Your SLO County neighborhood is in the state’s crosshairs

June 6, 2021
T. Keith Gurnee

T. Keith Gurnee


Your neighborhood has a target on its back and your state Legislature is taking direct aim at fundamentally changing it right now. Yet too few San Luis Obispo County residents are even aware of what is about to happen to them.

What would it mean to you if a real estate speculator bought the house next door you and replaced it with four to eight units on two new parcels without notice, with inadequate parking, and with no parking whatsoever if the property is within ½ mile walking distance of a transit stop. What would it mean to your privacy if all the backyard and front yard trees are removed and replaced with people overlooking your home just 4 feet away from your property.

Would you be surprised to hear your city council member tell you “There’s nothing we can do about it?” Well, that council member would be telling you the truth if SB 9 becomes law.

SB 9 (Atkins) is a direct state-sponsored attack on California’s single-family neighborhoods and the self-determination of its local governments. On May 26, 2021, the State Senate passed SB 9 and forwarded it to the State Assembly for its consideration.

It will now be heard by the Assembly Local Government Committee on Wednesday, June 9. Meanwhile, a growing number of individuals, organizations, and neighborhood and homeowner groups are working together to defeat it. It is in that house that SB 9 must be defeated if your neighborhood is to remain livable.

SB 9 is the worst of at least seven bad housing bills that include SB 10, SB 478, SB 8, AB 1401, and AB 1322 that are threatening California’s neighborhoods.

Concocted and pushed by special interest legislators, SB 9 is simply the wrong solution to the wrong problem. California doesn’t have a market rate housing crisis. It has a dire housing affordability crisis. Yet SB 9 does nothing about this real crisis while maximizing and promoting high-end market rate housing.

What SB 9 will do

SB 9 would allow “urban lot splits” to divide existing residential lots in single-family zones into two parcels and develop them with at least two units each resulting in up to four units where one home once existed. Moreover, since SB 9 would not prohibit local governments from issuing permits for ADU’s and JADU’s on urban lot splits, it would make for a total of four more units for a sum total of eight units where one home once existed on one lot.

SB 9 is a state mandated dictate that will affect every single-family neighborhood (except in historic districts) throughout California, including every one of its 482 cities and 58 counties. By  increasing the development potential of every single-family parcel in California, SB 9 will further jack up the value of every home at a time when housing prices are soaring out of control.

This will only push the American dream of home ownership further and further away from younger Californians who won’t be able to compete with well-financed real estate speculators in buying a home.

SB 9 pays lip service to the housing affordability crisis, noting “that ensuring access to affordable housing (emphasis added) is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair”, a provision that will apply to all cities including charter cities. This is the disingenuous excuse the state Legislature uses to evade its responsibility to reimburse local governments for state-mandated programs. But what’s really galling about this provision is that SB 9 will do nothing to produce or fund affordable housing.

SB 9 is a really bad idea. It’s a solution in search of the wrong problem. The real problem of housing affordability will only be made far worse by SB 9.

It’s time for Californians to rise up against this legislative overreach and defeat this and other terrible pieces of misguided housing legislation. Contact your State assembly member now and make your objections heard before the State Assembly votes on this bill. The livability of your neighborhood depends upon it.

T. Keith Gurnee is a member of the Board of Directors of Livable California, a statewide nonprofit organization representing thousands of Californians fighting to protect their neighborhoods and for the self-determination of local governments. He is also a professional planner and urban designer, a former San Luis Obispo council member, and past president of the California Planning Roundtable.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I can’t wait to build more homes in your neighborhood, Keith. It’s going to be so livable for so many more people. They’ll all be paying market rate property taxes, the city will be much better off. If you don’t want people near you, move to the countryside, not a city of 50,000.

Doesn’t every town in the USA already have at least one real estate shark? Usually dresses like the bad guy from Road House, buys up every slum in town. Then rents them out to pedarists and weirdos. Walking around letting the townspeople how important they are. We have two of them in my town. It’ll come as no surprise to learn they are both low level politicians.

This ripoff just proves our legislators care more about making their real-estate-based contributors richer than about housing us affordably. In SLO, the presence of a second unit (ADU or JADU) increases the selling price of a house by a good $200K. That prices most of us out of the mortgage market. If a house can have an ADU and a JADU, do the math on resulting housing price inflation. An $800K house is suddenly a $1.25 mil house. Who’s that good for? Oh, and the ADU will probably end up being an Airbnb and not housing. Just the “potential” for every house to be subdivided and multiplied by eight units will raise selling costs. That’s called pricing for “development potential.” These “housing” bills are really dumb.

Where will the water come from?

You, a very reasonable person who should be taken seriously, outside French hospital, asking every new parent with their newborn child, “But, where will the water come from?”

This can only be done with a public sewer system and the public will pay for this benefit of greater density. This is the feng shui practice known as fu.

Easy to solve, just have a city official or other important person live near you, this type of housing will never happen near them, such as the village in AG.

Keith, you wrote above that, under SB9, a property owner may split his/her lot and build multi-family housing on it but I am not seeing that in what I have read so far. Can you clarify this?

Parking is already a problem as where cities issue tickets for parking on lawns .. Even just the addition of 1 secondary home per lot causes problems in multiple directions .Schools will be overcrowded ,residential streets with traffic congestion , water ,sewer ,electric and natural gas (except SLO and Sacramento ) systems are only designed for their current load and use .A secondary home by itself overloads the current utilities the property currently has. Then comes the devastation of residential property values , increased crime needing additional police officers needed .Neighborhoods filled with tenants that were once just owner occupied homes are always in turmoil .Short term rentals already in use have created multiple problems for long term owner occupied properties ..In my view point nothing of any good comes from increasing populations in established neighborhoods.

“This will only push the American dream of home ownership further and further away from younger Californians who won’t be able to compete with well-financed real estate speculators in buying a home.”

The “speculators”, aka home builders, will sell 4 dwellings instead of 1. Your argument does not make sense.