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.