CityofSantaBarbaraSource: City of Santa Barbara
Senate Bill 9 was signed by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2021 and becomes effective January 1, 2022. This bill would require a proposed housing development containing no more than two residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements. Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) also requires a local agency to ministerially approve an urban lot split in a single-family residential zone if it meets certain requirements, including a minimum lot size of 1,200 square feet. In both cases, the City may apply objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards.
The City is proposing amendments to the Municipal Code to implement SB 9. Please check this page often for updates on upcoming public hearings and links to documents for public review and comment.
Planning Commission Hearing – October 28, 2021
The Planning Commission will hold a special meeting on October 28, 2021 to consider proposed amendments to Title 28 (Coastal Zoning Ordinance) and Title 30 (Inland Zoning Ordinance) to implement SB 9 and adopt additional local objective zoning and design standards. After receiving public comment and discussing the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments, the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to the City Council.
The meeting agenda, with instructions on how to join the meeting electronically, and the staff report will be posted on the Planning Commission web page on Thursday, October 21, 2021.
For More Information, contact Brenda Beltz at SB9@SantaBarbaraCA.gov.
We had options, but our state reps decided to vote “present” instead of “no” (got to follow what the bosses at the DNC want) and our County/City reps decided not join other jurisdictions in fighting it. Thank you DNC political machine! Always doing what’s best for their constituents, wait, I mean their corporate and big money donors.
How is this an example of developers coopting the system? I’m not sure how you define a “developer” but only property owners can take advantage of the provisions afforded by sb9, and they can only do so after signing an affidavit committing to live in one of the resulting housing units for 3 years. This effectively precludes big corporations and developers from using sb9. In addition, an individual or group acting in concert cannot use sb9 to split two adjacent lots. Also, sb9 cannot be used to split a lot that was created using sb9 so existing lots can only be split once under this law. And finally, sb9 requires the two lots created in a split be close to the same size, not exceeding a 60/40 split. This would make it difficult to split most lots without demolishing the existing home, especially since sb9 prohibits the elimination of rental housing units. Due to these limitations, I expect sb9 will see relatively limited use by a select group of property owner/occupants, not big developers or corporations. However sb9 will empower an owner occupant to turn a single family residence into two duplexes on two lots with the potential to add ADUs if they can meet the requirements.
It wasn’t developers, but many other well funded special interest groups and unions that would benefit from additional construction, additional housing units (with no concern if they’re affordable or not), and the big one: additional real estate tax revenue.
They voted with their communities, which means they did not add an ‘aye’ vote to the 41 needed to pass in the Assembly, or the 21 needed in the Senate. They were on a huge townhall in the summer, with us local constutuents, where these bills were discussed, and they heard us loud and clear. Our county did not fight. Our city did, thanks to the leadership of Kristen Sneddon and Alejandra Gutierrez. Cities across the state fought this, but the intention of the state was precisely to override them and end single family zoning as racist. No one county was going to prevail – do you think legislators representing rural northern California and the Bay Area give a darn what SB County thinks? You might want to spend more time learning how the legislative process works in our state.
This is Newsome’s way of destroying American Suburbia…sad the way our community and quality of life are being destroyed by this guy
Yeah, its way too popular. No one moves here anymore…
How could there be any Brown Act violations? Acting Administrator Bjork has already proven herself to be such a stickler for those details. Is the city attorney just phoning it in these days?
Its always been this way. Sort of…
Who to blame? The leaders of SB who sold out our city to the Tourism industry. An industry that pays min wage and keeps a steady stream of low skilled, low wage, often undocumented workers in town and on the 101 to fill their kitchens, clean their rooms etc.
There are solutions but they’re not allowed to be discussed on EdHat. This place does not allow any discussion about illegal immigration and its impact on the people of Santa Barbara. No matter how based in facts and reality. One thing to know is that low wages and low skilled jobs hurt us all. They only benefit the owners and the city’s tax addiction. Low wage food and hospitality jobs are a subsidy to the owners while the real cost is passed onto the middle class in the form of reduction in quality of life, higher taxes, reduced services and a crowded city…
Just because some of the ADU’s under construction don’t have signs our front doesn’t mean they are being built illegally. The ADU rules have morphed and changed over time, so depending on when a particular ADU was applied for, it may or may not require signage. I’m an architect (and you may think part of the problem), who applied for an ADU on the Mesa last year, and I inquired about the sign and the Planning Department said that it wasn’t needed for my project based upon the date I applied and the rules in effect on that date.
Here is a real life example of what can happen. You buy a nice modest house on a quiet street in the Goleta Valley. You live there for 15 years. The neighbor builds an illegal second story addition which looms over your yard. You no longer have any privacy in your own back yard. After complaints The county approves it “as built”. The neighbor turns it into 4 separate units. 5 -7 people live in each unit. Now this single family neighborhood has one house with 20 adults, 8 kids and 15 cars. Then another neighbor has done the same but only 12 people and 8 cars live there. There are 23 cars parked on the street every night. It looks like a junkyard. These two massive houses have impacted the quality of life for those who have the misfortune of living next door or on the same street.. SB9 has the potential to do this to every single family neighborhood. There are ways the city and county can protect neighborhoods and bypass provisions of this bill. But do they have the will and the guts to do it? I doubt it. Developers buy single family homes all the time and gut them then turn around and sell. A developer / owner can easily do this. Use it as their residence for three years while under construction and then flip it. Thanks Newsom. Regretting my vote.
Low income jobs? Student loans changed the dynamics of the local hospitality industry – used to be college students loved getting these flexible schedule jobs in restaurants or housekeeping, plus often getting free meals too. And we are a college town so the low-skill labor supply was ready and willing for these temporary jobs. Working in the hospitality and dealing with the public allowed young people to gain valuable service skills that paid off later, put them well ahead of their peers who did not have to work. Poise under pressure, work ethic, instilling pride in workmanship no matter how menial the task, and learning to deflect difficult people, while still keeping their tips. Can’t pay to pick up those hospitality industry skills earned on the job. But no student even realistically thinks about “working their way through college”, so leaving with huge student loans and no transferable job skills is the preferred option today. Yes, the cost of education (mainly increasing instructor costs) did stay pace with the size and numbers of student loans – the law of putting “free” money on the table. Part time student hospitality work isn’t the win-win that it was a few decades ago. Nor particularly is the value of education now received, even though today it costs thousands of dollars more.
So which mayoral candidate opposed this? I think Murillo was on board and apparently Schwartz.
Tear your home down, put in a four story bonus density multi-family unit built out to the lot lines and enjoy your profits… by living somewhere else. That was the intent of this legislation. Spare yourself the grief. Plenty of nice places to live – which is always a surprise when one moves. Yes, you should regret your Newsom vote, and your Limon and Bennett votes. They did not exactly hide their intentions, ever.
Senate Bill 9 is terrible and this one-size-fits-all approach is an insult to the many citizens who have worked hard to become home owners in our State. We should all sue the State because while the greedy Counties are rubbing their hands together to collect ever more property tax, our single family home values will go down, while taxes and utilities will go up and up.
While the State continues to put pressure on Cities to build more housing, they are not doing their part to provide more water for this forced growth. I just don’t understand where all this extra water will come from, are we that blind to this decreasing resource as we sadly go down the path of more droughts and global warming? Wake up everyone, where is the water??? Sure ain’t coming from the Colorado, or out of thin air. Someone PLEASE start the petition to revoke this bill and tell the State to stuff it up their dry you-know-what… and sign me up asap!
You had a chance to get rid of the Nuisance.
He is not for the people!
CA voted for this, elections have consequences. Next election they’ll distract you with another boogie man that’s going destroy the world if you don’t vote their way, and you’ll forget all about SB9 and vote for the same group of cronies, and again and again.
“Randy is opposed. So I voted for him.”
It already passed and was signed into law, so voting for him for that reason is nonsense. Both Murillo and Rowse opposed it beforehand. Schwartz seems to have favored it, and James Joyce offered up his usual handwaving nonsense: ‘Candidate James Joyce III was out of town and couldn’t participate in the forum. But he said in a statement, which the moderator read, that his goals include creating solutions for housing and the economy, as well as building a better future for the city’s youth and a more diverse and inclusive community. “We need a leader who can hit the ground running on day one and find progressive solutions.”’
The city needs to still honor its former jobs/housing limits created decades ago that foresaw this problem and limited new commercial space so new businesses would not outstrip available housing. Here is the real issue – most job growth is in Goleta and UCSB area, well outside the limits of Santa Barbara proper – so there is no need for the city of Santa Barbara to provide any more “workforce” housing since local commercial development here is already very limited. No major job creators within the city limits, like one finds in the massive business headquarters now surrounding UCSB. As far as. the eye can see there is plenty of workforce housing out there, and more is still being built in Goleta and points west. Leave the city of Santa Barbara alone. We are not creating the need for “more workforce housing”. That is myth, and should never be driving our housing agenda. Sorry, you can’t work in Goleta and then demand the city Santa Barbara subsidize your personal housing demands. You have more “workforce housing” Your address is Goleta, California.
If Murillo doesn’t support it in part because it doesn’t have “affordability” included, you’re right, Marcel – that does make her effectively opposed to it entirely. If SB9 had an affordability component, we could guarantee it would lead to almost zero projects being built. Which would make it dead in the water regardless of it being law. And for the record Marcel, we know it passed. We’re not all stupid here, though it’s clear you think everyone but you is an idiot. There are pathways to overturn laws we don’t like, so some of us will vote for a mayor who can possibly inspire, educate, and foster a groundswell of opposition against this. We get that Randy or Cathy can’t walk up to Gavin’s house and cry and tell him to please stop it. We know how things work. While a mayor has no explicit ability to cripple this law given the way it supersedes local authority, a good mayor can rally support locally for issues coming to the ballot like a repeal on SB9 in 2022. And a good mayor can also lead a vocal fight in the media and beyond and network with other mayors or city/county leaders who also oppose it, effectively building a coalition.
SBO not really. I agree illegal immigration is a problem but I don’t think it’s a big part of this current problem. REnts are out of control. I’ve heard that in part it is also b/c of unscrupulous behavior ie realtors, etc. scooping up the rentals then turning around and charging higher rents [to take advantage of the situation right now]. NOt sure if that is true but people are prepaying rent for a year in advance and offering more money than asking. I’ve NEVER seen that before here and I’ve always been a renter. What is going on? I doubt illegals are prepaying a year’s rent at $3K/month if not more. WHo are these people and how is there a labor shortage at the same time? And who wants to pay these exorbitant prices only to live in crowded noisy ridiculous conditions? Maybe people who like NYC / LA and want to bring that atmosphere here? Not sure. But it’s becoming unlivable for the average middle class person who just wants a decent living environment that is peaceful and affordable. Not to mention all the illegal activity landlords are engaging in now because they know they’ve got their renters over a barrel.
You pretty much describe the future of this area and in probably a pretty short time [few years]. Frankly if I owned a house here I’d be selling NOW before this reality sets in because the housing prices will plummet. Even if you sell and buy something in a better place and pay some capital gains, better than losing all that equity in a few years. People still have beer goggles about SB – oh it’s so beautiful, the weather, the scenery, we are so lucky to live here. It’s like a drug but they are going to snap out of their stupor in a short time here as it’s getting worse and even the homeless issues are starting to creepy into neighborhoods that didn’t have these problems before.
How can rents be ‘out of control” when people are still paying them – market forces control rents. So be more specific – rents might be beyond your own personal skill set to afford, but they are clearly not out of control of normal market forces. You in fact really mean you want price-fixed rents set to your own personal needs. Justify your case why you alone should set rental prices to your own needs and not the local market forces, and maybe you can get someone to listen to you. “Affordable” rents and housing prices are exactly that -what others are willing to pay for rent and housing, and nothing else. If you in fact mean you want an arbitrary price that meets your own demands, then say it. “Out of control’ prices for rent or housing is a meaningless and unproductive complaint. Make you case, why should others subsidize your own personal needs?
Byz, your thinking always shocks me:
People who own houses have locked in rent control, in effect.
The only industry here is tourism and government.
Rentals are taken off market by VRBO and the remainder have gone from $1500 / mo for a one bedroom a mere 3-4 years ago to $2200+.
Wages have not increased.
Home prices have sky-rocketed.
Investors are displacing people from apartments and raising rents.
And your answer is:
This is not our problem. We have no obligation here to think about housing the people working here since they might work in Goleta. They can’t afford the sky-rocketing rent? Move out of town, or into your car. The persistent and exploding homeless issue? Inept city leaders! Run the homeless out of here! (the same ones we just forced to their cars…?) I’m glad you’re not in charge, Byz. Honestly.
12:26, I see you have moved on to housing demands by extortion now – if you don’t give me what I demand I will join those living in cars or by the RR track. Again, call this what it is –extortion just to get what you can’t afford. Move to where you skill set does provide a. secure roof over your head. Your future will be a lot more secure. This is the best advice I can give you because your motivation is purely selfish right now and your tactics to get what you want have failed. Move on to where you can make your life more secure.