[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6221027,"mediaKeyId","3615168-e66250d8a8f1607dfe63b7a1e1667a38","parentId",3615168,"title","State laws reshape local approvals: density bonuses, ministerial pathways, SB 9 and ADU changes explained to Seal Beach council","audioSeconds",1715,"startMs",107000,"endMs",1822000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3615168-e66250d8a8f1607dfe63b7a1e1667a38&start=107&end=1822","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3615168-e66250d8a8f1607dfe63b7a1e1667a38/thumbnail_107000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6221027/Seal-Beach/Orange-County/California/State-laws-reshape-local-approvals-density-bonuses-ministerial-pathways-SB-9-and-ADU-changes-explained-to-Seal-Beach-council","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221027-88fc435f4d2e9eaa2340aa3347c523a8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445317&Signature=d4fKHlGR9aeeyWf8-jC65egh1jFydMg7p-9rYHExfqI6yOP-QGfJCbVQoms56RDak8cqF0IZnH-WJNRzBUVRJ2HwJcpHhEYyA6lUgv6Nh99IdBpLBGALNey8hSiZysmlDisDR3BrOM0bbpSQeYCzW7ehKujBRrlxSrTRV5jUb6lV2n-i3tm~sM6peCGjqpzTCZMGhqRZczqK4VoYusg~dEa3kuehKUVbb~cx~wudzMJqFPpTwDir-Ckya35p~8-96Xwoai02l5mTm7Xgs6yHFJRspjnnkEDW88LzgeloVAkfVSGsS5Oy42yrAt7nPjMWfJI4isaFLKP4v-yQA8WOiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Seal Beach Council, California","date","2025-05-31T00:50:07.5Z","article","City consultants outlined a suite of state housing laws and amendments on Oct. 11, 2025, explaining how those laws can streamline approvals and limit local discretion for qualifying housing projects.

Diana Verrett, a housing attorney with Richards Watson Gershon, told the council the state has adopted several laws in recent years designed to increase housing capacity and reduce local discretionary review for qualifying projects. \"SB 9 is the duplexes bill,\" Verrett said, \"and AB 2011 is the housing and commercial zones bill,\" and both, along with density bonus and ADU changes, alter how and where housing can be approved.

Density bonus law: Verrett summarized recent enhancements, including the \"stackable\" density bonus adopted in 2023. Under current state rules explained in the presentation, a project that reserves 5% of units for very‑low‑income households can qualify for a 20% density bonus; reserving 15% very low can yield a 50% density bonus under tier 1, with additional bonuses possible under stackable provisions. She cautioned that density bonuses and related parking reductions are largely ministerial: \"The density bonus part and the parking reductions part are ministerial. There's no discretion there from the local agency at all,\" she said.

Ministerial pathways (AB 2011 and SB 6): Verrett described AB 2011 (Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022) as a state process that can allow ministerial (non‑discretionary) approval of certain affordable or mixed‑income projects on sites where office, retail or parking uses are allowed. Those projects must meet detailed objective standards and prevailing‑wage requirements. SB 6 (Middle Class Housing Act of 2022) likewise can make housing allowable where office, retail or parking are principally permitted; it includes a mandatory minimum density but does not itself create a standalone ministerial approval process.

SB 9 and missing‑middle housing: The consultant outlined SB 9 provisions that require ministerial approval for duplexes on single‑family lots and allow an urban lot split creating two parcels. Objective standards must be applied uniformly to SB 9 projects and the law prevents local standards that would effectively reduce the permitted development compared with the underlying zone. Verrett noted recent clarifying legislation (Senate Bill 450) and state guidance addressing applicability to charter cities.

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs): Verrett summarized last‑year changes expanding ADU allowances in multifamily contexts. She said that in single‑family contexts detached ADUs generally cannot exceed 800 square feet and that state law largely preempts local regulation for qualifying ADUs. She reiterated that, except in limited cases (nonprofit-built units or where the city opts into condo mapping), ADUs may not be sold separately from the primary residence.

Small‑lot subdivisions: State law allows ministerial small‑lot subdivisions of up to 10 units on qualifying lots; recent amendments extend limited opportunities in single‑family zones for vacant lots up to 1.5 acres, with some changes effective July 1. Verrett said market demand, not just statutory permissibility, often determines whether these products are proposed.

Utilities, parking and CEQA: Council members asked how utilities and traffic are handled for denser projects. Verrett said projects must demonstrate adequate sewer and water capacity and that developers often must upsize infrastructure at their cost. For ministerial state pathways like AB 2011, applicants that meet statutory objective standards can avoid CEQA review by statute; that makes certain categories of environmental mitigation (including traffic analyses and CEQA‑based mitigation) unavailable in those ministerial tracks, though objective impact fees or written objective standards could still apply in some jurisdictions.

Coastal Commission and coastal areas: Verrett addressed coastal jurisdiction questions, saying the interaction with the Coastal Commission remains complex. She said some state provisions explicitly require harmonization with the Coastal Act and that AB 2011 presently restricts use in certain Coastal Commission appeal areas, but acknowledged more guidance is expected and litigation has not resolved many issues.

Ending: The presenter urged caution and continued monitoring of new bills and guidance. Council members were urged to be patient with staff given the rapid timelines that ministerial process statutes impose on local review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special Meeting - Housing Laws Study Session - May 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Outside counsel summarized recent and pending state laws — density bonus changes, ministerial approval tracks such as AB 2011 and SB 6, SB 9 duplex/lot split rules, expanded ADU allowances, and small‑lot subdivision changes — and answered council questions about local impacts, parking, utilities and coastal constraints.","taxTitle","Seal Beach, Orange County, California","taxId",72161,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6221033,"Seal Beach moving toward housing-element adoption but must finish rezoning to avoid builder's‑remedy projects",696,22000,718000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3615168-e66250d8a8f1607dfe63b7a1e1667a38&start=22&end=718","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3615168-e66250d8a8f1607dfe63b7a1e1667a38/thumbnail_22000.jpg","/articles/6221033/Seal-Beach/Orange-County/California/Seal-Beach-moving-toward-housing-element-adoption-but-must-finish-rezoning-to-avoid-buildersremedy-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221033-b2fbbfb6661661500f57f440989674fc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445317&Signature=KoEEc2DQLZ~j6ES5FBgWz92~hbuDu~7FTH4CVcPDx1d1AL9huGfTNiishYQ49Jj8FTVB8442qIN7bodrfxrPJ~79pW3C9D6XsIXcjLaLMnu5wvk541Oett0D6PX-FWvV3ud4NNYxotvwLBdFim1xPbSacFOwPO2Q-U97WO-5Ov18Sf7~RHkwAP~7FOZ-WjQCM4g1IKo8j0sDBOg0Xa9m9uQOb8Yz~bOpWB20Lyk61xd9AIlzTsVjOOqAvHTlIx5uBIBnCcGYlJzVGisWgDE3FwY6uEJg3GvOz3sgN6ekdOQFpODRkGC5SUBtVSo5YRpwHy0nLg3aPjpY4Vc9zzWM2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Seal Beach city leaders heard a presentation on state housing law risks and timelines on Oct. 11, 2025, during a study session where consultants and staff said the city has adopted a draft housing element but must complete rezoning and obtain formal state sign‑off to limit exposure to enforcement and so‑called builder’s remedy projects.

The housing element is adopted locally, but not yet certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). \"A housing element cannot be declared substantially compliant with state housing law until you not only adopt the housing element, but also complete the required rezonings to ensure that you have capacity for your full RHNA allocation,\" said Diana Verrett, a housing attorney with Richards Watson Gershon, in a presentation to the City Council and staff.

The lack of HCD certification carries several potential consequences: reduced eligibility for some state funding pools, heightened risk of enforcement actions by HCD or the Attorney General, third‑party litigation, and exposure to developer projects that use the Housing Accountability Act’s \"builder’s remedy\" pathway to pursue higher density or nonconforming projects while local capacity remains uncertified.

Why it matters: the city’s housing element includes Program 1B, the adoption of a mixed commercial‑residential high‑density zone. Verrett explained that current state law changes make completing both adoption and rezoning — and receiving HCD approval — necessary for a jurisdiction to be treated as substantially compliant. Until both steps are complete, developers may be able to submit preliminary applications that trigger statutory protections enabling them to pursue projects that depart from local general‑plan and zoning rules.

Verrett described the builder’s remedy mechanism as a pathway that allows housing development projects that provide a specified percentage of lower‑income units to avoid certain local land‑use restrictions if submitted when the jurisdiction lacks a certified housing element. She said the statutory definition and thresholds were recently revised and that compliance requires recording deed restrictions on affordable units and other conditions the city would likely need to monitor.

Council and staff questions during the session focused on enforcement and compliance details. Verrett said HCD has increased enforcement activity and that if HCD finds a housing element is not substantially compliant the city faces a rebuttable presumption of invalidity, which raises the legal burden on local action to defend its plans. \"HCD has the authority to review city actions and failures to act to determine whether various actions or failures to act comply with state law,\" Verrett said.

City staff said the environmental impact report required under CEQA for the housing element is out for public comment and that the city anticipates bringing the housing element and related rezoning forward this fall for adoption. Community Development Director Smittle introduced the presentation and noted the council will engage in additional public outreach as the year proceeds.

Council members asked practical questions about what monitoring or enforcement looks like for deed‑restricted affordable units, and where responsibility lies. Verrett said the city typically records deed restrictions and that enforcement and reporting practices vary by jurisdiction. She noted that \"there is no other agency that's going to enforce that except for the city\" unless alternate monitoring arrangements are put in place.

What the city is doing next: staff and the consultant team are completing the CEQA review and preparing to return to council with actions tied to the housing element work plan, including the specific rezoning required by Program 1B. Until HCD grants a certification, Verrett warned, the city remains at greater risk of state enforcement and of developer proposals that rely on statutory pathways to seek approvals inconsistent with current local zoning.

Ending: Council members and staff emphasized they are moving toward adoption and rezoning and noted the city has already adopted a housing element, but that HCD sign‑off and completion of rezoning are the remaining steps to reduce legal and fiscal exposure. Verrett closed by urging continued attention to state legislative changes as the city proceeds through environmental review and rezoning.

","At a study session, city staff and outside counsel outlined that Seal Beach has adopted a draft housing element but must complete required rezonings and secure Housing and Community Development sign‑off to reduce risk of state enforcement and developer “builder’s remedy” projects.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

State laws reshape local approvals: density bonuses, ministerial pathways, SB 9 and ADU changes explained to Seal Beach council

Seal Beach moving toward housing-element adoption but must finish rezoning to avoid builder's‑remedy projects