California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 5 Lot Split Requirements
(Reference: Gov. Code, § 66411.7)
SB 9 does not require a local agency to approve a parcel map that would result in the creation of more than two lots and more than two units on a lot resulting from a lot split under Government Code section 66411.7. A local agency may choose to allow more than two units, but it is not required to under the law. A parcel may only be subdivided once under Government Code section 66411.7. This provision prevents an applicant from pursuing multiple lot splits over time for the purpose of creating more than two lots. SB 9 also does not require a local agency to approve a lot split if an adjacent lot has been subject to a lot split in the past by the same property owner or a person working in concert with that same property owner.
Accessory Dwelling Units
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (f)) SB 9 and ADU Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.2 and 65858.22) are complementary. The requirements of each can be implemented in ways that result in developments with both “SB 9 Units” and ADUs. However, specific provisions of SB 9 typically overlap with State ADU Law only to a limited extent on a relatively small number of topics. Treating the provisions of these two laws as identical or substantially similar may lead a local agency to implement the laws in an overly restrictive or otherwise inaccurate way. “Units” Defined. The three types of housing units that are described in SB 9 and related ADU Law are presented below to clarify which development scenarios are (and are not) made possible by SB 9. The definitions provided are intended to be read within the context of this document and for the narrow purpose of implementing SB 9.
Primary Unit. A primary unit (also called a residential dwelling unit or residential unit) is typically a single-family residence or a residential unit within a multi-family residential development. A primary unit is distinct from an ADU or a Junior ADU.
Examples of primary units include a single-family residence (i.e., one primary unit), a duplex (i.e., two primary units), a four-plex (i.e., four primary units), etc.
Accessory Dwelling Unit. An ADU is an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel on which the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. A Junior ADU is a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A Junior ADU may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 6 The terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing development” mean primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an ADU or Junior ADU or otherwise defined. This distinction is critical to successfully implementing SB 9 because state law applies different requirements (and provides certain benefits) to ADUs and Junior ADUs that do not apply to primary units.
Number of ADUs Allowed. ADUs can be combined with primary units in a variety of ways to achieve the maximum unit counts provided for under SB 9. SB 9 allows for up to four units to be built in the same lot area typically used for a single-family home. The calculation varies slightly depending on whether a lot split is involved, but the outcomes regarding total maximum unit counts are identical.
Lot Split. When a lot split occurs, the local agency must allow up to two units on each lot resulting from the lot split. In this situation, all three unit types (i.e., primary unit, ADU, and Junior ADU) count toward this two-unit limit. For example, the limit could be reached on each lot by creating two primary units, or a primary unit and an ADU, or a primary unit and a Junior ADU. By building two units on each lot, the overall maximum of four units required under SB 9 is achieved. (Gov. Code, § 66411.7, subd. (j).) Note that the local agency may choose to allow more than two units per lot if desired.
No Lot Split. When a lot split has not occurred, the lot is eligible to receive ADUs and/or Junior ADUs as it ordinarily would under ADU law. Unlike when a project is proposed following a lot split, the local agency must allow, in addition to one or two primary units under SB 9, ADUs and/or JADUs under ADU Law. It is beyond the scope of this document to identify every combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs possible under SB 9 and ADU Law. However, in no case does SB 9 require a local agency to allow more than four units on a single lot, in any combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs.
See HCD’s ADU and JADU webpage for more information and resources.
Relationship to Other State Housing Laws
SB 9 is one housing law among many that have been adopted to encourage the production of homes across California. The following represent some, but not necessarily all, of the housing laws that intersect with SB 9 and that may be impacted as SB 9 is implemented locally.
Housing Element Law. To utilize projections based on SB 9 toward a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation, the housing element must: 1) include a site-specific inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are being applied, 2) include a nonvacant sites analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment and that the existing use will not constitute an impediment for additional residential use, 3) identify any governmental constraints to the use of SB 9 in the creation of units (including land use controls, fees,
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 7 and other exactions, as well as locally adopted ordinances that impact the cost and supply of residential development), and 4) include programs and policies that establish zoning and development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to encourage and facilitate development. The element should support this analysis with local information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives established through SB 9. Learn more on HCD’s Housing Elements webpage.
Housing Crisis Act of 2019. An affected city or county is limited in its ability to amend its general plan, specific plans, or zoning code in a way that would improperly reduce the intensity of residential uses. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) This limitation applies to residential uses in all zones, including single-family residential zones. “Reducing the intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) A local agency should proceed with caution when adopting a local ordinance that would impose unique development standards on units proposed under SB 9 (but that would not apply to other developments). Any proposed modification to an existing development standard applicable in the single-family residential zone must demonstrate that it would not result in a reduction in the intensity of the use. HCD recommends that local agencies rely on the existing objective development, subdivision, and design standards of its singlefamily residential zone(s) to the extent possible. Learn more about Designated Jurisdictions Prohibited from Certain Zoning-Related Actions on HCD’s website.
Housing Accountability Act. Protections contained in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and the Permit Streaming Act (PSA) apply to housing developments pursued under SB 9. (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5; 65905.5; 65913.10; 65940 et seq.) The definition of “housing development project” includes projects that involve no discretionary approvals and projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit. (Gov. Code, § 65905.5, subd. (b)(3).) For additional information about the HAA and PSA, see HCD’s Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory.
Rental Inclusionary Housing. Government Code section 65850, subdivision (g), authorizes local agencies to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance that includes residential rental units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. In certain circumstances, HCD may request the submittal of an economic feasibility study to ensure the ordinance does not unduly constrain housing production. For additional information, see HCD’s Rental Inclusionary Housing Memorandum.
City of Irwindale as Successor Agency to the
Irwindale Community Redevelopment Agency
Report Total (1 checks): 500.00
Check Date Check Amount
101889 WILLDAN Willdan Financial Services 06/12/2024 500.00 Accounts Payable
Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name
City of Irwindale as Successor Agency to the
Irwindale Community Redevelopment Agency
Accounts Payable
Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name
Report Total (1 checks): 343.75
Check Date Check Amount
101892 ROSENO RSG Inc. 06/13/2024 343.75
IRWINDALE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 3, 2024
5050 N. IRWINDALE AVENUE MONDAY
IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA 91706 6:00 P.M.
The Irwindale HOUSING AUTHORITY met in a special meeting at the above time and place.
ROLL CALL: Present: Board Members Manuel R. Garcia, H. Manuel Ortiz; Vice Chair Larry G. Burrola; Chair Albert F. Ambriz
Absent: Board Member Mark A. Breceda
Also Present: Julian A. Miranda, Executive Director; Adrian Guerra, General Counsel; Marilyn Simpson, Community Development Director; and Laura Nieto, Chief Assistant Authority Secretary AB 2449 DISCLOSURES None.
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 6A DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP #2 – 10 ACRE SITE ON ALLEN
DEVELOPMENT DRIVE
WORKSHOP #2 –
10 ACRE SITE ON
ALLEN DRIVE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Executive Director Miranda declared a potential conflict of interest MIRANDA with this item and exited the Council Chambers at 6:02 p.m.
HOUSING Housing Coordinator Lopez made a PowerPoint presentation and COORDINATOR presented the verbal report.
LOPEZ
VICE CHAIR BURROLA Vice Chair Burrola noted an area within the 10-acre parcel that had experienced a slope failure, to which Coordinator Lopez stated that the area could be remediated with the guidance of the Engineering Department.
BOARD MEMBER Board Member Ortiz asked whether it has been determined where ORTIZ the six acres for housing would be situated, to which Coordinator Lopez stated that, since the slope failure occurred near the northern section of the site, consideration could be given to construct a housing development along the middle or lower portion of the site.
COORDINATOR Coordinator Lopez emphasized that six of the 10 acres have been set LOPEZ aside for housing in the draft Housing Element.
FRED BARBOSA Fred Barbosa asked whether the remaining four acres would be used for green space. He also asked how many units would be developed per acre and suggested rezoning the site to R1 and for the Housing Authority Board to remove the 45-year covenants from housing programs. He then alleged that Board Member Ortiz received his house through the Board’s housing program, to which Board Member
HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES JUNE 3, 2024
SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 2
Ortiz clarified that this was incorrect and that he purchased his home for full market value.
Fred Barbosa stated that Board Member Breceda and Vice Chair Burrola received their homes through the Board’s housing program and asked about potentially using the Alpha area for housing. He stated that the city could ask for state and federal funding to remediate the site and dedicate it to housing.
COORDINATOR Coordinator Lopez stated reiterated that six acres at Allen Drive have LOPEZ been reserved for housing and noted that the remaining four acres are currently designated for public facilities. Coordinator Lopez then stated that eight housing units would be developed per acre, though Director Simpson then clarified that the draft Housing Element calls for three acres to include eight units per acre (equivalent to R1 zoning), and the other three acres would have 14 units per acre (equivalent to R2 zoning).
DIRECTOR SIMPSON Director Simpson added that the draft Housing Element does not identify where the housing units would be located.
CARMEN ROMAN Carmen Roman stated her belief that seven acres of the site had been reserved for housing and requested the date when it was reduced to six. She also spoke against 45-year covenants for housing. She stated that Irwindale housing programs were designed to provide housing to resident youths and the Senior Center for resident seniors.
She then expressed her opinion that three acres of the site should be used for green space.
Responding to a question by Carmen Roman, Coordinator Lopez stated that the area with the slope failure could be identified at the next workshop.
DENA ZEPEDA Dena Zepeda suggested that housing at the site should be situated near Peppertree Lane first, and that ample parking be provided for the residents of the new housing as well as for those along Allen Drive. She also requested green space and the inclusion of singlefamily houses with yards and a park.
DARYL PICKERING Daryl Pickering requested a dog park.
FRED BARBOSA Fred Barbosa requested that all 10 acres be dedicated to residential uses.
ERIN JARAMILLO Erin Jaramillo also spoke in favor of approving all 10 acres for housing.
ERICKA DOMINGUEZ Ericka Dominguez stated that she comes from a large family and that only one person from her household was allowed to apply under a
HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES JUNE 3, 2024
SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 3
previous housing program and suggested that this requirement be eliminated.
CHAIR AMBRIZ Chair Ambriz stated that program requirements would be discussed at a future workshop.
REBECCA BARBOSA Rebecca Barbosa asked where the first homes would be constructed and whether the block wall at the end of Calle de Paseo would be knocked down.
PAULA FRAIJO Paula Fraijo noted that Peppertree Lane experiences lots of traffic including many speeding motorists and asked that the Board keep this in mind when designing the housing development.
CARMEN ROMAN Carmen Roman asked when the site’s zoning would be changed.
BOARD MEMBER Board Member Ortiz reiterated that he purchased his home in the 80’s ORTIZ at a market rate price and not as part of any city housing program.
VICE CHAIR BURROLA Vice Chair Burrola stated that the Board is trying to determine how many homes to develop as well as how to best rezone the area. He then asked about 45-year covenants for housing programs, to which General Counsel Guerra advised that the state required 45-year covenants around the early 2000’s for housing developments that utilized low- and moderate-income housing funds to subsidize a portion of the project. He added that the Board is looking into ways to amend agreements that contain 45-year covenants to provide options. However, the agency cannot unilaterally eliminate the covenants as required by statute. Additional information on the covenants will be provided at a future workshop.
Vice Chair Burrola asked about funding for the proposed housing development, to which Coordinator Lopez indicated that a future workshop will be held to discuss the feasibility of the development.
Additional topics of the workshop include applicable laws and zoning designations.
Responding to a comment by Vice Chair Burrola, Coordinator Lopez advised that housing developers generally have access to different types of grants to help fund projects. Additional funding mechanisms could be presented at the next workshop.
DIRECTOR SIMPSON Director Simpson noted that tonight’s meeting is being held by the Housing Authority Board, and that the City Council would be the appropriate agency to identify the two three-acre parcels. Staff could move forward once they have been identified.
HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES JUNE 3, 2024
SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 4
BOARD MEMBER Board Member Garcia stated that the project may begin at the GARCIA southernmost portion of the site and asked whether the soil in that area has been tested. He also asked whether Allen Drive would be widened. He also stated that it may be better to discuss the project parcel by parcel and mix different housing units within them.
BOARD MEMBER Board Member Ortiz asked whether the number of homes to be ORTIZ developed could be changed to which Director Simpson indicated that any changes to the draft Housing Element would have to be sent to HCD. She added that about 66 units would be developed per the details contained in the draft Housing Element.
Board Member Ortiz stated that it is important to determine where to place the homes and whether they would be built in phases. He also stated that it would be important to determine funding and the level of available funding in the agency’s housing fund.
COORDINATOR Coordinator Lopez suggested bringing in professionals at the next LOPEZ workshop to ask about funding sources and procedures.
BOARD MEMBER Board Member Garcia requested that renderings of housing options GARCIA be presented as well.
MAYOR AMBRIZ Mayor Ambriz also requested that the state’s response to the city’s draft Housing Element also be presented at the next workshop.
CARMEN ROMAN Carmen Roman asked whether Board Member Breceda remains a member of the Board.
FRED BARBOSA Fred Barbosa suggested placing the houses so that they face the park.
DENA ZEPEDA Dena Zepeda stated her belief that the state-required 45-year covenant was a mandate and was not actually required.
AMANDA CORTEZ Amanda Cortez asked about housing program requirements, to which Coordinator Lopez indicated that such a program would comply with state and county requirements.
ANGEL BUTLER Angel Butler asked when construction on the housing development would start.
MARGARITA ACEVEDO Margarita Acevedo submitted written allegations of improprieties in a past housing development.
VICE CHAIR BURROLA Vice Chair Burrola stated that he would like to include two-story homes in the project.
HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES JUNE 3, 2024
SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 5
CHAIR AMBRIZ Chair Ambriz noted that most responses to the housing survey show that they are in favor of single-family houses, which he supports. He recommended beginning development at the southern end of the site, or potentially along Calle de Paseo, but recommended avoiding the area of the sinkhole. He stated his belief that the site would be zoned R1 and mentioned the possibility of placing this matter on a future agenda for further discussion. He also stated that the project should be conducted in phases and indicated that any potential program covenants would be discussed at a future meeting.
VICE CHAIR BURROLA Vice Chair Burrola mentioned the possibility of widening Allen Drive.
CHAIR AMBRIZ Chair Ambriz stated that staff needs clear direction on how many acres to develop. He stated that he would agree to six acres for housing now, with the remaining four acres for future housing use. He also recommended phasing the development with single family houses.
GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel Guerra stated that staff is still receiving direction GUERRA and that the Board could be presented with a final template with all direction provided, and that the Board could take formal action at that time.
MARGARITA ACEVEDO Margarita Acevedo submitted written allegations of improprieties in a past housing development.
CINDY Cindy asked whether new applications would be received for the project, to which Coordinator Lopez indicated that, once a program is developed, an application period would be discussed by the Board prior to release.
SPONTANEOUS
COMMUNICATIONS There were no speakers.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m.
________________________________
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Assistant Authority Secretary