San Dimas City Council
June 13, 2023

Revision 4 27 March 2023

SECTION VI
A. INTERACTION WITH STAFF
The City’s staff works for and is responsible to the City Manager and it is therefore the City Manager’s responsibility to allocate staff’s time and efforts. Commissioners should not attempt to direct or decide the priority of work for the department or the individual staff person. These bodies should, however, set priorities for their own agendas in order that staff may best use the time available for commission, committee, or board business. The Commission may request information or research on a matter from City staff that either does not result in more than roughly an hour of staff time or in the case more time is required, is weighed by the appropriate department head against priorities, workload, and fit with the recommendations or actions City staff are considering for City Council. At any time, the City Manager or department head may bring a commission, committee or board request to the City Council for review and consideration.

In contacting city personnel on official business, the proper channel is through the staff liaison assigned to the commission, committee, or board.

It is not expected that every staff recommendation will be followed; but, based on the technical knowledge of staff personnel, consideration should be given to their proposals and recommendations. The commission, committee, or board may choose to agree or disagree with a staff recommendation. In the latter case, staff has the option of including his/her recommendations in the staff report to the City Council. Any differences in opinion will be discussed at the Council meeting.

The City Council expects that a mutually respectful and professional relationship is maintained between the staff personnel and the commission, committee, or board. The effectiveness of an advisory body is hampered by internal tension and personality conflicts. In the event a conflict does arise between an individual member and the staff, the member should approach the chair who will, in turn, try to mediate the conflict. If the problem cannot be solved at the lowest level, the Chair will approach the head of the department to which that commission, committee, or board is related. As a last resort the matter will be brought to the attention of the City Manager. However, it should be emphasized that every effort should be made to maintain a respectful and professional relationship with staff in order to facilitate and enhance the body’s operation and effectiveness.

A City body is comprised of a diverse group of people and it is inevitable that not everyone will agree on an issue all of the time. However, all efforts should be made to maintain amicable relations among the individual members. Personality conflicts only hamper an organization’s effectiveness. Nevertheless, in the event that a personality conflict does arise between individual members, it is the chair’s responsibility to try to mediate and resolve the problem. If the conflict cannot be resolved, the chair should approach the staff liaison to the commission, committee or board.

RELATIONSHIPS

Revision 4 28 March 2023
B. INTERACTION WITH CITY COUNCIL
The primary responsibility of commissions, committees, and boards is to advise and make recommendations to the City Council. It is the Council’s role to absorb the advice and recommendations offered by numerous sources and to make decisions to the best of its ability. Because the City Council is in such a position to see the broader context and is aware of other concerns, it may not always follow the recommendation offered by individual commission, committees, and boards.

Although there may be disagreement with the City Council on an issue, once the Council has established its position, the commission, committee, or board, or individual members should not do anything contrary to the established policies and programs adopted by the City Council.

With the exception of the Planning Commission, a Councilmember(s) shall be assigned to a commission, committee, or board as a liaison. The Council liaison(s) attend the meetings, but with the exception of Golf Course Advisory are not voting members of the board.

Business transacted with the Council should be in writing from the body as a whole and forwarded through staff who will then forward it to the City Manager’s office. The City Manager will review all reports, findings, and recommendations and forward to the Council those matters within its province.

When a member of an advisory body addresses the City Council at a public meeting, it should be made clear whether he/she is speaking on behalf of the advisory body or as an individual citizen. Either the Chair or another member appointed by the commission, committee, or board to represent the body shall speak on behalf of the body to the City Council. Each Commission will be responsible to present an update to the City Council at a regular scheduled City Council Meeting on an annual basis.

Commissions, committees, and boards and their individual members should not attempt to predict Council action, either publicly or privately. However, they may and should interpret Council policies or identify trends in Council thinking.

C. INTERACTION WITH THE PUBLIC
Members are encouraged to become aware of public opinion relating to their field of influence. They should welcome citizen input at meetings and ensure that the rules and procedures for these public meetings are clearly understood.

Members should conduct themselves at public meetings in a manner that is fair, understanding, and gracious. Members should be considerate of all interests, attitudes, and differences of opinion. They should also take care to observe the appearance as well as the principle of impartiality.

Members should not accept gifts from applicants or other persons concerned with matters which have been or might come before the commission, committee, or board.

Revision 4 29 March 2023
Board members, Commissioners, and Committee members should always remember their public or private statements, including in the news media or on social media, may be perceived as representing the City or as being made on behalf of the City, or may be perceived as representing official City policy.

Board members, Commissioners, and Committee members should take care not to state or imply that their views, expressions of opinion, or other statements are an official policy, statement, position, or communication of the City or represent the views of the City or any City officer, employee, board, commission, or committee, unless specific permission has been given to the Board member, Commissioner, or Committee member by the City Council or the City Manager to speak on behalf of the City.

Board members, commissioners, and committee members should explicitly clarify that their statements are their sole positions and views, and not representing the City, boards, commissions, or committees when such statements could reasonably be interpreted to be official policy, statement, position, or communication.

In respect to matters before a board, commission, or committee, such body may appoint a member of the body to represent its position to the City Council or on behalf of the board, commission, or committee, but such representation shall not conflict or imply that the position is a position of official policy, statement, position or communication of the City unless such was approved by the City Council.

Revision 4 30 March 2023

SECTION VII
Organized groups exist to complete certain tasks and to achieve certain agreed upon purposes and goals. A commission, committee, or board is a set of individuals held together by a web of inter-relationships and feelings. Members have feelings about themselves, about the group and the group’s tasks.

The nature and intensity of these feelings set the “climate” of the advisory body at any given moment. A positive climate encourages member involvement and responsibility to take actions.

Optimum participation is achieved when members experience encouragement for their contributions, freedom to honestly and freely express their feelings and freedom from internal group strife which interferes with carrying out the body’s tasks.

Optimum productivity is achieved when the body’s stated tasks are understood.

Members should keep tasks visibly and clearly defined.

A. FUNCTIONS AND BEHAVIORS
Effective commission, committees and boards usually pay attention to the following functions and behaviors:
• Prioritizing tasks
• Anticipating problems
• Analyzing problems
• Setting clear objectives
• Developing actions-options
• Deciding
• Active listening
o Not interrupting
o Listening to feelings
o Not judging others
o Summarizing and feeding-back
• Supporting your colleagues
o Accepting their ideas
o Showing warmth
o Creating opportunities to involve members
o Building on members’ ideas
o Encouraging different ideas
• Confronting what’s happening
o Questioning your and others’ assumptions
o Dealing directly with conflict
o Focusing attention on the idea, not the person
• Diagnosis Skills
o How are you working together?

COMMISSION EFFECTIVENESS

Revision 4 31 March 2023
o Who isn’t involved?
o Where is your help needed?
o When are YOU going to help?
B. EFFECTIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Public hearings or citizen input meetings are difficult to manage. Participants are usually highly motivated and often nervous. When you have a group of potential adversaries in one room, the possibility of uncontrolled conflict is very high. As commission, committee, and board members, your role is to guide conflict to positive results, not to eliminate it, which is usually not possible.

The following suggestions should help manage conflicts and confrontations effectively:
• Anticipate conflicts by doing your homework so you can concentrate on the dynamics of the meeting rather than learning about the topic at hand. • Treat all sides fairly. Set the rules of the hearing early and make sure everyone abides by them without exception.
• Explain carefully the purpose of the public hearing and what action is expected at the conclusion of the hearing. Insistence on playing by the rules is your best tool for conflict management in public hearings.
• All persons speaking should must clearly identify themselves, not only for the record, but also so that you may address them by name. However, a public speaker is not required to identify themselves.
• Set an acceptable time limit for testimony (generally three minutes) and stick to it. • Make decisions as promptly as possible. Many commission, committees and bodies get so bogged down in procedural distractions, petty details, and endless searches for more information that the issue never seems to get resolved. • Try not to overreact to inflammatory comments. Most are expressions of frustration and do not require answers. Try to turn frustration to constructive avenues. Ask questions. Be specific if you can. Refer to the speaker by name.

Reinforce areas where you agree. Do not return insult for insult. Your insults can turn the audience against you for your lack of control and unfairness. • Try to avoid speaker-to-audience conversation. The purpose of a hearing is to help your commission, committee, or board act, not to engage in debate. • If other members have questions of the speaker, permit these questions only during the speaker’s time at the podium.
• Be careful not to prejudge the action of the commission, committee, or board.

Use the hearing to gather necessary information about the project and individual desires concerning the proposal. Members should not express their views on the proposal until after testimony has ended. Their comments and questions should not suggest a position one way or the other. Page 418 – 468 Revision 4 32 March 2023
• Once testimony has ended, each member should be invited to discuss their views on the proposal.
• View the public hearing as an example of basic democracy in action at the local level. Make it your personal goal to make the public hearing work.

Revision 4 33 March 2023

SECTION VIII
The Commission Handbook will be approved by the City Council, and any changes proposed by the City Manager or requested by the City Council will be presented annually tto the City Council for review and approval or more frequently as requesteduired.

It is encouraged that the Commission Handbook be presented to the City Council annually, even if no changes are recommended, to allow for regular review.

CONCLUSION
The City would like to thank you for accepting this position and for devoting your time and effort to become actively involved in the affairs of your community. It is sincerely hoped that you will enjoy your participation in the governing process in the City of San Dimas as a member of one of its advisory bodies, and that you will feel totally free to call upon any of its representatives for advice, background information, or assistance.

It is with this in mind that this brief handbook has been prepared. Please consider it a guide as you begin your new duties as a member of an advisory body and not as an allinclusive restrictive set of regulations.

Welcome aboard.

APPROVALS AND MODIFICATIONS

Revision 4 34 March 2023

APPENDIX

1. Development Plan Review Board Description

2. Equestrian Commission Description

3. Golf Course Advisory Committee Description

4. Parks and Recreation Commission Description

5. Planning Commission Description

6. Public Safety Commission Description

7. Senior Citizens Commission Description
A. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order
B. The Ralph M. Brown Act
C. Revision History
• Resolutions
i. 2021-24 April 27th, 2021
ii. 2023-XX14 March 14th, 2023
• Revisions List
•

Revision 4 35 March 2023
Revisions
March 19, 2014
• clearer outline of the Commissions and
Committees purposes
• expansion on Ethics Training, Brown
Act, Political Reform Act
• meeting frequencies
October 2017 Reprint
May 2021 Revisions
• bBroaden input and consideration of Commission, Committee, and Board perspectives
• DPRB –
i. revised number of public members
ii. replaced Assistant City Manager to City Manager
• Parks and Recreation – clarification for Youth Commissioner • Planning
i. Update meeting day
ii. Staff Liaison change
• Public Safety
i. Composition change from 9 members to five with attrition • Appointment of Employees’sEmployees’ Relative
i. Add brothers/sisterssisters’ spouse
• Appointment of Relatives of City Council or City Manager i. Add City Manager
ii. Add brother/sister spouse
iii. Add cousin, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece
• Resignation – clarify notification staff
• Attendance – language added to ratified Council’s authority to remove • Benefits – added amount
• Ethics and other Training – added Rosenberg and Sexual Harassment • Special Meetings – clarification of authority to call • Agenda – clarification of process to add items
• Interaction with Staff – add language defining limits for staff support • Interaction with City Council – identify members authorized to speak on behalf of Commission
• Interaction with the Public – language added outlining commissioner’s approach to representation, positions and views
• Approvals and Modifications – added section

Revision 4 36 March 2023
2023 Revisions
Equestrian, Parks and Recreation, Public Safety, Senior Commission, Planning Commissions composition changed to five
Section II B - Add City Manager is an ex officio member of all Commissions, Committee or Boards created by the City Council or established by state law, with the right to participate in all deliberations or actions by such Commissions, Committees or Boards
Section II B - changed staff liaison from Assistant City Manager to Director of Parks and Recreation
Section II B - to five Commissioners
Section II B - deleted Youth Commissioner language
Section II E - added designee
Section II F - update to five members
Section IV A - changed to include nominations from each Councilmember Section IV A - added voter registration requirement
Section IV B - changed terms of office to two full terms for all Commissions, Committees or Boards
Section IV B - added term language for DPRB
Section IV D - Appointment of Employee’s Relative added parent Section IV G - updated title to Resignation and Removal Section IV G - added vote requirement for removal
Section IV H - changed unexcused absences to two
Section IV H - added attendance report requirement
Section IV J - added must be included in budget and pre-approved Section IV K - added AB1234 and AB1661 language
Section IV L - updated to Rosenberg’s Rules
Section V K - deleted requirement to have attended meeting to approve minutes
Section V K - added except for clerical errors
Section VI B - deleted Councilmember Liaison
Section VI B - added requirement for Chairs to present an annual report to City Council
Section VII B - added language public not required to identify themselves

RESOLUTION 2023-14

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AMENDING THE CITY’S BOARDS, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEES

HANDBOOK
WHEREAS, The City of San Dimas maintains a Commission Handbook governing the policies, procedures and practices of the City’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees; and WHEREAS, the Commission Handbook has been recently reviewed and revised as a whole and is intended to supersede previous Handbooks, policies and procedures applying to Boards, Commissions, and Committees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council last met on February 4, 2023 and March 14, 2023 to consider and revise the Commission Handbook.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the City of San Dimas does hereby resolve that:

SECTION 1. A list of the revisions (Exhibit A) is hereby approved and adopted as amended.

SECTION 2. Any previous Commission Handbook is rescinded, and this Commission Handbook will supersede other resolutions, policies, or practices which conflict with this Commission Handbook.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 2023. _____________________
Emmett G. Badar, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
Debra Black, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2

Resolution 2023-14 2
Boards Commissions and Committee’s Handbook
June 13th, 2023
I, Debra Black, City Clerk, hereby certify that Resolution 2023-14 was adopted by the City Council of San Dimas at its regular meeting of June 13th, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________
Debra Black, City Clerk

Exhibit A
2023 Board Commission and Committees Handbook Revisions Equestrian, Parks and Recreation, Public Safety, Senior Commission, Planning Commissions composition changed to five
Section II B - Add City Manager is an ex officio member of all Commissions, Committee or Boards created by the City Council or established by state law, with the right to participate in all deliberations or actions by such Commissions, Committees or Boards
Section II B - changed staff liaison from Assistant City Manager to Director of Parks and Recreation
Section II B - to five Commissioners
Section II B - deleted Youth Commissioner language
Section II E - added designee
Section II F - update to five members
Section IV A - changed to include nominations from each Councilmember Section IV A - added voter registration requirement
Section IV B - changed terms of office to two full terms for all Commissions, Committees or Boards
Section IV B - added term language for DPRB
Section IV D - Appointment of Employee’s Relative added parent Section IV G - updated title to Resignation and Removal Section IV G - added vote requirement for removal
Section IV H - changed unexcused absences to two
Section IV H - added attendance report requirement
Section IV J - added must be included in budget and pre-approved Section IV K - added AB1234 and AB1661 language
Section IV L - updated to Rosenberg’s Rules
Section V K - deleted requirement to have attended meeting to approve minutes
Section V K - added except for clerical errors
Section VI B - deleted Councilmember Liaison
Section VI B - added requirement for Chairs to present an annual report to City Council
Section VII B - added language public not required to identify themselves

Memorandum
Date: June 6, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Luis Torrico, Planning Manager
Subject: Continuance of SB 9 Ordinance Discussion
_________________________________________________________________ At the regular City Council meeting of March 28, 2023, the City Council voted 4-0 (Mayor Emmett Badar absent) to continue the discussion to create an SB 9 Ordinance to allow the Mayor to provide input on the ordinance options. The item was on the agenda for the May 23, 2023, City Council meeting but was not discussed and continued to the meeting of June 13, 2023. The attached staff report will be presented to the Council for consideration.

Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of March 28, 2023
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Luis Torrico, Planning Manager
Subject: Discuss Zoning, Design and Development Standards the City could include in an Ordinance to Minimize Negative Impacts Related to Senate Bill 9, which Requires Cities to Ministerially Approve Subdivisions of Single-family Zoned Parcels into two (2) Parcels and Developments of Two (2) Residential Units on Single-family Zoned Parcels.
____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) was signed into law in September 2021 and went into effect January 1, 2022. SB 9 requires cities to ministerially approve subdivisions of single-family zoned parcels into two (2) parcels and developments of two (2) residential units on single-family zoned parcels.

SB 9 law allows cities to adopt objective zoning, design and development standards, however, there are limitations, including, but not limited to unit size, setbacks, parking, and off-site improvements for subdivisions.

On January 25, 2022, the City Council approved an initiation for a Municipal Code Text Amendment to amend the San Dimas Municipal Code related to SB 9.

On June 16, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the options prepared by Staff, which could assist in minimizing negative impacts related to SB 9 developments and provided recommendations to the City Council.

On July 26, 2022, the City Council discussed the options recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission. After discussing the options, the City Council directed Staff to bring the item back provide three options that provide development incentives ranging from the least to the most restrictive.

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 2
For the Meeting of March 28, 2023

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council
• Discuss the revised proposed options related to Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations related to optional development standards, and direct staff to draft an SB 9 ordinance to present to the Planning Commission and subsequently to the City Council for adoption.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the recommended action.

BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2021, in an effort to ease California’s housing shortage, SB 9 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, and went into effect on January 1, 2022 (Attachment 1). SB 9 requires cities to ministerially approve urban lot splits and two-unit residential developments for parcels zoned single-family, essentially allowing a single-family zoned parcel to have up to four (4) units, should the parcel be split and developed with two (2) units each pursuant to the new law. Cities are allowed to implement objective development standards; however, these standards would have to allow, at a minimum, 1,200 square-foot lot splits, and 800 square-foot units if developed pursuant to SB 9.

In order to regulate SB 9 projects and retain some local control, on January 25, 2022, the City Council approved an initiation for a Municipal Code Text Amendment (MCTA) to amend the San Dimas Municipal Code related to SB 9. The amendment will include objective zoning, design and development standards in compliance with the law, to allow at a minimum 1,200 square-foot lot splits and 800 square-foot two-unit developments. Prior to bringing the MCTA ordinance before the Planning Commission and City Council, Staff has prepared a list of possible standards the City could adopt to minimize negative impacts related to SB 9.

These standards, which included floor area, height and parking standards, were presented to the Planning Commission at their June 16, 2022, meeting (Attachment 3). The Commission did not agree with the premise of SB 9 but understood that it is the law and the City needs to comply with the law. They agreed in creating standards that would limit impacts related to SB 9 and provided the following comments on the standards presented to them:
• Floor Area
They agreed with providing additional floor area above the 800 square-foot minimum if it would incentivize developments to comply with the City’s existing residential development standards. Specifically, they agreed with any standards that would provide on-site parking for SB 9 units. They recommended that the additional floor area criteria be included in the ordinance.
• Height
The Commission agreed with limiting SB 9 projects to one-story in height unless they provide a two-car garage. As previously mentioned, the Commission agreed with including standards that would provide on-site parking for SB 9 units to reduce any impacts on

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 3
For the Meeting of March 28, 2023
residential street parking. They recommended that this allowance be included in the ordinance.
• Parking
SB 9 requires that a maximum of one (1) parking space be required for each new unit, unless the property is located within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop. For projects that would be exempt from providing on-site parking, the ordinance could be written to not allow driveways as a mechanism to persuade applicants to provide on-site parking. The Commission understood Staff’s approach to not allow driveways for projects exempt from providing parking to encourage on-site parking.

However, their main concern was to keep vehicles from having to park on the street.

Therefore, they recommended against this option and recommended to allow a driveway to provide a parking pad for parking-exempt projects.

In addition, during the meeting discussion, Staff informed the Commission that some cities were denying annual parking permits for units developed pursuant to SB 9. This was done in an attempt to require SB 9 projects to provide on-site parking. The Commission was not in favor of this procedure, and reiterated that while they did not agree with SB 9, understood that the City needs to comply with the law, but Staff should adopt standards to mitigate negative impacts, specifically those related to on-street parking.

On July 26, 2022, the optional standards, along with the Planning Commission’s recommendations were presented to the City Council (Attachment 2). The Council discussed the options related to floor area, height and parking and how each standard may affect one another and the overall impact. Options were also discussed to make the ordinance as restrictive as possible to limit impacts to existing single-family neighborhoods. Discussion on standards included:
• Floor Area
o Limit units from 800 – 1,000 square feet.
o Allow 1,000 square feet units if they provide a one-car garage or make the units affordable.
• Height
o Allow two-story units on larger lots or lots that abut to non-sensitive uses such as a drainage channel/wash.
• Parking
o Allow units up to 1,000 square feet if they provide a one-car garage.

After discussing the options, the City Council directed Staff to bring the item back after conducting additional research and to provide three (3) options that explore units ranging from 800 – 1,000 square feet in floor area based on incentives, allowing two-story units based on lot size and adjacent uses, and an option to allow larger units if they are restricted to affordable income levels.

In addition, the direction included that the three options include development incentives ranging from the least to the most restrictive.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
SB 9 allows by-right subdivisions and housing developments that could change the character of single-family neighborhoods. The law undermines local control as it requires cities to approve projects ministerially and includes development standards that are less restrictive than what the San Dimas Municipal Code currently allows for lot splits and residential developments. While SB

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 4
For the Meeting of March 28, 2023
9 projects are allowed by-right, and sets forth minimum requirements, the law gives cities limited control by allowing cities to establish objective development standards.

SB 9 Minimum Requirements
The following are the minimum requirements that must be applied to Urban Lot Splits:

1. The parcel to be subdivided must be zoned for single-family residential and cannot be located within a historic district.

2. The lot split cannot result in more than two (2) parcels, and each newly created parcel would have to have a minimum lot area of 1,200 square feet and must be at least 40 percent the size of the original lot.

3. Each of the newly created parcels could potentially be developed with a maximum of two (2) units, for a total of four (4) units resulting from the one (1) lot split (See Figure 2).

4. Per the law, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are counted towards the maximum number of units on SB 9 developments, and allows cities to prohibit ADUs and JADUs on lot created through SB 9.

5. The parcel to be subdivided cannot have been previously subdivided pursuant to SB 9, and neither the owner of the parcel being divided nor any other person acting in concert with the owner shall have previously subdivided any adjacent parcel pursuant to SB 9.

6. When approving SB 9 lot splits, cities cannot require dedications of right-of-way or the construction of off-site improvements as a condition of approving a lot split.

7. The lot split must not require the demolition or alteration of protected affordable housing or housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three (3) years.

8. The applicant is required to sign an affidavit stating that they intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for at least three (3) years from the date of approval of the lot split; therefore, vacant lots would be disqualified as the occupancy requirement would not be met.

9. Units created under this law cannot be used as short-term rentals.

The law also requires cities to ministerially approve two-unit residential developments, with a minimum floor area of 800 square-feet, on any single-family zone parcel. This could result in up to four (4) units on one (1) single-family zoned lot (See Figure 1). Cities can require compliance with development standards, but cannot preclude an 800 square-foot unit from being developed.

The following are minimum requirements that must be applied to two-unit residential developments:

1. Requires minimum four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for new units, and does not require setbacks for a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

2. A maximum of one (1) parking space is required for each new unit; however, if the parcel is located within a half-mile of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, or there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel, then the City cannot require any onsite parking.

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 5
For the Meeting of March 28, 2023

3. The project cannot require the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls.

4. Lastly, similar to the requirement for Urban Lot Splits, two-unit developments must not require the demolition or alteration of protected affordable housing or housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three (3) years, and the parcel cannot be a historic landmark or located within a historic district.

Figure 1 - Two-unit development scenarios for one single-family lot (no lot split). *A JADU would be located entirely within an existing/proposed single-family residence.

Figure 2 - Lot split & two-unit development scenarios for one single-family lot. *A JADU would be located entirely within an existing/proposed single-family residence.

Staff’s initial intent was to draft an ordinance that limited SB 9 development to minimize impacts to existing single-family neighborhoods. Limitations would include limiting units to 800 square feet in floor area and to one-story in height, unless the units were designed to comply with existing setback, lot coverage, and parking requirements. Under those scenarios, units could potentially be as big a 1,000 square feet and/or be two-stories in height. Therefore, those options were presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Since the July 26, 2022, City Council meeting, Staff has been doing additional research on what other cities have done and has also been monitoring the Department of Housing & Community Development’s (HCD) website for additional guidance on the law.

While no changes have been made or proposed to the law by HCD, nor has additional guidance been provided, City Staff has become aware of HCD sending letter to cities that have adopted ordinances that violate SB 9 and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov. Code, § 66300). Two cities in particular, located within the San Gabriel Valley, received said letters. The violations varied

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 6
For the Meeting of March 28, 2023
slightly for each of these cities; however, the main takeaway from both of these letters is that HCD raised concerns with ordinances that were more restrictive than the City’s existing single-family residential zoning standards. Examples include, but are not limited to, limiting floor area, height and other limiting standards that do not apply to single-family development. As a result of these letters, one of these cities is in the process of amending their adopted SB 9 ordinance to comply with State law.

Therefore, Staff’s previous recommendations that limited SB 9 developments, if adopted, could be seen as a violation of the law by HCD. As a result, Staff discussed the options and Staff’s intent of limiting impacts related to SB 9 projects with the City Attorney’s office. Their recommendation was to only limit development of one (1) of the two (2) units allowed per SB 9.

The primary unit would be allowed to be developed per the City’s current single-family development standards, and the second unit would be limited by the standards (i.e. floor area & height) that are approved by the Council and adopted as part of an SB 9 ordinance. Taking that approach, the ordinance could be construed as not being more restrictive that the City’s existing single-family development standards, which allow for one (1) unit to be developed in compliance with the existing development standards. Drafting an SB 9 ordinance that allows the primary unit to develop per our current standards and limit development of the second unit, in the City Attorney’s opinion, should not violate State law.

In addition to doing further research on the law itself, City Staff has been monitoring the number of SB 9 applications submitted, not just for San Dimas but for adjacent cities to get a better understanding on how the new law is impacting residential neighborhoods. Since the law went into effect on January 1, 2022, the City of San Dimas has only received a total of five (5) SB 9 applications, of which, three (3) have been deemed complete and two (2) have been deemed incomplete. Staff continues to work with the applicants of the incomplete applications to get the required documents and information to deem the applications complete. Of the three (3) applications that have been deemed complete, only one has submitted for building plan check.

Staff also reached out to six (6) surrounding cities and collectively, only five (5) SB 9 applications were received by the six (6) cities. Cities had concerns on the impact that SB 9 developments would have on single-family neighborhoods, but as it turns out, there has been very limited SB 9 activity. It’s still early to make determinations on the real impact of SB 9 or why property owners are not pursuing SB 9 projects; however, it may be that SB 9 developments are not financially practical for the average single-family parcel in built-out communities, and the development of ADUs, which have less restrictions, would be more financially practical for property owners.

Regardless of the limited activity, Staff’s recommendations would still have the goal of minimizing impacts to single-family neighborhoods. The ordinance will include architectural and site layout objective standard requirements to assist in achieving some consistency with existing singlefamily residential neighborhoods including, but not limited to, design, landscaping, parking and driveway requirements. In addition, the ordinance could include optional incentives to provide flexibilities on unit sizes and height. Previous discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council included options to increase floor area and allow for up to two-stories. Based on direction from the Commission and City Council, and the recent information from the City Attorney’s office related to HCD’s letters to the non-compliant cities, second units would still be limited to 800 square feet and one-story unless the proposed following optional incentives are included in the ordinance.
• Units Larger than 800 Square Feet

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 7
For the Meeting of March 28, 2023
o One-car garage incentive - Under this optional standard, units could exceed the 800 square foot max up to 1,000 square feet if they provide a one-car garage. The garage would require minimum dimensions (interior clearance) of 10-feet by 20- feet, and would have to comply with the setback standards of the underlying zone.

The garage floor area would not count towards the unit’s floor area. o Affordable units – Under this optional standard, units could exceed the 800 square foot max if they are maintained as low or very low income housing. The income levels and the years required to be affordable would be set by the Council. The Council could choose to make the units affordable in perpetuity or set a timeframe such as 20 or 30 years. This could be secured through an affordable covenant that would be tied to the property and would transfer if the property was to be sold. It’s unlikely that applicants would chose this option in exchange for a 1,000 square foot unit; therefore, Staff would recommend that affordable units be allowed up to 1,200 square feet in floor area to increase the likelihood that this option would be pursued. This option would require a significant amount of staff time, and potentially require additional staff to prepare the legal documents, review eligibility standards for new tenants and complete the required annual monitoring of the affordability requirements.
• Two-story units
o Larger Parcels - Concerns with privacy and over-development were raised during the City Council’s discussion. It was suggested that Staff research allowing twostory units on larger parcels. Exploring this option, Staff recommends applying a minimum lot depth as opposed to a minimum lot size. Lots created through SB 9 would be splitting existing parcels; therefore, a lot size minimum that would address the concern is less likely to be achieved through the SB 9 process. If twostory units are allowed on parcels with lot depths of 150 feet or greater, this would provide for additional spacing between the units to address privacy concerns, crowding, and the appearance of over-development. In addition, to address further privacy concerns, the units could be required to be located within the rear one-third of the parcel.
o Parcels Adjacent to Less Sensitive Uses – The Council also suggested allowing two-story units on parcels that abut a flood control channel/wash to address privacy concerns. There are some residential properties that abut the San Dimas Wash located on the north end of the City. While there wouldn’t be any residential uses that could be impacted behind these parcels, two-story units could still potentially create privacy impacts to adjacent lots since the minimum side yard requirement is four (4) feet per SB 9 law. Increased side yard setbacks could be required for these units; however, it would be very difficult to come up with a minimum standard side yard setback requirement that would not create privacy impacts on adjacent parcels, as lot widths and location of adjacent structures and open space areas would vary. Furthermore, parcels that abut to a residential channel/wash and are split using a flag-lot design, would result in only the rear lot (flag-lot) eligible for this criteria. If the Council chooses to include this option, it makes sense to include parcels that abut to other non-sensitive use such as commercial properties and multi-family properties.

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 8
For the Meeting of March 28, 2023
• Affordable Units
o As previously discussed, an incentive to allow for larger units could be provided if the units are made affordable to low-income tenants. As opposed to providing incentives to build affordable units, the Council could decide to require all second units to be affordable, regardless of size. While not a requirement of SB 9 law, one of the intents of SB 9 is to increase the supply of affordable housing in the State.

For every SB 9 development, the second unit would need to be restricted to lowincome rents for a period set by the Council. The likelihood of affordable units to be created are more probable under this option than the 1,200 square foot floor area incentive discussed above. Therefore, if the preference is for affordable units to be created, Staff would recommend pursuing this option and the not the increased floor area option. This option would require a significant amount of staff time, and potentially require additional staff to prepare the legal documents, review eligibility standards for new tenants and annual monitoring of the affordability requirements.

The options discussed above would be in addition to the minimum objective development standards that would be written into the ordinance. Per the last City Council study session, the Council requested that three options, ranging from least to most restrictive, be provided for consideration. To be clear, the development incentives would only apply to the second unit, as the primary unit could be developed per existing single-family development standards with no limitation on floor area or height beyond what the Code currently allows.

Option 1 – Least Restrictive
This option would allow both units to develop pursuant to the City’s existing single-family development standards, with the exception of the reduced setback and parking requirements per SB 9. Under this option both units could be developed with a 20-foot front yard setback, four-foot side yard setbacks, and no rear yard setback. Both units could be two-stories in height and only be limited by the 35% lot coverage requirement. Floor area for both units combined could be as big as the current code would permit. As an example, on a typical downtown residential lot that measures 7,000 square feet, each unit could be as big as 2,450 square feet if both are two-stories.

Under this scenario, no on-site parking would need to be provided as the lot would be within ½ mile of public transit.

Option 2 – More Restrictive
This option could include a mixture of development incentives discussed above. The ordinance can include the incentives to develop larger units in exchange for providing a one-car garage or creating an affordable unit per the terms agreed upon by the Council. The ordinance could also provide an option to develop two-story units if the lot has a depth of 150 feet or more and the unit is located on the rear one-third of the lot. The Council can choose to include some or all of the options to provide some flexibility. Again, these options would only be applicable to the second unit.

Option 3 – Most Restrictive

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 9
For the Meeting of March 28, 2023
This option would be the most restrictive and would not provide any development incentives for the second unit. The second unit would be limited to 800 square feet, which is the floor area included in the SB 9 law text, and would be limited to one story in height. The Council could also add the affordability requirement for the second unit, which would make this option even more restrictive. The second unit would also have to comply with the objective development standards that would be written into the ordinance. It’s Staff’s understanding, through discussions with the City Attorney’s office, that this option is less likely to be flagged as a violation of SB 9 law as the ordinance would allow one (1) unit to be developed without restrictions, thus not making this ordinance more restrictive than our current requirements for the single-family residential zones.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this item because there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.

Respectfully submitted,
Luis Torrico
Planning Manager
Attachments:

1. Senate Bill 9 Law

2. City Council Staff Report – July 26, 2022

3. Planning Commission Staff Report – June 16, 2022

Senate Bill No. 9
CHAPTER 162
An act to amend Section 66452.6 of, and to add Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to, the Government Code, relating to land use.
[Approved by Governor September 16, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 16, 2021.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 9, Atkins. Housing development: approvals.

The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions.

This bill, among other things, would require a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the proposed housing development does not allow for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, except as provided, and that the development is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district.

The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving the construction of 2 residential units, including, but not limited to, authorizing a local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to 2 units or physically precluding either of the 2 units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances.

The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification of those maps. Under the Subdivision Map Act, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map expires 24 94 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
ATTACHMENT 1

months after its approval or conditional approval or after any additional period of time as prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 12 months, except as provided.

This bill, among other things, would require a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the urban lot split would not require the demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the parcel is located within a single-family residential zone, and that the parcel is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district.

The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving an urban lot split, including, but not limited to, authorizing a local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of 2 units, as defined, on either of the resulting parcels or physically precluding either of the 2 units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. The bill would require an applicant to sign an affidavit stating that they intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of 3 years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split, unless the applicant is a community land trust or a qualified nonprofit corporation, as specified. The bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing any additional owner occupancy standards on applicants. By requiring applicants to sign affidavits, thereby expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would also extend the limit on the additional period that may be provided by ordinance, as described above, from 12 months to 24 months and would make other conforming or nonsubstantive changes.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects.

This bill, by establishing the ministerial review processes described above, would thereby exempt the approval of projects subject to those processes from CEQA.

The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for the planning and regulation of development, under a coastal development permit process, within the coastal zone, as defined, that shall be based on various coastal resources planning and management policies set forth in the act. 94 Ch. 162 — 2 —
ATTACHMENT 1

This bill would exempt a local agency from being required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for housing developments and urban lot splits pursuant to the above provisions.

By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 65852.21 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65852.21. (a) A proposed housing development containing no more than two residential units within a single-family residential zone shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all of the following requirements:
(1) The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is located within a city, the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
(2) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (3) Notwithstanding any provision of this section or any local law, the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
(A) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
(B) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
(C) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (4) The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is not a parcel on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.
94 — 3 — Ch. 162
ATTACHMENT 1

(5) The proposed housing development does not allow the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior structural walls, unless the housing development meets at least one of the following conditions:
(A) If a local ordinance so allows.
(B) The site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (6) The development is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding any local law and except as provided in paragraph (2), a local agency may impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that do not conflict with this section.
(2) (A) The local agency shall not impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to two units or that would physically preclude either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area.
(B) (i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), no setback shall be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
(ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in all other circumstances not described in clause (i), a local agency may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines.
(c) In addition to any conditions established in accordance with subdivision (b), a local agency may require any of the following conditions when considering an application for two residential units as provided for in this section:
(1) Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the following instances:
(A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
(B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. (2) For residential units connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last 5 years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency may deny a proposed housing development project if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is 94 Ch. 162 — 4 —
ATTACHMENT 1

no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.
(e) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days.
(f) Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 or 65852.22, a local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section and the authority contained in Section 66411.7. (g) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), an application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. (h) Local agencies shall include units constructed pursuant to this section in the annual housing element report as required by subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400.
(i) For purposes of this section, all of the following apply:
(1) A housing development contains two residential units if the development proposes no more than two new units or if it proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit.
(2) The terms “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a local agency, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances. (3) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered.
(j) A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this section shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(k) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local agency shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for a housing development pursuant to this section.

SEC. 2. Section 66411.7 is added to the Government Code, to read:
66411.7. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division and any local law, a local agency shall ministerially approve, as set forth in this section, a parcel map for an urban lot split only if the local agency determines that the parcel map for the urban lot split meets all the following requirements:
94 — 5 — Ch. 162
ATTACHMENT 1

(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 of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision.
(2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), both newly created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet.
(B) A local agency may by ordinance adopt a smaller minimum lot size subject to ministerial approval under this subdivision. (3) The parcel being subdivided meets all the following requirements:
(A) The parcel is located within a single-family residential zone. (B) The parcel subject to the proposed urban lot split is located within a city, the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
(C) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (D) The proposed urban lot split would not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
(i) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
(ii) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
(iii) A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.
(iv) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (E) The parcel is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
(F) The parcel has not been established through prior exercise of an urban lot split as provided for in this section.
(G) Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split as provided for in this section. (b) An application for a parcel map for an urban lot split shall be approved in accordance with the following requirements:
(1) A local agency shall approve or deny an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split ministerially without discretionary review. (2) A local agency shall approve an urban lot split only if it conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division 94 Ch. 162 — 6 —
ATTACHMENT 1

2 (commencing with Section 66410)), except as otherwise expressly provided in this section.
(3) Notwithstanding Section 66411.1, a local agency shall not impose regulations that require dedications of rights-of-way or the construction of offsite improvements for the parcels being created as a condition of issuing a parcel map for an urban lot split pursuant to this section. (c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), notwithstanding any local law, a local agency may impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards applicable to a parcel created by an urban lot split that do not conflict with this section. (2) A local agency shall not impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet.
(3) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), no setback shall be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), in all other circumstances not described in subparagraph (A), a local agency may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency may deny an urban lot split if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. (e) In addition to any conditions established in accordance with this section, a local agency may require any of the following conditions when considering an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split:
(1) Easements required for the provision of public services and facilities. (2) A requirement that the parcels have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way.
(3) Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the following instances:
(A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
(B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. (f) A local agency shall require that the uses allowed on a lot created by this section be limited to residential uses.
(g) (1) A local agency shall require an applicant for an urban lot split to sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the 94 — 7 — Ch. 162
ATTACHMENT 1

housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split.
(2) This subdivision shall not apply to an applicant that is a “community land trust,” as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or is a “qualified nonprofit corporation” as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(3) A local agency shall not impose additional owner occupancy standards, other than provided for in this subdivision, on an urban lot split pursuant to this section.
(h) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days.
(i) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a parcel map application for the creation of an urban lot split, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions.
(j) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 65852.2, 65852.21, 65852.22, 65915, or this section, a local agency shall not be required to permit more than two units on a parcel created through the exercise of the authority contained within this section.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a unit or units created pursuant to Section 65852.21, a primary dwelling, an accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 65852.2, or a junior accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 65852.22.
(k) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), an application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance.
(l) Local agencies shall include the number of applications for parcel maps for urban lot splits pursuant to this section in the annual housing element report as required by subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400.
(m) For purposes of this section, both of the following shall apply:
(1) “Objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a local agency, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances.
(2) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered.
(n) A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this section shall not be 94 Ch. 162 — 8 —
ATTACHMENT 1

considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(o) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local agency shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for urban lot splits pursuant to this section.

SEC. 3. Section 66452.6 of the Government Code is amended to read:
66452.6. (a) (1) An approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall expire 24 months after its approval or conditional approval, or after any additional period of time as may be prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 24 months. However, if the subdivider is required to expend two hundred thirty-six thousand seven hundred ninety dollars ($236,790) or more to construct, improve, or finance the construction or improvement of public improvements outside the property boundaries of the tentative map, excluding improvements of public rights-of-way that abut the boundary of the property to be subdivided and that are reasonably related to the development of that property, each filing of a final map authorized by Section 66456.1 shall extend the expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map by 48 months from the date of its expiration, as provided in this section, or the date of the previously filed final map, whichever is later. The extensions shall not extend the tentative map more than 10 years from its approval or conditional approval. However, a tentative map on property subject to a development agreement authorized by Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4 of Division 1 may be extended for the period of time provided for in the agreement, but not beyond the duration of the agreement. The number of phased final maps that may be filed shall be determined by the advisory agency at the time of the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map. (2) Commencing January 1, 2012, and each calendar year thereafter, the amount of two hundred thirty-six thousand seven hundred ninety dollars ($236,790) shall be annually increased by operation of law according to the adjustment for inflation set forth in the statewide cost index for class B construction, as determined by the State Allocation Board at its January meeting. The effective date of each annual adjustment shall be March 1.

The adjusted amount shall apply to tentative and vesting tentative maps whose applications were received after the effective date of the adjustment. (3) “Public improvements,” as used in this subdivision, include traffic controls, streets, roads, highways, freeways, bridges, overcrossings, street interchanges, flood control or storm drain facilities, sewer facilities, water facilities, and lighting facilities.
(b) (1) The period of time specified in subdivision (a), including any extension thereof granted pursuant to subdivision (e), shall not include any period of time during which a development moratorium, imposed after approval of the tentative map, is in existence. However, the length of the moratorium shall not exceed five years.
94 — 9 — Ch. 162
ATTACHMENT 1

(2) The length of time specified in paragraph (1) shall be extended for up to three years, but in no event beyond January 1, 1992, during the pendency of any lawsuit in which the subdivider asserts, and the local agency that approved or conditionally approved the tentative map denies, the existence or application of a development moratorium to the tentative map. (3) Once a development moratorium is terminated, the map shall be valid for the same period of time as was left to run on the map at the time that the moratorium was imposed. However, if the remaining time is less than 120 days, the map shall be valid for 120 days following the termination of the moratorium.
(c) The period of time specified in subdivision (a), including any extension thereof granted pursuant to subdivision (e), shall not include the period of time during which a lawsuit involving the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map is or was pending in a court of competent jurisdiction, if the stay of the time period is approved by the local agency pursuant to this section. After service of the initial petition or complaint in the lawsuit upon the local agency, the subdivider may apply to the local agency for a stay pursuant to the local agency’s adopted procedures. Within 40 days after receiving the application, the local agency shall either stay the time period for up to five years or deny the requested stay. The local agency may, by ordinance, establish procedures for reviewing the requests, including, but not limited to, notice and hearing requirements, appeal procedures, and other administrative requirements.
(d) The expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map or parcel map of all or any portion of the real property included within the tentative map shall be filed with the legislative body without first processing a new tentative map. Once a timely filing is made, subsequent actions of the local agency, including, but not limited to, processing, approving, and recording, may lawfully occur after the date of expiration of the tentative map. Delivery to the county surveyor or city engineer shall be deemed a timely filing for purposes of this section.
(e) Upon application of the subdivider filed before the expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map, the time at which the map expires pursuant to subdivision (a) may be extended by the legislative body or by an advisory agency authorized to approve or conditionally approve tentative maps for a period or periods not exceeding a total of six years. The period of extension specified in this subdivision shall be in addition to the period of time provided by subdivision (a). Before the expiration of an approved or conditionally approved tentative map, upon an application by the subdivider to extend that map, the map shall automatically be extended for 60 days or until the application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first. If the advisory agency denies a subdivider’s application for an extension, the subdivider may appeal to the legislative body within 15 days after the advisory agency has denied the extension.
94 Ch. 162 — 10 —
ATTACHMENT 1

(f) For purposes of this section, a development moratorium includes a water or sewer moratorium, or a water and sewer moratorium, as well as other actions of public agencies that regulate land use, development, or the provision of services to the land, including the public agency with the authority to approve or conditionally approve the tentative map, which thereafter prevents, prohibits, or delays the approval of a final or parcel map. A development moratorium shall also be deemed to exist for purposes of this section for any period of time during which a condition imposed by the city or county could not be satisfied because of either of the following:
(1) The condition was one that, by its nature, necessitated action by the city or county, and the city or county either did not take the necessary action or by its own action or inaction was prevented or delayed in taking the necessary action before expiration of the tentative map. (2) The condition necessitates acquisition of real property or any interest in real property from a public agency, other than the city or county that approved or conditionally approved the tentative map, and that other public agency fails or refuses to convey the property interest necessary to satisfy the condition. However, nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to require any public agency to convey any interest in real property owned by it. A development moratorium specified in this paragraph shall be deemed to have been imposed either on the date of approval or conditional approval of the tentative map, if evidence was included in the public record that the public agency that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein may refuse to convey that property or interest, or on the date that the public agency that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein receives an offer by the subdivider to purchase that property or interest for fair market value, whichever is later. A development moratorium specified in this paragraph shall extend the tentative map up to the maximum period as set forth in subdivision (b), but not later than January 1, 1992, so long as the public agency that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein fails or refuses to convey the necessary property interest, regardless of the reason for the failure or refusal, except that the development moratorium shall be deemed to terminate 60 days after the public agency has officially made, and communicated to the subdivider, a written offer or commitment binding on the agency to convey the necessary property interest for a fair market value, paid in a reasonable time and manner.

SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Sections 1 and 2 of this act adding Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to the Government Code and Section 3 of this act amending Section 66452.6 of the Government Code apply to all cities, including charter cities.

SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act or 94 — 11 — Ch. 162
ATTACHMENT 1

because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

O
94 Ch. 162 — 12 —
ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of July 12, 2022
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Luis Torrico, Planning Manager
Subject: Discuss Zoning, Design and Development Standards the City Could to Include in an Ordinance to Minimize Negative Impacts Related to Senate Bill 9, Which Requires Cities to Ministerially Approve Subdivisions of Single-Family Zoned Parcels into Two (2) Parcels and Developments of Two (2) Residential Units on Single-Family Zoned Parcels.
____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) was signed into law in September 2021 and went into effect January 1, 2022. SB 9 requires cities to ministerially approve subdivisions of single-family zoned parcels into two (2) parcels and developments of two (2) residential units on single-family zoned parcels.

On January 25, 2022, the City Council approved an initiation for a Municipal Code Text Amendment to amend the San Dimas Municipal Code related to SB 9.

SB 9 law allows cities to adopt objective zoning, design and development standards, however, there are limitations, including, but not limited to unit size, setbacks, parking, and off-site improvements for subdivisions. Staff prepared a list of optional standards which could assist in minimizing negative impacts related to SB 9 developments.

On June 16, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the options and provided recommendations to the City Council.

Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and consider the proposed options for incorporation into an SB 9 ordinance, which will be brought before the Planning Commission and City Council in the near future.

ATTACHMENT 2

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 2
For the Meeting of July 12, 2022

RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends that the City Council
• Discuss and provide Staff direction regarding the proposed options to include within the ordinance pertaining to Senate Bill 9 (SB 9).

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact to the City.

BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2021, in an effort to ease California’s housing shortage, SB 9 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, and went into effect on January 1, 2022. SB 9 requires cities to ministerially approve urban lot splits and two-unit residential developments for parcels zoned single-family, essentially allowing a single-family zoned parcel to have up to four (4) units, should the parcel be split and developed with two (2) units each pursuant to the new law. Cities are allowed to implement objective development standards; however, these standards would have to allow, at a minimum, 1,200 square-foot lot splits, and 800 square-foot units if developed pursuant to SB 9.

In order to regulate SB 9 projects and retain some local control, on January 25, 2022 the City Council approved an initiation for a Municipal Code Text Amendment (MCTA) to amend the San Dimas Municipal Code related to SB 9. The amendment will include objective zoning, design and development standards in compliance with the law, to allow at a minimum 1,200 square-foot lot splits and 800 square-foot two-unit developments. Prior to bringing the MCTA ordinance before the Planning Commission and City Council, Staff has prepared a list of possible standards the City could adopt to minimize the negative impacts of SB 9.

These standards were presented to the Planning Commission at their June 16, 2022 meeting.

The Commission did not agree with the premise of SB 9, but understood that it is the law and the City needs to comply with the law. They agreed in creating standards that would limit impacts related to SB 9. Information about the Commission’s comments and recommendations is provided later in the report under the optional standards discussion.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
SB 9 allows by-right subdivisions and housing developments that could change the character of single-family neighborhoods. The law undermines local control as it requires cities to approve projects ministerially and includes development standards that are less restrictive than what the San Dimas Municipal Code currently allows for lot splits and residential developments. While SB 9 projects are allowed by-right, and sets forth minimum requirements, the law gives cities limited control by allowing cities to establish objective development standards.

SB 9 Minimum Requirements
The following are the minimum requirements that must be applied to Urban Lot Splits:

1. The parcel to be subdivided must be zoned for single-family residential and cannot be located within a historic district.

ATTACHMENT 2

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 3
For the Meeting of July 12, 2022

2. The lot split cannot result in more than two (2) parcels, and each newly created parcel would have to have a minimum lot area of 1,200 square feet and must be at least 40 percent the size of the original lot.

3. Each of the newly created parcels could potentially be developed with a maximum of two (2) units, for a total of four (4) units resulting from the one (1) lot split (See Figure 2).

4. Per the law, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are counted towards the maximum number of units on SB 9 developments, and allows cities to prohibit ADUs and JADUs on lots created through SB 9.

5. The parcel to be subdivided cannot have been previously subdivided pursuant to SB 9, and neither the owner of the parcel being divided nor any other person acting in concert with the owner shall have previously subdivided any adjacent parcel pursuant to SB 9.

6. When approving SB 9 lot splits, cities cannot require dedications of right-of-way or the construction of off-site improvements as a condition of approving a lot split.

7. The lot split must not require the demolition or alteration of protected affordable housing or housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three (3) years.

8. The applicant is required to sign an affidavit stating that they intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for at least three (3) years from the date of approval of the lot split; therefore, vacant lots would be disqualified as the occupancy requirement would not be met.

9. Units created under this law cannot be used as short-term rentals.

The law also requires cities to ministerially approve two-unit residential developments, with a minimum floor area of 800 square-feet, on any single-family zone parcel. This could result in up to four (4) units on one (1) single-family zoned lot (See Figure 1). Cities can require compliance with development standards, but cannot preclude an 800 square-foot unit from being developed.

The following are minimum requirements that must be applied to two-unit residential developments:

1. Requires minimum four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for new units, and does not require setbacks for a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

2. A maximum of one (1) parking space is required for each new unit; however, if the parcel is located within a half-mile of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, or there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel, then the City cannot require any onsite parking.

3. The project cannot require the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls.

4. Lastly, similar to the requirement for Urban Lot Splits, two-unit developments must not require the demolition or alteration of protected affordable housing or housing that has ATTACHMENT 2

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 4
For the Meeting of July 12, 2022
been occupied by a tenant in the last three (3) years, and the parcel cannot be a historic landmark or located within a historic district.

Figure 1 - Two-unit development scenarios for one single-family lot (no lot split). *A JADU would be located entirely within an existing/proposed single-family residence.

Figure 2 - Lot split & two-unit development scenarios for one single-family lot. *A JADU would be located entirely within an existing/proposed single-family residence.

Staff intends on drafting an ordinance that will implement objective standards to SB 9 developments to minimize impacts to existing single-family neighborhoods. Therefore, the ordinance will include the State’s minimum requirements limiting newly created lots to a minimum lot area of 1,200 square-feet, and limiting units to a maximum of 800 square-feet. The ordinance will also include standards to assist in achieving some consistency with existing single-family residential neighborhoods including, but not limited to, unit design, driveway, and occupancy standards.

Optional SB 9 Standards
While the law establishes the minimum number of units allowed, minimum setbacks and unit size requirements, cities can adopt additional objective standards to gain greater regulatory control and bring SB 9 developments closer to compliance with the City’s single-family development standards. The options below can be included in the ordinance to achieve this.

Unit Size
Units developed pursuant to SB 9 must be approved with a minimum floor area of 800 squarefeet. However, the ordinance to be drafted intends to apply existing development standards to the extent that they do not preclude the development of up to two (2) 800 square-foot units; thereby ATTACHMENT 2

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 5
For the Meeting of July 12, 2022
limiting a unit to no more than 800 square-feet in floor area. The ordinance can also include incentives to allow units larger than the 800 square-foot minimum, for a total floor area of up to 1,000 or 1,200 square-feet if certain criteria is met.

Potential Unit Size Options:

1. A 1,000 square-foot unit would be allowed if the proposed unit complies with existing setback and lot coverage requirements.

2. A 1,200 square-foot unit would be allowed if the unit complies with existing setback and lot coverage requirements, and also provides a code-compliant two-car garage.

These incentives would allow SB 9 projects to be consistent with existing residential development standards and the two-car garage would reduce impacts to street parking. The Planning Commission agreed with providing additional floor area above the 800 square-foot minimum if it would incentivize developments to comply with the City’s existing residential development standards. Specifically, they agreed with any standards that would provide on-site parking for SB 9 units. They recommended that the additional floor area criteria be included in the ordinance.

Height
The law does not restrict cities from imposing height restrictions on SB 9 units. Staff’s intent is to draft an ordinance that limits SB 9 units to one-story in height.

Potential Height Option:

1. The ordinance can include a provision that allows two-story units if the unit complies with existing setback, lot coverage requirements and also provides a code-compliant two-car garage.

Under this scenario, the maximum unit floor area could be up to 1,200 square-feet and the twocar garage would reduce impacts to street parking and would be consistent with parking requirements for existing single-family residences. In addition, requiring that the unit be built over the garage, would reduce the building footprint which may allow for more open yard space than a one-story unit would.

The Commission agreed with limiting SB 9 projects to one-story in height unless they provide a two-car garage. As previously mentioned, the Commission agreed with including standards that would provide on-site parking for SB 9 units to reduce any impacts on residential street parking.

They recommended that this allowance be included in the ordinance.

Parking/Driveways
SB 9 requires that a maximum of one (1) parking space be required for each new unit, unless the property is located within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop.

Potential Parking/Driveway Option:

1. For projects that would be exempt from providing on-site parking, the ordinance could be written to not allow driveways.

ATTACHMENT 2

SB 9 Ordinance Options Page 6
For the Meeting of July 12, 2022
This could serve as a mechanism to persuade applicants to provide on-site parking for SB 9 projects. Conversely, if driveways are not allowed for parking-exempt projects, it could potentially impact existing neighborhoods by forcing residents to park on the street. While this option could lead to the provision of on-site parking, it could also lead to more vehicles parking on the street.

The Commission understood Staff’s approach to not allow driveways for projects exempt from providing parking to encourage on-site parking. However, their main concern was to keep vehicles from having to park on the street. Therefore, they recommended against this option and recommended to allow a driveway to provide a parking pad for parking-exempt projects.

In addition, during the meeting discussion, Staff informed the Commission that some cities were denying annual parking permits for units developed pursuant to SB 9. This was done in an attempt to require SB 9 projects to provide on-site parking. The Commission was not in favor of this procedure, and reiterated that while they did not agree with SB 9, understood that the City needs to comply with the law, but Staff should adopt standards to mitigate negative impacts, specifically those related to on-street parking.

As previously mentioned, cities cannot control the number of units developed pursuant to SB 9 nor can cities deny a unit with at least 800 square-feet in floor area and four-foot (4’) side and rear yard setbacks. However, the above mentioned options could assist in reducing impacts SB 9 projects could have on existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Until the ordinance is drafted and adopted, applicants can request subdivisions and/or two-unit residential developments as long as their requests comply with the minimum State criteria, which means units can be larger than 800 square-feet. Since both the subdivisions and two-unit developments would be allowed ministerially, they would both be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An ordinance adopted, or in this case, the request to initiate the MCTA pursuant to SB 9 does not count as a project for CEQA purposes, and is therefore not subject to CEQA review.

Respectfully submitted,
Luis Torrico
Planning Manager
Attachments
1 Senate Bill 9 Law
2 Planning Commission Staff Report – June 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2

Agenda Item Staff Report
Study Session
To: Honorable Chair and Members of Planning Commission
For the Meeting of June 16, 2022
From: Henry Noh, Director of Community Development
Prepared by: Luis Torrico, Planning Manager
Subject: Discuss zoning, design and development standards the City could include in an ordinance to minimize negative impacts related to Senate Bill 9, which requires cities to ministerially approve subdivisions of single-family zoned parcels into two (2) parcels and developments of two (2) residential units on single-family zoned parcels.
____________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed options to mitigate negative impacts related to Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), and provide comments and a recommendation to the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact to the City.

SUMMARY
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) was signed into law in September 2021 and went into effect January 1, 2022. SB 9 requires cities to ministerially approve subdivisions of singlefamily zoned parcels into two (2) parcels and developments of two (2) residential units on single-family zoned parcels.

On January 25, 2022, the City Council approved an initiation for a Municipal Code Text Amendment to amend the San Dimas Municipal Code related to SB 9.

SB 9 law allows cities to adopt objective zoning, design and development standards, however, there are limitations, including, but not limited to unit size, setbacks, parking, and off-site improvements for subdivisions. Staff has prepared a list of options the Planning Commission could consider and recommend to the City Council to minimize negative impacts related to SB 9 developments.

ATTACHMENT 3

SB 9 ordinance options Page 2
June 16, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting

BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2021, in an effort to ease California’s housing shortage, SB 9 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, and went into effect on January 1, 2022. SB 9 requires cities to ministerially approve urban lot splits and two-unit residential developments for parcels zoned single-family, essentially allowing a single-family zoned parcel to have up to four (4) units, should the parcel be split and developed with two (2) units each pursuant to the new law. Cities are allowed to implement objective development standards; however, these standards would have to allow, at a minimum, 1,200 square-foot lot splits, and 800 square-foot units if developed pursuant to SB 9.

In order to regulate SB 9 projects and retain some local control, on January 25, 2022 the City Council approved an initiation for a Municipal Code Text Amendment to amend the San Dimas Municipal Code related to SB 9. The amendment will include objective zoning, design and development standards in compliance with the law, to allow at a minimum 1,200 square foot lot splits and 800 square-foot two-unit developments. Prior to bringing the MCTA ordinance before the Planning Commission and City Council, Staff has prepared a list of possible standards the City could adopt to minimize the negative impacts of SB 9.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
SB 9 allows by-right subdivisions and housing developments that could change the character of single-family neighborhoods. The law undermines local control as it requires cities to approve projects ministerially and includes development standards that are less restrictive than what the San Dimas Municipal Code currently allows for lot splits and residential developments. While SB 9 projects are allowed by-right, and sets forth minimum requirements, the law gives cities limited control by allowing cities to establish objective development standards.

SB 9 Minimum Requirements
The following are the minimum requirements that must be applied to Urban Lot Splits:

1. The parcel to be subdivided must be zoned for single-family residential and cannot be located within a historic district.

2. The lot split cannot result in more than two (2) parcels, and each newly created parcel would have to have a minimum lot area of 1,200 square feet and must be at least 40 percent the size of the original lot.

3. Each of the newly created parcels could potentially be developed with a maximum of two (2) units, for a total of four (4) units resulting from the one (1) lot split (See Figure 2).

4. Per the law, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are counted towards the maximum number of units on SB 9 developments, and allows cities to prohibit ADUs and JADUs on lot created through SB 9.

5. The parcel to be subdivided cannot have been previously subdivided pursuant to SB 9, and neither the owner of the parcel being divided nor any other person acting in concert with the owner shall have previously subdivided any adjacent parcel pursuant to SB 9.

ATTACHMENT 3

SB 9 ordinance options Page 3
June 16, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting

6. When approving SB 9 lot splits, cities cannot require dedications of right-of-way or the construction of off-site improvements as a condition of approving a lot split.

7. The lot split must not require the demolition or alteration of protected affordable housing or housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three (3) years.

8. The applicant is required to sign an affidavit stating that they intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for at least three (3) years from the date of approval of the lot split; therefore, vacant lots would be disqualified as the occupancy requirement would not be met.

9. Units created under this law cannot be used as short-term rentals.

The law also requires cities to ministerially approve two-unit residential developments, with a minimum floor area of 800 square-feet, on any single-family zone parcel. This could result in up to four (4) units on one (1) single-family zoned lot (See Figure 1). Cities can require compliance with development standards, but cannot preclude an 800 square-foot unit from being developed.

The following are minimum requirements that must be applied to two-unit residential developments:

1. Requires minimum four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for new units, and does not require setbacks for a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

2. A maximum of one (1) parking space be required for each new unit; however, if the parcel is located within a half-mile of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, or there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel, then the City cannot require any onsite parking.

3. The project cannot require the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls.

4. Lastly, similar to the requirement for Urban Lot Splits, two-unit developments must not require the demolition or alteration of protected affordable housing or housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three (3) years, and the parcel cannot be a historic landmark or located within a historic district.

Figure 1 - Two-unit development scenarios for one single-family lot (no lot split). *A JADU would be located entirely within an existing/proposed single-family residence.

ATTACHMENT 3

SB 9 ordinance options Page 4
June 16, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting
Figure 2 - Lot split & two-unit development scenarios for one single-family lot. *A JADU would be located entirely within an existing/proposed single-family residence.

Staff intends on drafting an ordinance that will limit SB 9 developments to minimize impacts to existing single-family neighborhoods. Therefore, the ordinance will include the State’s minimum requirements limiting newly created lots to a minimum lot area of 1,200 square-feet, and limiting units to a maximum of 800 square-feet. The ordinance will also include standards to assist in achieving some consistency with existing single-family residential neighborhoods including, but not limited to, unit design, driveway, and occupancy standards.

Optional SB 9 Standards
While the law establishes the minimum number of units allowed, minimum setbacks and unit size requirements, cities can adopt additional objective standards to gain greater regulatory control and bring SB 9 developments closer to compliance with the City’s single-family development standards. The options below can be included in the ordinance to achieve this.

Unit Size
Units developed pursuant to SB 9 must be approved with a minimum floor area of 800 squarefeet. However, the ordinance to be drafted intends to apply existing development standards to the extent that they do not preclude the development of up to two (2) 800 square-foot units; thereby limiting a unit to more than 800 square-feet in floor area. The ordinance can also include incentives to allow units larger than the 800 square-foot minimum, for a total floor area of up to 1,000 or 1,200 square-feet if certain criteria is met. A 1,000 square-foot unit would be allowed if the proposed unit complies with existing setback and lot coverage requirements. A 1,200 squarefoot unit would be allowed if the unit complies with existing setback and lot coverage requirements, and also provides a code-compliant two-car garage. These incentives would allow SB 9 projects to be consistent with existing residential development standards and the two-car garage would reduce impacts to street parking.

Height
The law does not restrict cities from imposing height restrictions on SB 9 units. Staff’s intent is to draft an ordinance that limits SB 9 units to one-story in height. However, the ordinance can include ATTACHMENT 3

SB 9 ordinance options Page 5
June 16, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting
a provision that allows two-story units if the unit complies with existing setback and lot coverage requirements, and also provides a code-compliant two-car garage. Under this scenario, the maximum unit floor area could be up to 1,200 square-feet. The two-car garage would reduce impacts to street parking and would be consistent with parking requirements for existing singlefamily residences. In addition, requiring that the unit be built over the garage, would reduce the building footprint which may allow for more open space than a one-story unit would.

Parking/Driveways
SB 9 requires that a maximum of one (1) parking space be required for each new unit, unless the property is located within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop. For projects that would be exempt from providing on-site parking, the ordinance could be written to not allow driveways. This could serve as a mechanism to persuade applicants to provide on-site parking for SB 9 projects. Conversely, if driveways are not allowed for parking-exempt projects, it could potentially impact existing neighborhoods by forcing residents to park on the street. While this option could lead to the provision of on-site parking, it could also lead to more vehicles parking on the street.

As previously mentioned, cities cannot control the number of units developed pursuant to SB 9 nor can cities deny a unit with at least 800 square-feet in floor area and four-foot (4’) side and rear yard setbacks. However, the above mentioned options could assist in reducing impacts SB 9 projects could have on existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Until the ordinance is drafted and approved, applicants can request subdivisions and/or two-unit residential developments as long as their requests comply with the minimum State criteria, which means units can be larger than 800 square-feet. Since both the subdivisions and two-unit developments would be allowed ministerially, they would both be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An ordinance adopted, or in this case, the request to initiate the MCTA pursuant to SB 9 does not count as a project for CEQA purposes, and is therefore not subject to CEQA review.

Respectfully submitted,
Luis Torrico
Planning Manager
Attachment

1. Senate Bill 9 Law
ATTACHMENT 3

Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of June 13, 2023
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Scott Wasserman, Director of Parks & Recreation Subject: Public Hearing Regarding Open Space Maintenance District No. 1 (Tract 32841, Northwoods) and Adoption of Resolution 2023-41 Approving the Revised Engineer’s Report and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment Diagram
____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Adopting Resolution 2023-41 Approving the Revised Engineer’s Report and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment for Fiscal Year 2023-24 for Open Space Maintenance District No. 1 (Tract No. 32841, Northwoods).

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed assessment for Open Space Maintenance District No. 1 (Tract No. 32841, Northwoods).

2. Adopt Resolution 2023-41,
Approving the Revised Engineer’s Report and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 for Open Space Maintenance District No. 1 Annexation No. 3 (Tract No. 32841, Northwoods)

FISCAL IMPACT
The funds collected from the assessment are used to offset costs incurred for maintenance of the Northwoods landscape district. The Open Space Maintenance District No. 1 Annexation No. 3 (Tract No 32841, Northwoods) was created without a mechanism to process annual increases tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other rate adjustment beyond those allowed per

Public Confirming Northwoods Assessment FY 2023-2024 Page 2 For the Meeting of June 13, 2023
Government Code Section 53753 which requires a vote from all properties within the district. For Fiscal Year 2023-24, the ballots to increase the assessment failed after the last public hearing and therefore the Engineer’s Report has been adjusted, as directed by Council, to reflect the current assessment amount with no increase. With approval of the Revised Engineer’s Report and proposed assessment, no deficit is projected for FY 2023-24, however the Assessment District has a prior deficit balance of $26,152 which has resulted in the general taxpayer subsidy to maintain private property in Northwoods.

BACKGROUND
On May 9, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-32, a resolution of intention, declaring no increase in assessments shall be levied for Fiscal Year 2023-24 for Open Space Maintenance District No. 1 (Tract No. 32841 - Northwoods) requesting a revised Engineer’s Report (“Revised Engineer’s Report) for a reduced work scope and set a Public Hearing for June 13, 2023.

The original Engineer’s Report considered by the Council on March 14, 2023, projected a $24,314.62 deficit for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 requiring an increase to the annual assessment for each parcel to avoid the public taxpayer subsidy to maintain what is private land. The City Council authorized the intent to levy an increased assessment rate of $1,538.28 per parcel, reflecting a $639.86 or 71.2% increase per parcel.

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Article XIII D of the California Constitution, a ballot procedure for the purpose of obtaining property owner approval of the proposed assessment increase was conducted with 26 ballots received. The ballot failed to pass with a 18-8 vote of properties successfully protesting the increase. The City Council directed staff to revise the original Engineer’s Report for reduced maintenance to match the assessment amount. A new public hearing was set for June 13, 2023, to confirm the Assessment for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Revised Engineer’s Report was prepared with the removal of any additional work over and above what the current assessment can pay for to provide service in the Open Space Maintenance District No. 1, Annexation No. 3 (Northwoods). The revised report reflects the following reduced City Scope of Work: elimination of tree trimming, reduced irrigation and reduced utilities. The quarterly maintenance service will remain.

While the City Scope of Work is reduced to match City performed work with the assessment revenue available, the property owners within the district will remain responsible to maintain the landscaping, trees, and irrigation system on their properties in compliance with Municipal Code property maintenance requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this item because there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.

Respectfully submitted,

Public Confirming Northwoods Assessment FY 2023-2024 Page 3 For the Meeting of June 13, 2023
Scott Wasserman, Director of Parks & Recreation
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2023-41

2. Revised Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Northwoods

RESOLUTION 2023-41

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS, COUNTY

OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REVISED ENGINEER’S REPORT AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION NO. 3 (TRACT NO. 32841, NORTHWOODS).

WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of San Dimas, County of Los Angeles, formed Open Space Maintenance District No. 1, Annexation No. 3, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, by adopting Resolution No. 78-38; and WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 2023-32 adopted on May 9th, 2023 (the “ROI”), the City Council did declare its intention to levy and collect assessments within Open Space District 1, Annexation No. 3, for fiscal year 2023-2024, and fixed the 13th day of June, 2023, at 7:00p.m., as the date and time, and the San Dimas Council Chamber as the place for hearing on any objections to the levy of the proposed assessment, and for approving the Revised Engineer’s Report (as defined in the ROI); and
WHEREAS, the Revised Engineer’s Report provides for no increase in the levied assessment with reduced service so that there is no deficit between the assessment revenue and services performed by the City funded by such assessment, and the Revised Engineer’s Report is presented at the public hearing on this matter; and
WHEREAS, properties and residents will remain responsible for the care and maintenance of their private property in accordance to all applicable City codes, regulations, standards, and any other applicable federal, state, or County codes, regulations, and standards, and as such shall continue to be subject to enforcement for failure to comply with such codes, regulations and standards; and
WHEREAS, the said City Council has held said hearing, has afforded all interested persons the opportunity to hear and be heard, and has considered all oral statements and all written protests made or filed by any interested person; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Dimas, does hereby resolve that:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby incorporates the above recitals herein as findings by the City Council.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the Revised Engineer’s Report with the removal of any additional work over and above what the current assessment can pay for to provide service in the Open Space Maintenance District No. 1, Annexation No. 3.

SECTION 3. The assessments and diagram, as shown in the Engineer’s Report, a copy of which is attached hereto, are approved and confirmed, and the adoption of this resolution constitutes the levy of said assessments for the 2023-2024 fiscal year.

ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2023-41 Page 2
Approving Revised Engineer’s Report and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment Open Space Maintenance District No. 1, Annexation No. 3 (Northwoods) June 13, 2023
SECTION 4. The City Clerk of the City of San Dimas is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of the diagram and assessments with the County Auditor of the County of Los Angeles no later than the 10th day of August 2023.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby orders the annual maintenance program work as set forth in said resolution of intention to be done.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 2023. _________________________________
Emmett G. Badar, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Debra Black, City Clerk
I, Debra Black, City Clerk, hereby certify that Resolution 2023-41 was adopted by the City Council of San Dimas at its regular meeting of June 13, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Debra Black, City Clerk

CITY OF SAN DIMAS
OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, ANNEXATION NO. 3 (TRACT NO. 32841, NORTHWOODS DEVELOPMENT)

ENGINEER'S REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2023- 2024
SECTION 1 AUTHORITY FOR REPORT
This report is prepared pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of San Dimas, and in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1,Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and Article XIII D of theCalifornia Constitution.

SECTION 2 THE IMPROVEMENTS
The improvements consist of an irrigation system and landscaping of easements within Tract No. 32841, which was required to be installed by the developer and accepted for maintenance by the City.

The plans and specifications for the landscaping are in conformance with the requirements of the conditions of approval ofsaid Tract No. 32841, and City Standards. Reference is hereby made to the said plans and specifications for the exact location and nature of the landscape improvements. Said plans and specifications by reference are hereby made a part of this report, and are on file in the office of the City Engineer.

SECTION 3 DIAGRAM FOR THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
A copy of the assessment diagram is on file in the office of the City Engineer.

SECTION 4 ESTIMATE OF COSTS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS
The cost ofthe initial landscaping ofTract No. 32841was bornebythe subdivider; therefore, all assessments relate to maintenance only.

Direct Maintenance Costs:

General Maintenance (bv Contract) $20,441.62
Utilities - Electrical $985.00
Utilities - Water $12,713.34
Tree Trimming $0.00
New Planting $0.00
Irrigation Repairs or Upgrades $0.00
Total of Direct Maintenance Costs: $34,139.96
CURRENT ASSESSMENT: $34,140.00 ($898.42/parcel)
2023-2024 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT: $34,140.00 ($898.42/parcel) 2023-2024 Deficit $0.00
Prior Fund Balance: <$26,152.42>
Ending Fund Balance: <$26,152.42>
ATTACHMENT 2

Note: The aforementioned costs match the current allowable assessment. The Ending Fund Balance is unchanged and has a shortfall of $26,152.42.

The maximum authorized assessment rate for the 2023-2024 Fiscal Year equates to an annual assessment of $34,140.00 ($898.42/parcel).

SECTION 5 ASSESSMENT
The following information regarding assessments to individual lots for the 2023-2024 Fiscal Year is contained herein and is to be levied on July 1, 2023. The net amount estimated to be assessed upon the assessable lands within the district is $34,140.00 ($898.42/parcel), which is apportioned to all assessable lots shown on the attached Assessment Roll.

The landscape district was developed for the benefit and enjoyment of all properties included within the assessment district boundaries, and all parcels benefit equally from the improvements.

Respectfully submitted,
Shari Garwick
Director of Public Works

CITY OF SAN DIMAS ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, ANNEXATION NO. 3 TRACT 32841 – NORTHWOODS DEVELOPMENT
ADDRESS LOT NO. ASSESSOR'S

REFERENCE
2022-2023

ASSESSMENT
2023-2024

ASSESSMENT

INCREASE
TOTAL 2023-2024

ASSESSMENT
1793 Calle Alto 1 8395-023-002 898.42 0.00 898.42
1789 Calle Alto 2 8395-023-003 898.42 0.00 898.42
1785 Calle Alto 3 8395-023-004 898.42 0.00 898.42
1781Calle Alto 4 8395-023-005 898.42 0.00 898.42
1777 Calle Alto 5 8395-023-006 898.42 0.00 898.42
1773 Calle Alto 6 8395-023-007 898.42 0.00 898.42
1767 Calle Alto 7 8395-023-008 898.42 0.00 898.42
1765 Calle Alto 8 8395-023-009 898.42 0.00 898.42
1761 Calle Alto 9 8395-023-010 898.42 0.00 898.42
1757 Calle Alto 10 8395-023-011 898.42 0.00 898.42
1753 Calle Alto 11 8395-023-012 898.42 0.00 898.42
1749 Calle Alto 12 8395-023-013 898.42 0.00 898.42
1745 Calle Alto 13 8395-023-014 898.42 0.00 898.42
1741Calle Alto 14 8395-023-015 898.42 0.00 898.42
1737 Calle Alto 15 8395-023-016 898.42 0.00 898.42
1733 Calle Alto 16 8395-023-017 898.42 0.00 898.42
1729 Calle Alto 17 8395-023-018 898.42 0.00 898.42
1725 Calle Alto 18 8395-023-019 898.42 0.00 898.42
1721 Calle Alto 19 8395-023-020 898.42 0.00 898.42
1719 Calle Alto 20 8395-023-021 898.42 0.00 898.42
1702 Calle Alto 21 8395-023-022 898.42 0.00 898.42
1706 Calle Alto 22 8395-023-023 898.42 0.00 898.42
1710 Calle Alto 23 8395-023-024 898.42 0.00 898.42
1714 Calle Alto 24 8395-023-025 898.42 0.00 898.42
1718 Calle Alto 25 8395-023-026 898.42 0.00 898.42
1722 Calle Alto 26 8395-023-027 898.42 0.00 898.42
1726 Calle Alto 27 8395-023-028 898.42 0.00 898.42
1730 Calle Alto 28 8395-023-029 898.42 0.00 898.42
1121 Paseo Sandi 29 8395-023-030 898.42 0.00 898.42
1113 Paseo Sandi 30 8395-023-031 898.42 0.00 898.42
1105 Paseo Sandi 31 8395-023-032 898.42 0.00 898.42
1102 Paseo Sandi 32 8395-023-033 898.42 0.00 898.42
1110 Paseo Sandi 33 8395-023-034 898.42 0.00 898.42
1118 Paseo Sandi 34 8395-023-035 898.42 0.00 898.42
1780 Calle Alto 35 8395-023-036 898.42 0.00 898.42
1784 Calle Alto 36 8395-023-037 898.42 0.00 898.42
1788 Calle Alto 37 8395-023-038 898.42 0.00 898.42
1792 Calle Alto 38 8395-023-039 898.42 0.00 898.42
34,139.96 0.00 34,139.96

OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1,
ANNEXATION NO. 3 (TRACT 32841,

NORTHWOODS DEVELOPMENT)

:t AVENID6.

ASSZ3.SC 'S -
1 "-