Pismo Beach City Council
April 18, 2023

Apr 18, 2023
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach,CA 93449
By Email:[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected];[email protected] CC:[email protected];[email protected]
Re:Proposed SB 9 Ordinance
Dear Pismo Beach City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”)submits this letter as a public comment concerning item 11A on the agenda for tonight’s meeting.This item –proposed modiications to the City’s Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”)ordinance –presents several legal problems.

CalHDF urges the Council to address these problems before approving the ordinance.

The City May Not Require More Than One Parking Space Per Unit SB 9 sets a maximum parking requirement that may be imposed on urban lot splits (Gov.

Code 66411.7,subd.(e)(3))and two-unit residential developments (Gov.Code §65852.21, subd.(c)(1)).In both cases,the maximum is one space per unit.The law does not admit exceptions for proposed SB 9 developments that would replace existing parking or parking structures.CalHDF also notes the statewide accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”)law explicitly states that parking spaces in a garage,carport,or covered parking structure need not be replaced if that parking is converted to an ADU.(Gov.Code 65852.2,subd.(a)(1)(D)(xi).)The language in section 17.119.050(B)in the proposed ordinance must be edited to reflect this.As it stands,the proposed ordinance might require more than one parking space per unit,and that is not allowed.

SB 9 Restricts,but Does Not Prohibit,Lot Splits and Two-Unit Developments in Fire Hazard Severity Zones
An urban lot split or two-unit residential development may not be pursued under SB 9 unless the lot satisies subdivision (a)(6)(D)of Government Code section 65913.4.(Gov.Code §§65852.21,subd.(a)(2);66411.7,subd.(a)(3)(C).)This excludes sites within high and very high 360 Grand Ave #323,Oakland 94610
[email protected]

ire hazard severity zones –unless a local agency has excluded the site from the ire hazard zone under subdivision (b)of Government Code section 51179,or the site has adopted ire mitigation measures.(Gov.Code §65913.4,subd.(a)(6)(D).)The language in the proposed ordinance at section 17.119.060(G)does not acknowledge these exceptions.It should be amended to include them.

The Proposed 20-foot Minimum Lot Width Is Inconsistent with State Law SB 9 lays out restrictions on proposed lot splits.Neither of the proposed new lots may exceed 60 percent of the area of the original lot,and,correspondingly,neither may be smaller than 40 percent of that area.(Gov.Code §66411.7,subd.(a)(1).)Neither of the proposed new lots, furthermore,may be less than 1,200 square feet,unless the local government allows it.(Id.at subd.(a)(2).)But nothing in the law restricts the proposed new lots to a minimum of twenty feet in width.Moreover,because the law states that the local government “shall”approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets all the requirements in state law,a local government may not impose such a minimum width requirement.Section 17.119.060(I)(5)of the proposed ordinance must therefore be deleted.
◄►
CalHDF appreciates the Council’s attention to the City’s SB 9 ordinance.As the Council knows,our state faces an acute housing crisis,and the legislature enacted SB 9 to address that crisis.It is important,then,that local implementing ordinances follow the law,and CalHDF urges the Council to correct the problems described above before approving the ordinance.

CalHDF (formerly the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund,or “CaRLA”)is a 501(c)3 non-proit 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
Courtney Welch
CalHDF Director of Investigations and Enforcement
2 of 2