Comments
PLANNING WATCH - All that glitters is not gold. In recent weeks I have focused my columns on SB 79, the “Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act.” At the same time, we also need to pay attention to SB 1116, the Starter Home Revitalization Act. Hiding behind calls for greater density and affordability, this draft legislation would damage existing neighborhoods of remaining single-family houses. The devil is in the bill’s details because this proposed California state legislation allows 10 residential units on small “single-family” lots.
California Senate Bill 1116 is a major housing bill that streamlines and "loophole-proofs" the construction of smaller, lower-cost "starter" homes. To do this, it prevents local governments from delaying qualifying townhome and condo projects. Under this legislation, they would become strictly “by right” rather than discretionary.
The bill directly targets common practices used by local jurisdictions to block or downsize starter-home projects. SB 1116’s provisions include:
- Mandated Approvals: SB 1116 mandates ministerial (by-right) approvals without discretionary review or hearings. It bypasses the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and also limits local government denials to public health and safety criteria.
- State Oversight: SB 1116 requires local government to adopt implementing ordinances under this starter-home framework, submitting them to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for compliance review.
- Banning Restrictive Covenants: SB 1116 makes deed restrictions and certain covenants that physically prohibit these specific housing developments, except in common interest developments (CID).
By standardizing these requirements, if adopted, the legislation encourages the development of for-sale housing built by developers. To promote smaller homes, the bill overrides local design and development standards and also ignores neighborhood conditions.
While I understand the need for starter homes, I object to the provisions of SB 1116 for several reasons. Foremost, it ignore the situation of the homeless and overcrowded who cannot afford to buy or rent a new or existing home, regardless of its price or location.
Second, California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) already requires local jurisdictions to identify sufficient zoning capacity to meet their obligations. Local governments need the authority and flexibility to manage legitimate community concerns while complying with state housing laws.
Third, the State Legislature already took far-reaching steps to facilitate starter-home production. For example, SB 684 streamlined small-lot development in multifamily zones. SB 1123 then expanded those opportunities into single-family neighborhoods.
Fourth, SB 1116 reduces minimum lot size from 1,200 square feet to 960 square feet, then shrinks required setbacks without any local legislative actions. Proponents of SB 1116 do not present any justifications for imposing even more stringent regulations and a ministerial process that eliminates meaningful public review.
Fifth, most low-density neighborhoods have infrastructure proportional to their size and population. Increasing density alone strains sewer systems, water pressure, electrical grids, road networks, and parking. Local jurisdictions need the authority to address these impacts before they approve greater residential density.
In theory, good urban planning can accommodate the starter homes California needs while addressing the legitimate safety and infrastructure needs of existing communities. The California State Legislature must amend Senate Bill 1116 to allow local discretionary review of infrastructure capacity, public safety, and neighborhood compatibility. Until this happens Senate Bill 1116 imposes on local California communities regulations that eliminate local review for the benefit of developers.
(Dick Platkin is a retired Los Angeles city planner who writes about planning issues in LA. He is a board member of United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (UN4LA). Previous columns are available the CityWatchLA archives. Please send questions to [email protected].)
Many thanks to Shelley Wagers, who sent out an earlier version of this column.
