This signature collection effort is postponed to the 2024 election cycle. Not enough signatures were collected in this election cycle to get it on the ballot for 2022.


Unbelievably, the State of California is poised to eliminate single-family zoning state-wide.

Immediate Action Needed

A state-wide petition campaign is underway to place a proposition on the November 2022 ballot to undo SB9 and SB10. FCA supports the campaign and is collecting signatures. The location and times for the signature collection will be posted here as we have volunteers. The objective is to complete the signature gathering by the end of February. This information will be updated frequently.

On Friday, February 18, signatures will be obtained in front of the Tustin Brewery from 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm.

We have a serious shortage of affordable housing in California, but destroying our existing neighborhoods, as Senate Bill SB9 and Senate Bill SB10 will do, is NOT the answer. Note this is not a Democratic or Republican issue; it is a nonpartisan issue. No one should want to see the destruction of our single family neighborhoods.

Bills SB9 and SB10 were signed into law in October 2021. Note that the rezoning required for these higher density projects would be approved under state law. Local elected officials have no say; there is no local control. We need to take every action possible to rescind these bills.

To quote from Tina Richards’ editorial in the August 2021 edition of the Foothills Sentry newspaper:

“ Positioned as a way to solve the “housing crisis”, the bills will override local land-use plans and zoning designations.  They will pave the way for split lots and multifamily dwellings to replace single-family homes, with little oversight and no public input.  Neither bill, however, stipulates affordable housing, referring to the new units as market rate.”

The legislation, for example, would allow North Tustin’s large residential lots to be subdivided to allow for two single-family homes (or duplexes) on each half.  Those units could be joined by accessory dwelling units (ADU’s) and junior ADU’s which have already been exempted from local control by legislation.  That means each property could host up to 10 units. Note that approval would result in a large increase of population density but no upgrades in utilities (sewer, water, and electricity) are required. Whether the existing utilities will support the increased in housing units is not considered – just build and worry later.  Cities and counties will have to raise property taxes to pay for utility upgrades.

Large lots, however, are not the primary target.  “Middle class” neighborhoods, like much of Tustin, Orange and the flatlands of North Tustin, are central to the scheme because they are more attractive to investors.  The legislation would allow for splitting on smaller properties as long as each new plot is 1,200 square feet. . . .

SB9 rezones, by state statute, virtually all parcels within single-family residential zones.  It preempts local zoning, prohibits public hearings and discretionary decisions on split-lot housing and exempts those developments from environmental review.  Current HOA rules, zoning, CC&Rs, high-risk fire zones, and specific plans are overruled.

Developers are not required to contribute to infrastructure or provide parking. . . .

SB10 will allow 10-unit “market-rate” apartment buildings, plus granny flats to replace a single family residence. One parking space per unit is required unless the building is within 1/2 mile of a bus line (e.g., Irvine Blvd and Newport Ave); in that case, no parking is required as residents can use the bus.

The “market rate” requirement seems to work against any real increase in affordable housing.  And lest you think we will all get uber-rich subdividing our properties, read the fine print:  Homeowners who want to do this must first pay off their mortgages when they split their lots, and the new parcels well be reassessed at the resulting higher value.  Oops!

To quote Tina’s editorial again:

“Homeowners may not want to take on a higher property tax burden, but developers will.  And why not?  Backed by a stable of investors, developers can outbid families looking for a home and replace a single residence with up to 10 units, with no pesky local ordinances to work around, no environmental impact reports to produce, and no public hearings to endure.”

SB 10 also eliminates the uses of propositions on election ballots. Citizens can no longer introduce new laws or eliminate bad laws.

It’s important to take action to increase our housing supply, but these bills are not the way.  The only winners here are the real estate developers, at the expense of our existing single-family residential communities.