From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: SB9 Update Request
Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 1:14:53 PM
From: Ivan Hendren <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 9:29:53 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: SB9 Update Request
Hello Troy,
You had mentioned that the SB9 ordinance would be updated sometime this summer.
I wanted to make sure you got you my public comment for the SB9 Ordinances (Urban Lot Split and 2-Unit Projects).
see below:
Height Requirement - For both Urban Lot Splits and 2-unit projects, if underlying zoning permits 2 story structures, please include provision for 2nd story living area to be allowed above a garage for both primary and ADU units. This will encourage less onstreet parking and less blight in neighborhoods, which has been the major SB9 concern for residents in single-family neighborhoods. There are other City precedents in California that allow for 2 story structures (even without a garage).
Let me know when the ordinance is scheduled to be updated and if there is time, I may have a couple more comments.
Thanks,
Ivan Hendren
Pleasant Hill Resident
Ivan Hendren, MRED
[email protected]
949.903.8492
242 Elaine Drive
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
June 28, 2022
Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Re: SB 9 Ordinance - Setback Requirements
Dear Pleasant Hill Planning Commission,
The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) submits this letter to inform the Tustin Planning Commission that they have an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when amending the Pleasant Hill zoning pertaining to regulations for the subdivision and development of qualified Senate Bill 9 properties. The California HOME Act (SB 9) mandates that local jurisdictions must ministerially approve two residential units within a single-family residential zone and the subdivision of one lot into two in any single-unit dwelling zone that satisfies the applicability requirements outlined in the statute (Gov. Code § 65852.21(a)(1)-(6), 66411.7(a)(1)-(3)). The ordinance proposed here mostly complies with the requirements of state law, with one exception.
The ordinance proposes setback requirements that clearly violate state law. For both development on Urban Lot Splits and for Two-Unit Projects, the ordinance would impose setback requirements from the underlying zoning district applicable to the project. While the ordinance would offer an exception if such setbacks would preclude two 800 square foot apartments, this exception falls short of state law requirements.
For both lots created through an Urban Lot Split, and for Two-Unit Projects, SB 9 allows cities to impose maximum setbacks of four feet from the side and rear lot lines, and prohibits setback requirements for conversions of existing buildings. (Gov. Code § 65852.21(b)(2)(B)(ii), § 66411.7(c)(3)(B)). The planning commission should amend the ordinance to reflect this requirement.
Aside from the setback requirements, the proposed ordinance would impose numerous design standards that could make processing SB 9 applications difficult and costly. Particularly, the imposition of the city’s objective design standards would be complex and would drive up the cost of developing new homes under SB 9. The ordinance proposes to offer exceptions to these standards in the likely scenario that combined they would prohibit development under SB 9. These exceptions would lead to difficult decisions by city staff and permit applicants about which standards can be enforced and which others should be waived. These decisions would make it difficult to process applications ministerially, as is required by state law. In the future, the city should consider developing simplified standards for SB 9 lot splits and developments based on lot area to ensure that sufficient developable space is available in all circumstances.
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage, and new housing is a public benefit. By abiding by SB 9, Tustin will bring increased tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, decarbonization in the face of the climate crisis, but most importantly, it will reduce the displacement of existing residents into homelessness or carbon-heavy car commutes. Imposing an affordability requirement on SB 9 units will inhibit Tustin’s opportunity to construct badly needed housing. We ask that the Commission amend the ordinance to bring the proposal into compliance with state law, as outlined in this letter.
CaRLA 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 CaRLA at www.carlaef.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
Executive Director
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - [email protected] 360 Grand Ave, #323, Oakland, California 94612