WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS RECEIVED
May 6, 2025
City of Beverly Hills
Room 280A, 455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Re: Proposed Amendments to City’s SB 9 ordinance
By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Beverly Hills City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to flag two specific legal issues with the City’s proposed ordinance that implements SB 9 as modified by SB 450, calendared as agenda item E1 for the Council meeting of May 6, 2025.
Resulting Lot Size
The first issue is found in code section 10-3-4904(B): “The two resulting lots shall be approximately equal, and no smaller than 48% or larger than 52% of the lot area of the original parcel.”
This clearly violates Government Code, section 66411.7, subdivision (a)(1): “ The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than two new parcels of approximately equal lot area provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent ofthe lot area ofthe original parcel proposed for subdivision.” (emphasis added) The law was clearly written to allow flexibility while providing that a resulting lot be no smaller than 40% of the original parcel. The law requires approximate equality in size, not exact equality. By mandating that the parcels be within 48-52% of the original parcel, the City is illegally denying the applicant the flexibility written into SB 9.
Additionally, this code provision serves no public purpose other than to hamper potential lot splits. The legislative findings provided in section 4 of SB 450 clearly indicate that the 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
Legislature intended the law to encourage an increase in the overall supply of housing; encourage the development of housing that is affordable to households at all income levels; remove barriers to housing production; expand homeownership opportunities; and expand the availability of rental housing. The lot size requirements of Code section 10-3-4904(B), as well as other aspects of the City’s ordinance (e.g. the minimum unit size of 1,600 square feet) clearly run counter to the Legislature’s stated intent.
Lot Splits in the Fire Zone
In addition, code section 10-3-4912 allows the City to deny SB 9 projects in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (“VHFHSZ”) (emphasis added):
The building official, or his or her designee, may make a written finding to deny an urban lot split or the construction of a primary residential units [sic] as part of a two-primary unit project or urban lot split. Such findings shall be based upon the preponderance of evidence that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact (as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 65589.5) upon the public health and safety and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. In addition, the building official, or his or her designee shall review any urban lot split or two-primary unit project to determine if the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impactifthe projectis located within the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ)to determine whether the proposed urban lot split or urban infilltwo-unit development would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety.
To be clear, the City must still make individualized findings based on a preponderance of the evidence that a specific project at hand would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety and that there is no feasible way to to mitigate that impact. (See Gov. Code, § 66411.7, subd. (d).) This means that the Building Official may not just cite the findings in the interim ordinance in order to deny projects in the VHFHSZ.
Furthermore, the City’s findings rely heavily on the need for additional curb cuts in the VHFHSZ as a reason to deny projects. This does not constitute adequate evidence to satisfy the requirements of state law. (See Ibid.) Additionally, there are ways to create lot splits that do require curb cuts: the City could choose to not require offstreet parking for the new units (Id. at subd. (e)(3)), and the residents could park on the street instead. Or, in the alternative, the two new parcels could share a driveway. In any event, the City must make individualized findings that not only would there be a specific, adverse impact on health and safety, but also that there is no feasible way to mitigate that impact. (Id. at subd. (d).) ⧫ ⧫ ⧫
2 of 3
While it is laudable that the City is updating its SB 9 ordinance, the City should amend the draft ordinance to bring it into compliance with state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3