La Habra — The La Habra City Council voted unanimously Oct. 6 to adopt the first reading of an ordinance (Zone Change ZCA25-4) that amends Title 17 and Title 18 of the La Habra Municipal Code to implement provisions of California Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 450. The ordinance would allow two-unit developments and urban lot splits in single-family dwelling zones consistent with state law.

The measure, introduced by Planning Manager Sonia Louie, would create a new section on parcel maps for urban lot splits and add a section allowing two-unit housing developments in R1A, R1B and R1C single-family zones. "I am Sonia Louie, planning manager, here to present you with zone change 20 five-four," Louie told the council during her staff presentation, which summarized SB 9/SB 450 requirements and exemptions.

The ordinance adopts state rules that make many SB 9/SB 450 applications ministerial — subject to administrative approval rather than discretionary public hearings — and requires cities to process complete applications within 60 days. Louie summarized key limits in the staff presentation: certain properties are ineligible (historic districts, hazardous waste sites, special flood hazards, protected habitat areas); housing with affordability restrictions or subject to rent or price control; and properties occupied by a tenant in the last three years. She also described urban lot split constraints: a property owner must live on one of the newly created lots for at least three years; created lots must be similar in size (no more than 60/40 splits); no created lot can be less than 1,200 square feet; and lots created by an urban lot split may not be split again under the same process.

Council members pressed staff on enforcement and practical impacts. "How do you police and determine if indeed the property owner... is living in that dwelling?" Councilmember Gomez asked. Louie said the city would request documentation such as rental or lease agreements and that "we would have to visit the property" for follow-up inspections, but acknowledged staff lacked an established process for long-term compliance monitoring: "I don't know that we have an answer for you today on that because this law is so new."

Councilmembers also raised concerns about added workload and funding. "Where are we gonna get the funds for that to do that?" one councilmember asked. City staff said the state statutes do not provide a funding stream for local administrative costs of long-term compliance. Councilmember commentary described frustration about limits on local control; one member said the council's "hands are being literally cuffed" by state law. City Attorney Collins warned that failure to comply with state housing laws can carry legal and administrative consequences: when asked whether the state or others could sue, Collins said, "Yes, they could. The attorney general has filed several against other cities." Staff noted failing to conform could risk Housing and Community Development (HCD) decertification.

The ordinance also codifies SB 9 provisions on parking and setbacks: the city may require one parking space but cannot require parking if a site is within a half-mile of a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop; the city cannot require setbacks from new lot lines for existing structures in SB 9 scenarios. Louie noted that, in some combinations of two primary dwellings plus an ADU/JADU, a maximum of four units could be developed on a parcel; a lot split produces no more than two units on each new lot.

After public comment and council discussion, Councilmember Nazarian moved to approve the first reading of the ordinance prepared under Zone Change 20-5-4; Mayor Pro Tem Medrano seconded. The motion carried unanimously. The ordinance will return for a subsequent reading and adoption vote in a later meeting.

Why it matters: The change brings La Habra's municipal code into alignment with state law and will allow property owners in single-family zones to pursue denser housing configurations administratively. Council members and staff emphasized the policy trade-offs: faster approvals and increased housing capacity versus reduced local discretion, added staff workload, and potential legal and fiscal exposure.