its duplex provisions require cities to grant "ministerial" (checklist type) approval to proposed housing development projects with two residential units on parcels zoned for single-family residences. Its "urban lot split" provisions require ministerial approval to subdivide an existing parcel to create two new parcels of equal size no smaller than 1,200 square feet (unless a local ordinance allows a smaller minimum.) Garages and yards are not required.

The Assembly Committee's legislative analysis acknowledges: "Under this bill, a property owner could independently seek ministerial approval for an urban lot split, a duplex, or the owner could seek approval for both an urban lot split and a duplex."

In other words, under SB 1120 an owner or developer could take a single family zoned parcel with one home on it, subdivide it into two equal size lots and then build two homes on each lot (four residences on what had been a single family home lot.).

[Scroll down for further.]

SB 1120 would let cities require one off-street parking space per unit but woould prevent any parking requirements if the parcel is within half a mile walking distance of public transit or a car share vehicle is within a half block from the parcel.

Qualifying parcels must be within census designed urbanized areas, not within historical districts and not require demolishing housing for moderate, low or very income tenants or subject to rent or price controls.

Sponsor

Sponsor

On June 24, the state Senate approved SB 1120 on a 39-1 vote. SE LB area state Senator Tom Umberg and SB 1120 co-author Senator Gonzalez both voted "yes." Their votes advanced the bill to the Assembly. where it faces an Aug. 11 hearing in the Assembly's Local Government Committee. The Committee, comprised of a majority of Democrats, has no members from Long Beach.

The Assembly Local Government Committee's legislative analysis of SB 1120 states in pertinent part:

This bill exempts any ordinance a local agency adopts to administer the ministerial approval of these projects from CEQA. Additionally, under the bill, duplexes and urban lot splits that meet specified conditions must be approved ministerially by the relevant local agency. Ministerial approvals remove a project from all discretionary decisions of a local government, including an environmental review under CEQA. Thus, establishing processes to approve certain types of projects ministerially also creates exemptions from CEQA. A CEQA exemption provides a tremendous benefit to property owners, developers, local governments and other parties involved in the approval of a project as it allows for the project to be completed in an expedited fashion...

Sponsor

Sponsor /center>

In 2017, Sacramento lawmakers passed three bills (SB 13, AB 68 and AB 881) that require CA cities to permit "triplex" single family lot density by allowing an ADU (on Sacramento specified terms) plus a second "junior" (smaller) ADU in nearly all areas zoned for single family homes. LB-area state Senators Umberg and Gonzalez both voted "yes" on the bills; Asssemblyman Patrick O'Donnell (D, LB) voted "no" on SB 13 and AB 68 with "no vote recorded" on AB 881. The three bills varied in some respects but were basically consistent in overriding aspects of local ADU ordinances, LB's ADU ordinance hammered out in several Council discussions and debates.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Regarding SB 1120, arguments in support cited by the Assembly Committee's legislative analysis include the following:

The Terner Center for Housing Innovation writes in support, "The majority of Californians cannot afford a median priced home, and single family-only zoning also prevents the creation of affordable housing in oftentimes high opportunity communities. It should also be noted that our structure of single family zoning has historically been used to reinforce segregation by effectively keeping People of Color out of affluent, White neighborhoods.

SB 1120 takes a measured approach to addressing this issue by building off of the success of recent Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) reforms, which have resulted in tens of thousands of new units in recent years. ADUs are limited in impact given the few financing options available to construct them, largely limiting ADU construction to affluent homeowners who can access cash savings or home equity. SB 1120 intends to significantly increase similarly smaller-scale development by allowing parcels to be split for the purpose of creating two independent structures, thereby opening up new forms of financing opportunities.

Sponsor

Arguments in opposition include this from "Citizens Preserving Venice":

We have serious concerns about the elimination of single-family zoning that this bill will cause statewide. The bill would allow four market-rate homes to replace one single-family home. Those four units could become eight units in areas that allow "accessory dwelling units" (ADUs). There is no affordable housing requirement despite this egregious increase in density. Clearly the people of California who are facing dire economic times are in need of affordable housing. But without requirements to include affordable housing, this bill would be a gift to speculators and developers up and down the state who will build high-end units to maximize their profits.

Livable California, a non-profit advocacy group, has been outspoken in opposing SB 1120. In the text of a suggested opposition letter, it writes:

...This experimental bill eliminates single-family zoning statewide, letting buyers split any lot of 2,400 sq ft or more to build four market-rate homes without yards. In cities with their own "granny flat" laws, eight market-rate units could be built.

A major draw for speculators, SB 1120 will force home buyers to compete with giants like Irvine Company and Blackstone, severely eroding homeownership and family wealth across California at the worst possible time.

Pushed by Bay Area legislators who represent few Black or Latino homeowner areas, SB 1120 will devastate SoCal’s older, diverse, well-located suburbs such as Paramount, South Gate, and Altadena, and much of South L.A., at a time when protecting sensitive areas should be the overriding concern.

In the SB 1120 Gold Rush, thousands of older homes will be destroyed and replaced by market-rate houses more expensive than the ones lost, fueling a state-created contribution to California’s affordability crisis.

Scores of vibrant communities such as East Los Angeles and Boyle Heights, known for their decades of battles against gentrification and displacement, will be in the crosshairs because they have transit stops -- an investor "amenity."

SB 1120 bans public hearings for these projects, silencing cities, communities and homeowners, whether wealthy and gated, or low-income and diverse.

Requiring no garage and just one parking space per house, SB 1120 will add severe mobility problems to crowded, urbanized Black, Latino and Asian communities.

SB 1120 bans cities from requiring parking at housing projects within ˝ mile of transit — a failed concept that did not spur ridership but instead added to plummeting transit use in the years before the pandemic.

Misleadingly described by advocates as preserving 25% of a home’s outer walls, homeowner-occupied houses will be fully demolished. Vast swaths of trees, greenery and yards will be built over, significantly worsening state GHG emissions. Demolitions of sound housing will add to the SB 1120 GHG load.

This housing bill and others are being rushed through limited committee hearings during an international pandemic and social unrest, severely limiting debate as the public and media focus on keeping their jobs and surviving COVID-19. It is wrong to advance such profoundly controversial legislation at this time. The bills starkly reduce the legislature’s commitment to affordable housing -- or offer none at all...

Sponsor

Sponsor

Support
Abundant Housing LA
All Home
American Planning Association
California Chapter Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California Chapter
Bay Area Council
Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition
Bridge Housing Corporation
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Chamber of Commerce
California YIMBY
Council of Infill Builders
Facebook
Granville Homes
Habitat for Humanity California
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Schneider Electric
South California Rental Housing Association
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
Sv@home Action Fund
Terner Center for Housing Innovation At UC Berkeley
The Casita Coalition
The Greenlining Institute
The Two Hundred
TMG Partners Up for Growth Zillow Group

Support If Amended
California State Association of Counties
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities
Rural County Representatives of California
Urban Counties of California
Valley Industry & Commerce Association

Oppose
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Brentwood Beautiful
Brynhurst Avenue Bock Club
By the Beach Tamarack Group
Citizens Preserving Venice
Citizens Protecting San Pedro
Cities of Agoura Hills, Beverly Hills, Campbell, Cerritos, Cupertino, El Segundo,
Hidden Hills, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Santa Clarita, and Saratoga
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Communities United CD7
Comstock Hills Homeowners Association
Families of Park Mesa Heights
Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations
Franklin Corridor Coalition
Friends of Sunset Park
Grayburn Avenue Block Club
Graylawn Neighbors for Quality of Life
Hyde Park Organizational Partnership for Empowerment
Leimert Park - Edgehill Drive Residents Association
Liberty Community Land Trust
Livable Riverside & Moreno Valley
Mission Street Neighbors
New Livable California Dba Livable California
North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance
Northeast San Fernando Valley Activists Protecting Our Foothill Community
Riviera Homeowners Association
Shadow Hills Property Owners Association
Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association
Southeast Torrance Homeowners' Association, INC. (SETHA)
Sunnyvale Neighbors
Sunset-Parkside Education and Action Committee (SPEAK)
Sustainable Tamalmonte Tamalpais Design Review Board
Tarzana Property Owners Association
United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (UN4LA)
Victoria/54th Ave Block Club
View Heights Block Club
WCH Association
West Wood Highlands Neighborhood Association
Westwood Hills Property Owners Association
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization
Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization (WHHO)
Individual Letters (33)

Oppose Unless Amended
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
Bay Area Transportation Working Group
Las Virgenes-Malibu Council of Governments
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund

SB 1120 was introduced on.Feb. 19, 2020 with state Senator Gonzalez among its co-authors. The City of LB took no position on the bill as it advanced. The City Council's "state legislation committee" never discussed SB 1120. (It didn't meet on any then-advancing state bills from Dec. 17, 2019 under then-chair Austin with Richardson until June 24, 2020 under new chair Richardson, with Uranga and Austin.) On June 24, the Committee agenda under chair Richardson consisted of "receive and file a report on the California Legislative Black Caucus’s 2020 Bill Package," "receive and file report on 2020 State proposals for police reform" and "review the City’s 2020 Adopted State Legislative Agenda and provide direction for staff to return to the Committee with potential amendments to the 'Public Safety' section."

As SB 1120 advanced, any Councilmember could have agendized a City Council item to take a position on the bill. None did.

If SB 1120 clears the Assembly Local Government Committee on Aug. 11, it must still win approval in the full Assembly floor, then return to the state Senate for a concurrence vote in any Assembly amendments..

Disclosure: Livable California purchased an advocacy ad on LBREPORT.com (July 29-Aug. 11) opposing "9 bad housing bills," among which was SB 1120. The above article's content is independently produced by LBREPORT.com which is solely responsible for its content.

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.