top of page

"Bad Bills" Talking Points:
SB 9,  SB 10,  SB 478,  AB 1401

The following talking points are provided to help you understand these bills and to help you articulate your concerns when emailing the state legislature.

Simply copy the letters and/or talking points below and past into an email to send to your representative. Feel free to customize and make it your own.

SB 10 Opposition Letter:

As a member of Neighbors For A Better San Diego, I oppose SB 10 for the following reasons:

•  The major flaw with SB10 is that Senator Weiner does not want ADUs to be counted as housing units. However, according to the California ADU Handbook, ADUs are considered housing.

Projects above 10 housing units require both public debate and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. This recalculation of housing units is deceptive and wrong.

•  SB 10 will override the 108-year-old constitutional right of Californian’s to pass ballot initiatives that politicians can’t undo.

•  SB 10 allows city councils to rezone single-family zoned neighborhoods to allow 10-unit multi-story apartment buildings, plus a minimum of 2 ADUs and 2 JADUs . These 14-unit apartments are all at market-rate.

•  SB 10 does not create one affordable unit.  We already have a surplus of mid-range housing in San Diego.

•  SB 10 will cause luxury developers and investors to finance city council races, to elect city councils who will be willing to rezone neighborhoods to create SB 10 housing (apartment buildings).

•  SB 10 greatly benefits developers and investors and badly damages single family neighborhoods that will be stuck with the bill for updating aging infrastructure due to overcrowding.

•  SB 10 will allow 14-unit apartment buildings to be built in Very High Fire Severity Zones on single-family parcels. This will put California’s neighborhoods in danger of fire due to increased density and overcrowded evacuation pathways out of communities during a fire.

•  SB 10 will destroy the Urban Canopy by removing trees to create more density within neighborhoods, heating the planet even more.

•  SB 10 creates a transfer of wealth from homeowners to wealthy developers and outside investors.  It will turn an entire generation into renters, not homeowners.

Please, do not support legislation that attacks the American Dream of home ownership.



SB 9 Opposition Letter:

As a member of Neighbors For A Better San Diego, I oppose SB 9 (Lot Splitting / Duplex Bill) for the following reasons:

1. We Should Not Be Zoning Cities From Sacramento: What’s good for San Francisco isn’t necessarily good for San Diego. While it’s important to have cities accountable to their Regional Housing Needs Assessment, we should also give cities the flexibility to meet these needs through solutions tailored to local communities.

2. Homeowner Charade: SB 9 is being touted as allowing homeowners to split their lots to build housing for family members, but the owner occupancy requirements were lifted after only 1 year.

SB 9 has been amended such that the homeowner has the intent to live in the property for 3 years after a lot split. However, it is only "intent". Prosecutors don't have the time nor resources to prosecute perjury cases at the civil level. This provision is useless. If SB 9 is supposed to help homeowners and not just benefit corporate investors, these restrictions should last 10 years or more.

3. Unproven Need: Californians are already allowed to build an ADU and a Junior ADU on every property in California, which has yielded thousands of units of housing in San Diego alone. We need to figure out how to implement that law properly before the State starts throwing new options into the mix.

4. Invalid Economic Assumptions: Trickle-down, supply-only housing strategies that don’t account for soaring land prices only produce expensive market rate housing in constrained urban areas. Proponents of SB 9 have not produced any meaningful data showing that more market-rate housing has brought down the price of homes. SB 9 will bring irreversible changes to California’s neighborhoods without making housing more affordable.

Displacement, gentrification, infrastructure, and environmental challenges all have fiscal costs and cause permanent damage to the quality of life for California residents. We need policies that address the needs of all Californians and provide a real plan for future residents, not thinly disguised handouts to real-estate speculators.

I respectfully hope that you will stand up for homeowners across California and vote against SB 9 when it comes up for a vote in the Assembly.


SB 478 & AB 1401 Writing Points:


As a member of Neighbors For A Better San Diego, I oppose SB 478 for the following reasons:

SB 478 eliminates FAR requirements. A developer can build 14 units — 10 units plus 2 ADUs and 2 JADUs (known as granny flats) — on any multifamily street zoned for triplexes or greater density, or in any mixed-use district. Cities would be banned from imposing any local standard, such as a yard, that precludes a density of 1.25 FAR. In a nutshell, it means allowing a two-story, 6,250 sq. ft. apartment building on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot.

•  SB 478 allows developers to pave over thousands of yards. The bill’s author has called yards immoral. We strongly disagree. Residents’ yards, gardens, and trees comprise most of the Urban Tree Canopy, capturing greenhouse gases and reducing our deadly heat islands. This has not been thought out.

•  SB 478 was written for Bay Area techies earning average salaries of $90,0000 to $145,000 a year. The state has wrongly declared such projects are “naturally” affordable. This is pure fantasy. “Missing middle” density has failed in early adopter cities Seattle, Toronto, and Vancouver, where prices went the wrong way. Rents in 14-unit buildings are no cheaper than in 80-unit buildings.  •


AB1401 called the "Parking Bill" (or lack thereof). It's a backdoor for developers because they don't have to provide parking which lowers their cost and increases their profits. Also, there is nothing in that bill to prevent a transit authority from moving a transit/bus stop later. In addition, the entire premise is off. One could live next to a transit or bus stop, but it is useless if one's destination isn't accessible via public transportation.  •

(More about these bills on

bottom of page