Agenda packet, study session — San Dimas City Council, May 14, 2024

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL
STUDY SESSION MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY MAY 14, 2024 5:30 PM
SAN DIMAS COUNCIL CHAMBER
CONFERENCE ROOM
245 EAST BONITA AVENUE
A public agenda packet is available for review on the City’s website www.sandimasca.gov or by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected].

CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Emmett Badar, Mayor Pro Tem Ryan A. Vienna, Councilmember Rachel Bratakos, Councilmember Eric Nakano, Councilmember Eric Weber
CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Members of the audience are invited to address the City Council on any item on this agenda. Public comment will not be taken during each individual agenda item, except for public hearing items.

Comments on public hearing items will be heard when that item is scheduled for discussion. Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the legislative body is prohibited from engaging in discussion on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. However, your concerns may be referred to staff or set for discussion at a later date. Each speaker will be limited to speaking once for up to (3) three minutes.) STUDY SESSION

1. Appointments to Intergovernmental Boards and Commissions; Discussion of Purpose and Function of Intergovernmental Boards and Committees and City’s Continuing Participation in Them

2. Update on Proposed SB 9 Ordinance

3. Discuss Options to Reduce the Deficit that was Proposed in the First Draft of the 202425 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget.

ADJOURNMENT
Notice Regarding Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if you need assistance to participate in a city meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 3946216. Early notification before the meeting you wish to attend will make it possible for the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to

Page 1 ends

Year Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget.

Copies of documents distributed for the meeting are available in alternative formats upon request. Any writings or documents provided to the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public review Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Administration Counter at City Hall and San Dimas Library. In addition, most documents are posted on the City’s website at www.sandimasca.gov.

Posting Statement: I declare under penalty of perjury that on May 10, 2024, I posted a true and correct copy of this agenda on the bulletin board in the Civic Center Plaza of City Hall at 245 E. Bonita Ave., San Dimas Library 145 N. Walnut Ave., San Dimas Post Office 300 E. Bonita Ave., Von’s Via Verde Shopping Center 1160 Via Verde Ave., and on the City’s website www.sandimasca.gov/agendasminutes/ as required by law.

May 10, 2024
Debra Black
Debra Black, City Clerk Page 2
Study Session
Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Debra Black, City Clerk
Subject: Discussion and Consideration of Public Official Appointments to Intergovernmental Boards and Committees
____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
This report addresses the challenges faced by the City Council in managing the reorganization of its members following changes in election cycles, particularly the recent shift to March and June elections. The report highlights the impact of these changes on the appointment process for Intergovernmental Boards and Committees.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council:

Review and revise appointment procedures to accommodate the rotating election cycles.

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

BACKGROUND
Historically, the City Council managed reorganization after the March election, which involved appointing a Mayor Pro Tem and representatives to various City and Intergovernmental boards and committees. However, recent changes, including the adoption of the Commission Handbook removing Council representatives and shifts in election cycles, have complicated this process.

The shift in election cycles to March and June has created challenges for the reorganization process, particularly concerning the confirmation of City delegates for annual business meetings of outside agencies. These appointments often do not align with the City's timeframe for reorganization, posing logistical challenges for ensuring timely and accurate representation.

The City Council's last reorganization for Intergovernmental Boards and Committees was

Page 3 ends

Discussion and Consideration of Public Official Appointments to Intergovernmental Boards and Committees Page 2
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
conducted after the June 2022 election. Councilmember Ryan A. Vienna was appointed Mayor Pro Tem in August 2022 and was appointed to the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Board for a term of 2 years in December 2023. However, with the March 2024 election, adjustments are necessary to accommodate the new election timeline highlighting the ongoing need for flexible appointment processes.

In light of the recent changes in election cycles and the complexity of managing reorganization processes, it is imperative to adopt proactive measures to address challenges and ensure effective representation on City and Intergovernmental boards and committees. By implementing a new strategy, the City Council can navigate these changes more effectively and uphold its commitment to serving the community's interests.

Attached to this report is a brief description of each outside agency, including meeting days and times, to provide context for the appointment process.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Councilmembers represent the City of San Dimas on numerous other agency boards. By doing so they are involved in some of the planning and decision making for policies and programs that can affect the City of San Dimas and many other cities in the region. Some of the agency appointments provide compensation to the appointee.

As part of the appointment process, the City must post on its website FPPC Form 806, which lists all the paid appointed position to which an official will vote to appoint themselves. This form must be posted prior to a vote (consent item) if the appointee will participate in the decision and appointment results in additional compensation to the appointee. (FPPC Regulation 18702.5) FPPC Regulation 18702.5 provides that as long as the public is informed prior to a vote, an official may vote to hold another position even when the vote results in additional compensation to the appointee.

ALTERNATIVES
There are no alternatives being presented for this item as City representation on outside agencies can promote advocacy, engagement and collaboration.

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.

Page 4 ends

Discussion and Consideration of Public Official Appointments to Intergovernmental Boards and Committees Page 3
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
Debra Black
City Clerk
Attachments:

1. 2022 City Council Appointments List

2. Intergovernmental Descriptions

3. FPPC Form 806

Page 5 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

CITY COUNCIL COMMISSION/COMMITTEES

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BOARDS & COMMITTEES
CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION No Form 700 required 17315 Studebaker Road, Suite 210
Cerritos, CA 90703 562 622-5533
Email: [email protected]
Rep. Alejandra Hernandez
Email: [email protected]
Delegate: Mayor Badar
Alternate: All Councilmembers
Meeting Date: As announced
Location: As announced
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES No Form 700 required
1400 K Street, Suite 400 916 658-8200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Rep. Jennifer Quan 626-7865142
Email: [email protected]
Delegate: Councilmember Vienna
Alternate: Councilmember Weber
Alternate: City Manager
Meeting Date: General Membership –1st Thursday (January, March and June) 6:00 p.m.

Other meetings – As announced by email and invitations
Location: Varies
L. A. COUNTY-CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE No Form 700 required (Piggyback with League of California Cities)
Email: [email protected] 213-974-1431
Rep. Twiala Kerr
Email: [email protected]
Delegate: Mayor Badar (automatic delegate)
Meeting Date: Varies (as needed)

Page 6 ends

Council Commissions and other Agencies Assignments
Appointments at August 9th, 2022 City Council Meeting
2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS – General Assembly Hardcopy Form 700 filings with wet signatures. 900 Wilshire Blvd Suite 1700 213 236-1800
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 FAX: 213 236-1825
Rep. Peter Waggoner
Email: [email protected]
Delegate: Councilmember Ebiner $120.00 per meeting stipend Alternate: Councilmember Nakano
Meeting Date: 1st Thursday of the month; 12 p.m.

Location: same
L. A. COUNTY-SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD LA County electronic filing 1955 Workman Mill Rd 562 699-7411
Whittier, CA 90601 FAX: 562 695-2897
Secretary Board’s Office 562-908-4288 ext. 1100
Rep. Alyssa Kreutzer 562-908-4288 ext. 1122
Email: [email protected]
Delegate: Mayor Badar (automatic delegate) $125.00 per meeting stipend Alternate: Councilmember Weber
Meeting Date: 4th Wednesday of the month; 1:30 p.m.

Location: same
CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY No Form 700 required 8081 Moody Street 562 467-8700
La Palma, CA 90623-2045 FAX 562 860-4992
Rep. Veronica Ruiz 562 467-8720
Email: [email protected] DIR FAX 562 402-8692
Delegate: Mayor Badar
Alternate: City Manager
Meeting Date: 4th Wednesday of the month; 5:30 p.m.

Location: same
POMONA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Hardcopy Form 700 filings with wet signature.
2120 Foothill Blvd
La Verne, CA 91750 909 596-7664
Rep. Diana
Email: [email protected]
Delegate: Mayor Badar
Alternate: Asst. City Manager
Meeting Date: 2nd Wednesday of the month; 5:00 p.m.

Location: La Verne City Hall 3660 D Street La Verne, CA 91750

Page 7 ends

Council Commissions and other Agencies Assignments
Appointments at August 9th, 2022 City Council Meeting
3 FOOTHILL TRANSIT ZONE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
100 Vincent Ste. #200 626 931-7300
West Covina, CA 91790 FAX 626 931-7304
Rep. Christina Lopez 626 -391-7204
Email: [email protected] Hardcopy Form 700 filings with wet signature.

Delegate: Mayor Badar $100.00 per meeting stipend
Alternate: Councilmember Vienna
Meeting Date: Last Friday of the month; 7:45 a.m.

Location: same

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Main Office: 1000 S. Fremont Unit 42 Bldg. A-10N Ste. 10-210 Alhambra, CA 91803 Office: 626 457-1800
Email: [email protected] Fax: 626 457-1285
Rep: Katie Ward
Email: [email protected] Hardcopy Form 700 filings with wet signature.

Governing Board
Delegate: Councilmember Ebiner (Executive Committee and EENR Committee) Alternate: Councilmember Weber $50.00 per meeting stipend Meeting Date: 3rd Thursday of the month; 4 p.m.

Location: 100 S. Vincent Avenue #200,
West Covina, CA 91790
Executive Committee
Date: 1st Monday of the month; 10 a.m.

Location: Main Office
EENR Committee
Date: 3rd Wednesday of the month; 1 p.m.

Location: Monrovia Community Center, 119 W. Palm Ave.

Monrovia, CA 91016

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
1145 N. Azusa Canyon Rd 626 814-9466
West Covina, CA 91790 FAX 626 337-5686
Cecilia Contreras, Clerk of the Board 626-214-0712
Email: [email protected]
Delegate: Councilmember Vienna $100.00 per meeting stipend Meeting Date: 2nd Friday of the month; 7:00 a.m.

Location: same
Appointments are for 2- or 4-year terms. Form 700 filings through https://lacform700.lacounty.gov

Page 8 ends

Council Commissions and other Agencies Assignments
Appointments at August 9th, 2022 City Council Meeting
4 CITY OF SAN DIMAS-BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRTICT
AD HOC COMMITTEE Hardcopy Form 700 filings with wet signature.

Council Rep: Councilmember Vienna
Council Rep: Councilmember Nakano
Meeting Date: As scheduled, generally every 3 months
Location: alternating District Office and City Hall, 5:15p.m.

METRO GOLD LINE FOOTHILL EXTENSION – JPA
406 E. Huntington Drive Suite 202 626 471-9050
Monrovia, CA 91016 Hardcopy Form 700 filings with wet signature.

Rep: Chris Lowe, Clerk of the Board 626-305-7002
Email: [email protected] Mobile: 626-277-5445
Council Rep: Councilmember Ebiner
Alternate: Councilmember Weber
Meeting Date: 2nd Thursday of the month 11:30 a.m.

Location: same as above
RIVERS MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY(Appointed by Senate Rules Committee) 100 N. Old San Gabriel Canyon Road 626 815-1019
Azusa, CA 91702 Hardcopy Form 700 filings with wet signature.

Rep. Salian Garcia
Email: [email protected]
Council Rep: Councilmember Ebiner $75.00 per meeting stipend Alternate: None selected
Meeting Date: 3rd Monday of every other month plus June, 1:30 p.m.

Location: Various locations

Page 9 ends

Intergovernmental Boards and Committees Descriptions and Meeting Data 1 California Contract Cities Association – Meetings as announced The four main functions of the California Contract Cities Association:

Education
The California Contract Cities Association strives to provide world-class educational opportunities for our members. We firmly believe knowledge is the best tool each of us possesses to be more effective leaders and to promote the betterment of our cities. We proudly offer numerous educational seminars, conferences, and meetings each year to provide our members with the latest policy updates and collaborative efforts to tackle the most challenging issues facing today’s local elected officials. Our major conferences and seminars provide local elected officials a unique perspective on how neighboring cities are working toward solving complex problems our cities face. Our unique relationship with the University of Southern California Sol Price School of Public Policy sets us apart from any other organization and allows us to offer extensive, university-level executive education to our members.

Advocacy
Representing 80 cities and nearly 8 million residents, the California Contract Cities Association is stronger than it’s ever been. Our strength comes from our numbers and our unrivaled ability to navigate the legislative and policy making processes. The California Contract Cities Association has fiercely advocated for the rights of cities to practice the contracting model and to strengthen local control since 1957. We are the premier advocacy association in Los Angeles County and beyond and have advocated successfully for our member cities for more than 65 years.

Networking
The California Contract Cities Association gathers elected officials, city staffers, and key members from the corporate world to collaborate and build relationships that will benefit the constituencies from each of our member cities. The relationships formed as part of our networking events are invaluable assets when we engage in our advocacy efforts. We encourage all our members to attend CCCA events to build relationships with like-minded professionals so they can better serve their communities.

Access
Our network of proven service providers is eager to serve your cities and constituencies. The contracting model is in our DNA; we, therefore, through our network of Associate Members, forge public, private and not for profit partnerships to promote collaborative governance across sectors. These collaborations provide unprecedented opportunities for efficiencies in better serving the public significant cost savings.

League of California Cities/City Selection Committee – 1 st Thursday (January, March and June) or as
announced 6:00 PM
The League of California Cities defends and expands local control through advocacy efforts in the Legislature, at the ballot box, in the courts, and through strategic outreach that informs and educates the public, policymakers, and opinion leaders. Cal Cities also offers education and training programs designed to teach city officials about new developments in their field and exchange solutions to common challenges facing their cities.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 10 ends

Intergovernmental Boards and Committees Descriptions and Meeting Data 2 The League of California Cities advocates tirelessly on the issues that matter most to California's 482 towns and cities. The advocacy team works with regional field staff and lawmakers to sponsor, draft, and support legislative and regulatory measures that promote local decision-making, and lobby against policy that erodes local control. They also form coalitions with other local government associations and stakeholders to advocate for common goals.

Cal Cities takes positions on hundreds of bills annually. With over 400 city officials serving on the Cal Cities seven policy committees, cities directly influence the direction of Cal Cities’ overall advocacy efforts.

Committees:

1. Community Services

2. Environmental Quality

3. Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations

4. Housing, Community and Economic Development

5. Public Safety

6. Revenue and Taxation

7. Transportation, Communications and Public Works
Southern California Association of Governments – 1
st Thursday 12:00 PM – Los Angeles
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Authority under California state law, established as an association of local governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and under state law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments.

The SCAG region encompasses six counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura) and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. The agency develops long-range regional transportation plans including sustainable communities’ strategy and growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations and a portion of the South Coast Air Quality management plans. In 1992, SCAG expanded its governing body, the Executive Committee, to a 70-member Regional Council to help accommodate new responsibilities mandated by the federal and state governments, as well as to provide more broad-based representation of Southern California’s cities and counties. With its expanded membership structure, SCAG created regional districts to provide for more diverse representation. The districts were formed with the intent to serve equal populations and communities of interest. Currently, the Regional Council consists of 86 members.

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts – 4
th Wednesday 1:30 PM - Whittier (Mayor
automatic delegate)
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts are a public agency focused on converting waste into resources like recycled water, energy and recycled materials. The agency consists of 24 independent special districts serving about 5.5 million people in Los Angeles County. The service areas i cover approximately 850 square miles and encompass 78 cities and unincorporated areas in the county.

Page 11 ends

Intergovernmental Boards and Committees Descriptions and Meeting Data 3 Each Sanitation District has a Board of Directors consisting of the mayor of each city served, and the Chair of the County Board of Supervisors for unincorporated territory.

California Joint Powers Authority – 4
th Wednesday 5:30 PM – La Palma
The Board of Directors consists of one representative selected from the governing body of each member of the Authority. Each July, the entire Board of Directors attends an annual business meeting. At the annual meeting, the president and vice president of the Authority and other members of the Executive Committee are elected, reports of the affairs of the Authority are considered, and any other business may be transacted which is within the powers of the Board of Directors.

Executive Committee
The nine members of the Executive Committee are elected by the Board of Directors to provide day-today policy direction to the Authority’s staff. Serving two-year, overlapping terms, they are elected as president, vice president, and seven at-large directors to oversee the Authority’s affairs. The Executive Committee meets monthly to consider policies related to the California JPIA’s many programs and services. In addition, the Executive Committee also carries out ex-officio responsibility for Claims, Budget, Bylaws, and Personnel committees. Chairs for the Authority’s advisory committees, Managers, Risk Managers, and Finance Officers, are also participants in Executive Committee and Claims Committee meetings.

Pomona Valley Transit Authority – 2
nd Wednesday 5:00 PM – La Verne
Pomona Valley Transportation Authority (PVTA) offers transportation programs for the cities of Claremont, La Verne, Pomona and San Dimas in California.

Programs include the Pomona Valley Get About program for seniors and disabled, Claremont Dial-a-Ride for all ages, Pomona Group Services, and San Dimas Dial-a-Cab for all ages.

Foothill Transit Joint Powers Authority Governing Board – Last Friday 7:45 AM – West Covina
Foothill Transit is governed by a Joint Powers Authority of 22-member cities and the County of Los Angeles. The larger Governing Board is divided into five regional clusters that elect representatives once a year at the agency's annual meeting to serve on a five-member Executive Board.

San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments – 3
rd Thursday – 4:00 PM – West Covina
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) is a regional government planning agency that aims to maximize the quality of life in the San Gabriel Valley. They are a joint powers authority that consists of 31 incorporated cities, unincorporated communities in Los Angeles County Supervisorial Districts 1, and 5, and three San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water Districts (San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, Three Valleys Municipal Water District, and Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District).

The SGVCOG is the largest and most diverse sub-regional council of governments in Los Angeles County. It encompasses more than 374 square miles and has more than 2 million residents.

Page 12 ends

Intergovernmental Boards and Committees Descriptions and Meeting Data 4 The SGVCOG serves as a subregional government agency that maximizes resources and promotes regional and member interests to improve the quality of life in the San Gabriel Valley.

The SGVCOG serves as a model subregional government agency in Southern California that is committed to enhancing the quality of life in the San Gabriel Valley by supporting member agency goals, promoting regional collaboration, and delivering exceptional government services, programs, and capital projects across the membership.

San Gabriel Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District – 2nd Friday 7:00 AM – West Covina
The San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District is an Independent Special District. Power of authority is granted through the California Health and Safety Code, Sections 2000-2067. The District is governed by a 27-member Board of Trustees, consisting of an appointed representative from each city plus the County of Los Angeles.

Under the California Health and Safety Code, the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District ("The District" or "SGVMVCD") is a public health agency that provides protection from vectorborne diseases. The District is primarily charged with protecting the public from mosquito-borne diseases. They also monitor and treat for biting black flies.

Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension JPA – 2
nd Thursday 11:30 AM - Monrovia
The Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority (also known as the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority) is an independent transportation planning, design and construction agency created in 1998 by the California State Legislature, SB 1847 (later updated in 2011-AB706 and 2012-AB1600). The agency was created to immediately resume design, contracting and construction of the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Gold Line (formerly the Pasadena Blue Line; now called the A Line) which had been suspended by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) earlier that same year.

The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority (Foothill Gold Line) is governed by an eight-member Board of Directors. In addition, cities from South Pasadena to Ontario are represented on two additional boards to the Construction Authority–the Joint Powers Authority (comprised of elected official representatives appointed by each corridor city) and Technical Advisory Committee (comprised of city managers or their staff appointees).

Rivers Mountains Conservancy
The 15 appointees are members of various regional agencies voted on by the members of those agencies. Currently Margaret Clark, Mayor Pro Tem of Rosemead is our representative.

City of San Dimas-Bonita Unified School District
Ad Hoc Committee – As announced generally every 3 months 5:30 PM – rotates District Office and City Hall

Page 13 ends

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 14 ends

Page 15 ends

Page 16 ends

Study Session
Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Luis Torrico, Director of Community Development Subject: Update on Proposed SB 9 Ordinance
____________________________________________________________________________

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.

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.

On June 13, 2023, the City Council directed Staff to draft an SB 9 Ordinance that would limit the second unit to 800 square feet, one-story in height, would have to be affordable, and subject to objective development standards as required by the Ordinance.

Page 17 ends

SB 9 Discussion Page 2
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council
• Provide direction related to concerns raised with the proposed affordability requirement for the second unit and should the affordability requirement be removed.

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 4). 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 residential street parking. They recommended that this allowance be included in the ordinance.

Page 18 ends

SB 9 Discussion Page 3
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
• Parking
SB 9 requires that a maximum of one (1) parking space can 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, after being continued from the July 12, 2022, meeting, the optional standards, along with the Planning Commission’s recommendations were presented to the City Council (Attachment 3). 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.

On June 13, 2023, after being continued from the March 28, 2023, meeting, the City Council considered the three (3) options (Attachment 2) and voted 5-0 to direct Staff to draft an ordinance that would implement the most restrictive of the three (3) options. The proposed ordinance would limit the second unit to 800 square feet, which is the floor area included in the SB 9 law text and would limit the second unit to one story in height. The Council also directed Staff to include an affordability requirement for the second unit. These three (3) requirements would only be

Page 19 ends

SB 9 Discussion Page 4
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
applicable to the second unit. The primary unit would be allowed to be developed without restrictions but would have to comply with the existing requirements for the single-family residential zone.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Staff has completed drafts of the two ordinances: Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Projects implementing the Council’s direction. As part of the process, the City attorney’s office reviewed the ordinances to ensure compliance with SB 9 and any other applicable laws. During their review, concerns were raised with the affordability requirement for the second unit in the Two-Unit Projects Ordinance. The concerns consist of:

1. Affordability requirements cannot be imposed on ADUs. Therefore, an applicant that creates a new lot through the SB 9 process, where a maximum of two (2) units will be allowed, can circumvent the affordability requirement by building an ADU instead of a second unit. The only situation in which the affordability requirement could not be circumvented is if a Two-Unit project is proposed, with no lot split, where up to four (4) units (primary unit, second unit, ADU, JADU) can be built on one single-family parcel.

Under this development scenario, the second unit would have to be affordable. However, Staff doesn’t foresee many of these developments occurring, especially if there is an affordable requirement. Since the law went into effect in 2021, the City has received a total of eight (8) SB 9 applications, all of which included a lot split. If the applications were subject to the affordability requirement, all of them could have circumvented the affordable requirement by building an ADU instead of a second unit. In other words, if the affordability requirement is imposed on second units, it is unlikely to ever actually apply to any unit, since developers will simply construct an ADU instead of a second unit.

2. If the City is going to impose an affordability requirement, Government Code 65850(g) requires that the City create an alternative means of compliance that may include, but is not limited to, in-lieu fees, land dedication, off-site construction, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units. The City does not have an existing alternative method so a program will have to be created as part of this process. This would delay the SB 9 Ordinance to allow Staff time to research and create the appropriate alternative compliance method, which will take time and City resources, so that the City can impose an affordability requirement that will rarely, if ever, affect any unit, as described in #1 above.

3. The affordability requirement potentially could be considered a governmental constraint to housing development, which could raise several concerns under the Housing Crisis Act and State Housing Element Law. The City could be found to be out of compliance with its Housing Element’s commitment to eliminate development constraints. Violations of these State laws may lead to consequences including revocation of housing element certification and/or referral to the California Office of the Attorney General.

While the affordability requirement for second units developed pursuant to SB 9 would make it more restrictive, as the Council preferred, the likelihood that it will lead to the creation of affordable units is minimal. As previously mentioned, all the SB 9 applications that have been submitted include a lot split which creates a loophole to avoid the affordability requirement. Therefore, any benefit of the affordability requirement, which will seldom, if ever, apply to any unit, is outweighed by the City Staff time and resources needed to create an alternative compliance program and the risk created by adopting the affordability requirement.

Page 20 ends

SB 9 Discussion Page 5
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024

Respectfully submitted,
Luis Torrico
Director of Community Development
Attachments:

1. Senate Bill 9 Law

2. City Council Staff Report – June 13, 2023

3. City Council Staff Report – July 26, 2022

4. Planning Commission Staff Report – June 16, 2022

Page 21 ends

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

Page 22 ends

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 —

Page 23 ends

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

Page 24 ends

(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 —

Page 25 ends

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

Page 26 ends

(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 —

Page 27 ends

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

Page 28 ends

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 —

Page 29 ends

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

Page 30 ends

(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 —

Page 31 ends

(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

Page 32 ends

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 —

Page 33 ends

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.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 34 ends

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.
____________________________________________________________________________

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.

Page 35 ends

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.

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

Page 36 ends

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.

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

Page 37 ends

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.

Page 38 ends

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

Page 39 ends

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

Page 40 ends

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.

Page 41 ends

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

Page 42 ends

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.

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

Page 43 ends

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.
____________________________________________________________________________

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 3

Page 44 ends

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.

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.

Page 45 ends

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

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).

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.

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

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

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

Page 46 ends

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.

Page 47 ends

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.

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.

Page 48 ends

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

Page 49 ends

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 4

Page 50 ends

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

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.

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.

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).

Page 51 ends

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Page 52 ends

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.

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

Page 53 ends

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.

Respectfully submitted,
Luis Torrico
Planning Manager
Attachment

1. Senate Bill 9 Law

Page 54 ends

Study Session
Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Michael O'Brien, Director of Administrative Services Subject: Discuss Options to Reduce the Deficit that was Proposed in the First Draft of the 2024-25 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget. ____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
Staff has prepared a deficit reduction plan document to be reviewed and considered by Council in order to provide direction on budget adjustments and remaining reserves.

Council direction will assist staff with finalizing the proposed 2024-25 fiscal year Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget, with a proposed adoption date of June 11, 2024.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that that City Council direct staff to incorporate one of the following options:
• Option 1. Total operational reductions & additional revenue that would reduce the deficit by $882,136 keeping a 45% unassigned reserve and 108% total reserve balance. • Option 2. Necessitate further reductions of services from Option 1 that would total $1,122,466 keeping 46% unassigned reserves and 109% total reserve balance. • Option 3. Review all revenue enhancements and cost reduction options, direct staff on which options to move forward with.

FISCAL IMPACT
The draft budget that was presented at the April 23, 2024, study session proposed a $1,726,407 deficit that would result in an unassigned fund balance of 40% and a total fund balance of 101%.

Option 1 would reduce the deficit from $1,726,407 to $844,271, a 51% deficit reduction.

Page 55 ends

Discuss Options to Reduce Deficit Proposed in First Draft of Fiscal Year Budget. Page 2 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
Option 2 would reduce the deficit from $1,726,407 to $603,941, a 65% deficit reduction.

BACKGROUND
Staff discussed the proposed budget with Council at the April 23rd, 2024, study session and presented a summary overview of options that could eliminate the proposed deficit, highlighting the potential impacts on service levels to the public and employee morale.

Council requested that staff present at a future study session, a more detailed description of the revenue enhancements and expenditure reductions in ranked order to assist Council in their decision making.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Council is asked to review the attached listing of revenue enhancements and expenditure reductions in order to direct staff with their preference for service offerings to the public that aligns with the city's available resources.

On May 1, 2024, Department heads met and discussed various reduction items and their proposed impacts on each department. A determination was made to identify the potential reductions based on the City Council request to order reductions, utilize the City‘s community survey and priorities to determine what should be considered, and to present a description of the items and their impact in the case of a reduction.

The items presented provide two options. The City Council can consider one of two options, or the City Council can review the specific list of reduction proposals to provide direction on alternatives for use in the final 2024-25 budget. We should note that in any situation where reductions are necessary, there are good reasons to not consider certain items or to rely more on use of reserves to avoid the cuts. However, given that a deficit may be ongoing, the City will be grappling with similar decision-making to align ongoing revenues with ongoing expenditures. rtunately, the City‘s fiscal prudence for the past number of years has allowed the City options in deciding how to adjust to the increasing costs of providing services. The City’s resilience efforts have
• Reduced the significant disconnect from the fees charged for services and the burden of taxpayers subsidizing activities which benefit individuals; • Utilized short-term and one-time resources from federal American Recovery Act to support a stable level of services rather than expanding ongoing programming only to face larger reductions in subsequent years;
• Funded future liabilities in the areas of lifecycle capital assets (i.e. prioritizing the funding of the City’s Capital Asset Reserve), compensated absences, and other postemployment benefits demonstrating recognition and planning in addressing future obligations; and • Building on more information from the public through the 2023 Community Survey to inform the City on how to prioritize City activities, whether increasing or decreasing services.

However, even with the prudent efforts undertaken by the City for years, the costs for providing services exceeds the revenue to support such activity. Additionally, as is the pattern in other cities, the cost of capital for streets, sidewalks, and public infrastructure is increasing at a much

Page 56 ends

Discuss Options to Reduce Deficit Proposed in First Draft of Fiscal Year Budget. Page 3 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
higher rate due to degradation in their condition and the costs being far more than the current revenue can annually support.

The City has invested heavily in larger road improvements, but funding cannot support the pace we currently have undertaken nor the significant backlog of capital that is needed in the future.

Over the next year or two, the City will need to take a harder look at the need for additional revenue options to maintain or enhance its ability to provide the quality and service level provided in the past to City residents. Other cities face the same dilemma and worse, so the City having taken a more measured and steady approach for more than a decade has at least put is in a much better position than other cities.

ALTERNATIVES
Council may choose an alternative direction than what is recommended in order to move towards adoption of the 2024-25 fiscal year Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael O'Brien
Director of Administrative Services
Attachments:

1. Deficit Reduction Plan Listing

Page 57 ends

FY 2024-25 Budget Reduction Summary ATTACHMENT
Item Dept Revenue
Increase
Expenditure
Decrease
Dept Rank
(1 being first cut) Details of What Reduction Is Where is it identified as apriority Impacts Multiple Departments
Permits and Recreation Programs to get closer to Full Cost Recovery Multi $161,266 Revenue Total $161,266
Administration
Audit Consulting Services Admin $75,000 1
The City had budgeted $75,000 for continuous
improvement services which was previously
utilized to audit the Community Development
Department to review their operations and
identify where improvements or efficiencies could
be implemented. The funds were to go towards
other department reviews.

Identified by Councilmembers as a
resource to evaluate effectiveness
and efficiencies in departments.

This reduction would eliminate the opportunity to utilize a consultant to audit one of our City Departments.

Reduction in various informational surveys Admin $30,000 2 An updated Community Survey from what was
done last fiscal year $30,000.

C.4.i. Services and programs that
serve a limited number of
participants should be the focus of
reductions, reformation,
elimination, or reorganization, or
should be considered for
implementation by a private vendor
or non-profit organization.
provide information on the quality of services delivered by the City as well as the priorities for services based on resident input. This information helps assess how the public believes we are performing and where funds should be allocated.

Reduction in Contractual Partnerships Gen
Services $7,200 3
Contribution to the Chamber of Commerce for
business and new resident services and City
Birthday.

This reduction in contribution to the Chamber was used to coordinate City events such as the City Birthday.

Reduction in Contractual Partnerships Admin $5,500 4 Involvement with SGV Economic Partnership 2023-24 Budget Principles C.4.f.-
Additional revenue sources, such
as grants and development related
income, should be sought to
augment City resources after due
consideration of the cost
associated with accepting a grant
or approving development.

The Economic Development through San Gabriel Valley helps the City connect with developers but has not yielded much results.

Reduction in available funds for miscellaneous Council Recognitions CM/Clerk $10,000 5 Reduction in City Council budget for recognitions 2023-24 Budget Principles C.4.i.-
Services and programs that serve
a limited number of participants
should be the focus of reductions,
reformation, elimination, or
reorganization, or should be
considered for implementation by a
private vendor or non-profit
organization.

This would limit the Councils ability to have funds readily available for unbudgeted contributions or recognitions as seen fit by the Council. Rarely used in the past few years.

Reduce use of Legal Consulting Services City
Attorney $50,000 6
Reduction in City Attorney services to review
contracts, provide legal analysis and provide
opinions on legal matters that may effect City
operations. Reducing services to be more in line
with basic contract level services. Pursue less
legal actions against other entities.

C.4.j. Reductions should be
avoided that could exacerbate
liability issues for the City or have
long-term consequences that
would be costly to reverse.

A reduction in Attorney reviews or analysis may result in exposure to loss due to injury caused by a third party or inability to perform based on the scope of services. The Attorney reviews help to assure we are in the best position possible to shift responsibility to the Third party in this event.

Administration Total $177,700
Public Works
1

Page 58 ends

FY 2024-25 Budget Reduction Summary ATTACHMENT
Waste Compliance Services Public
Works $27,000 1 10% reduction for Waste Compliance Services Council Prioirity: High
Performing Government Community
Survey: Satisfaction with
Trash is 86% in Survey
Reduction of 3rd Party review of Solid Waste RFP. Can limit review of Solid Waste RFP's to top 3 or 4 submittals thereby reducing review costs. Involves more in depth staff review time Alley Design/Construction/Repairs 12.4841.658.000 PW $60,000 2 Remove design of Alley-have one alley designed
and ready for construction but no construction
funding
Council Prioirty: Maintenance of
Infrastructure
One Alley is fully designed but construction funding has been deleted due to budget constraints. Continue to repair potholes as needed. Costs of potholes repair and frequency will go up do to rapid deterioration of alleys as trash trucks pick up in alleys.

San Dimas Canyon Road Dip Crossing Design 12.4841.602.004 PW $15,000 3 Remove design of handrail/guard rail on San
Dimas Canyon Road Dip Crossing
Council Prioirty: Maintenance of
Infrastructure
The existing handrail has been in place for many years (30+). Upgrade of the handrail/guardrail has been difficult due to location at low water crossing. Leave the current railing in place as it has been effective.

Forgo grant for undergrounding project and save on required match Public Works $250,000 4
This is a large project for the City. Will
lose Grant Funding of $2.1 million.

Community Survey-Increase and
Maintain Urban Forest
City has potential to receive $2 million in funding with approximately $250K in match. Removes overhead utilites on west side of San Dimas Ave from 3rd street to north of Gladstone. Allows the City to plant large oak trees on both sides of San Dimas Ave improving the main entrance to the City. Aesthetic benefit. Not a City infrastructure benefit. Can require property owners to pay for their own lateral undergrounding as part of the Utility Undergrounding District.

NPDES General and Professional Services PW $10,000 5
Removal of repairing existing storm drain
catch basin full capture devices and
reduction in equipment rental for clearing
of channels
Council Priority:

Infrastructure and Facilities
and High Performing Government
to respond to and prepare for
emergecies
Existing devices are fairly new and have not needed much repair. Equipment rental is for cleaning channels that drain through the Golf Course and Dip Crossing. If there are heavy rains with high debris flows, then may need to appropriate back some of the funds.

Public Works Total $362,000
Parks and Recreation
Defer Purchase of Tables Parks and
Rec $10,000 1
P&R will defer the regularly-scheduled
replacement of tables at the senior center.
71% of respondents to the Survey
identified adding or improving
maintenance at recreational
facilities as a priority.

This will have minimal impact on programming, as no services are being reduced. Staff will continue to use tablecloths to cover the existing tables.

Suspend Planting New Trees Parks and
Rec $10,000 2
Temporarily suspend the planting of new trees
and expansion of the urban forest.
94% of respondents to the 2023
Community Survey are satisfied
with the current level of
maintenance of parks and
recreation areas. 6% of
respondents to the same survey
identified the beautification of the
City and improving landscaping as
a priority. When asked about
spending priorities, 66% of
respondents ranked increasing or
maintaining the urban forest after
other priorities that include
addressing homelessness,
improving local streets,
redeveloping downtown, improving
facility maintenance, and
expanding multi-use trails.

Previously, the line item for annual tree replacement was funded at a level of $10,000 per year, which allowed staff to replace community trees as needed but was insufficient to expand the community forest. In 2022, the City Council took action to double the line item to $20,000, which enabled the department to plant approximately 70 new trees per year to expand the forest. The proposed reduction of $10,000 will allow the department to remain sufficiently funded to preserve and replace existing trees as needed. New trees would not be planted. The temporary suspension of “new tree” planting is expected to have a low impact, as the department will continue to maintain the community forest consisting of approximately 9,400 trees. Likewise, residents will continue to enjoy the benefits of the city’s robust community forest, which include the provision of shade, decreased wind and noise, and reduced crime. The Landscape Fund (08) is intended to collect sufficient funds to pay for the maintenance of public areas, including the community forest. This year, the Fund (8) will generate $1,041,038 through an annual tax assessment to every household in the city. However, expenditures for Park Maintenance Division are budgeted at $1,706,266, leaving an operating deficit of $655,228 that must be subsidized by the General Fund.

Elimination of Programs offered at the Recreation Center Parks and Rec $70,950 3
The elimination of Student Union drop-in
Programming.
88% of respondents to the 2023
Community Survey are satisfied
with the City's efforts to provide
recreation programming for all
ages.

The Student Union offers free after school programming for youth enrolled in middle and high school from 3:30- 8:30 p.m. that consists of seasonal parties, intramural sports, and volunteer activities. Although 110 youth are enrolled in the program, daily attendance is approximately 10-15 youth. Under this scenario, all Student Union programming would cease in FY 2024-25. Approximately 23% of participants are non-residents and 50% qualify for free and reduced lunches. The BUSD offers after school daycare programs that can accommodate youth, including the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) and the School Age Care Programs at District campuses. As the Student Union is a free program, there would be no loss of revenue if it is discontinued.

Approximately 7 seasonal part-time Recreation Leaders and one regular part-time Recreation Specialist would absorbed into other department operations if the program is discontinued.

Item Dept Revenue
Increase
Expenditure
Decrease
Dept Rank
(1 being first cut) Details of What Reduction Is Where is it identified as apriority Impacts 2

Page 59 ends

FY 2024-25 Budget Reduction Summary ATTACHMENT
Eliminate City Birthday Event Parks and
Rec $6,500 4 The elimination of the City Birthday Event.

Residents may still attend other events that include the Holiday Extravaganza , 8 concerts in the park, National Night Out, 5k Fun Run, Halloween Spooktacular, Students in Government Day, the City Olympics, Bowser Bash and Easter Egg Hunt. The event is attended by several hundred people and features a live band, game booths, jump houses, and food vendors. In prior years, the Chamber of Commerce organized the event. The City assumed responsibility for the event in 2023.

If this event is eliminated, residents may still attend other events that include 8 concerts in the park, National Night Out, 5k Fun Run, Halloween Spooktacular, Students in Government Day, the City Olympics, Bowser Bash and Easter Egg Hunt.

Elimination of Special Events Parks and
Rec $20,300 5
$2,300 - Eliminate one movie in the park. (1)
$3,900 - Eliminate dive-in movies (2)
$4,800 - Eliminate Bowser Bash
$9,300 - Eliminate Cars and Coffee events (4)
Movie in Park -The department offered one movie in the park at Civic Center Park during the summer concert series. The elimination of the movie is expected to have a low impact, as the department will continue to offer the full summer concert series, farmers market and other special events. The movie in the park was offered free of charge and there is no loss of revenue associated with the discontinuation of this activity.

Dive-In Movie - The elimination of both drive-in movies is expected to have a low impact on the community. The elimination of the movies allows staff to focus more on core aquatic programs, such as swim lessons, recreation swim and lap swim. The provision of dive-in movies is not a core service. The revenue offset from this activity is minimal.

Bowser Bash -The impact of eliminating this event is low. The department will continue to make the dog park available for the enjoyment of dog owners. Additionally, the city will continue to provide dog bags in city parks as a courtesy to residents. Residents may attend other special events offered by the City. The elimination of this event will relieve traffic and congestion in the parking lot and will enable the City to make the soccer field available for rental the entire day (currently, the field is unavailable for rental during the Boswer Bash event).

Cars/Coffee - The Cars and Coffee series of events was initiated by staff in response to residents’ requests for additional special events, as stated in the 2021 study of community recreation preferences. Additionally, the events were supported by the Downtown Business Association as a means of generating foot traffic to the businesses on Bonita Avenue. Four monthly Cars and Coffee events were held in April, May, June, July and August in the parking lot adjacent to the Walker House from 8:00-10:00. Each event typically attracted 100 participants. The impact of eliminating this non-core program is considered low. The department will continue to offer other special events that include the City Birthday , 8 concerts in the park, National Night Out, 5k Fun Run, Halloween Spooktacular, Students in Government Day, the City Olympics, and Easter Egg Hunt. In addition, the community will continue to enjoy the annual car show organized by the Sheriff’s Boosters.

Parks and Recreation Total $117,750
Community Development
Eliminate Planning Commissioner's Academy (Santa Rosa - March 2025) Comm Dev $9,500 1 No Commissioners will attend the 2025
Academy N/A
No Impacts, and would retain parking enforcement at current hours. New Commissioners went in April 2024 along with one current commissioner. 2025 will be up in Nor Cal which will cost extra for travel, hotel and meals. Suggest eliminating this year and in 2026 it should be in So Cal which will only be the cost of the conference (around $700).

Reductions in employee development & Technology Enhancements Comm Dev $3,270 2
Reduce Supply budget by $1,300 and
Publications and Dues budget by $1,200 N/A No Impacts .

Reductions in employee development & Technology Enhancements Comm Dev $10,650 3
Eliminate Staff Development - UCLA Land Use
Conference, ICC EduCode Conference, APA
Local Conference, CALBO Conference, ICC
Conference
N/A Reduction in Staff Development - Assists with ensuring Planners are up to date on land use law Reductions in employee development & Technology Enhancements Comm Dev $5,000 4
Reduce Accela Enhancements from $13,000 to
8,000 N/A Some of the Accela enhancements to improve efficiency will need to be pushed to the next fiscalyear.

Eliminating Vacant Building Intern Position Comm Dev $35,000 5 Reduction in Intern position N/A Impacts efficiency and customer service for building permit issuance and building counter service Community Development Total $63,420

TOTAL OPERATIONAL REDUCTIONS &
ADDITIONAL REVENUE $882,136 51% ofDeficient $843,864 of Reserves Result on GeneralFund Reserve 45% Unassigned General Fund Reserve Balance
108% Assigned & Unassigned General Fund Reserve Balance

ADDITIONAL REDUCTION OPTIONS
Item Dept Revenue
Increase
Expenditure
Decrease
Dept Rank
(1 being first cut) Details of What Reduction Is Where is it identified as apriority Impacts 3

Page 60 ends

FY 2024-25 Budget Reduction Summary ATTACHMENT
Administration
Eliminate Sales Tax Analysis CM/Clerk $5,000 7
This analysis would determine what percent of
sales tax comes from non-residents vs residents
in order to better inform public.
2023-24 Budget Principles C.4.f.-
Additional revenue sources, such
as grants and development related
income, should be sought to
augment City resources after due
consideration of the cost
associated with accepting a grant
or approving development.

In considering a sales tax measure to generate more revenue, the City will be unable to definitely should the true impact of a sales tax measure on San Dimas taxpayers. Consequently, it may result in taxpayers believing the tax burden is higher than actually projected.

Reduction in Employee Development & Equipment Maintenance Admin Services $6,536 8
This includes the budget for tuition assistance
$5,000 and maintenance of our letter folder and
inserter machine $1,536.

C.4.j. Reductions should be
avoided that could exacerbate
liability issues for the City or have
long-term consequences that
would be costly to reverse.

Lack of training for employees means staff is not up to date on laws effecting our operations as well and compliance reporting..

Eliminate Employee Recognition Programs Admin
Services $2,000 9
This includes reducing the annual Employee
Recognition lunch/event by $2,000.

This effects employee moral. As part of the Christmas luncheon which the City currently provides funding for the event and meals, the City awards employees that reach service milestones as well as employees who had outstanding performance. This would reduce the amount to fund the event.

Eliminate City Provided Meals for Council Gen
Services $3,000 10 Council meeting, study session or closed sessionCity provided meals.

Council and executive staff would have long meetings with no meals provided by the City.

Suspending Leave Buy Back Program Gen
Services $30,000 11
The current Personnel Rules and Regulations
Section 6 allows staff to sell accumulated sick
leave at a rate of 50% of the value of the leave
accumulated over 200 hours less whatever sick
leave was used during the look back period as an
incentive for staff to use sick leave prudently.
2023-24 Budget Principles C.4.i.-
Services and programs that serve
a limited number of participants
should be the focus of reductions,
reformation, elimination, or
reorganization, or should be
considered for implementation by a
private vendor or non-profit
organization.

This may effect employee moral as those who have accumulated the sick leave and utilize the payout as a means for Christmas gift purchasing. Additionally staff may be more liberal with sick time usage rather than only when they are truly sick. Lastly sick leave may accumulate which could lead to higher payouts if the employee were to retire with the City at a higher payrate then they would have been paid over the course of their career.

Additional Administration Reduction Total $46,536
Public Works
Downtown Sidewalk Maintenance Cleaning and Pressure Washing PW $20,000 6 Reduce cleaning of downtown sidewalks to once
a month.

Council Priority:  Infrastructure and
Facilities
Community Survey:  Improve the
maintenance of local streets was a
high priority  (44%).

Restaurant areas will be pretty dirty and fall on proprieters to clean. Sidewalk cleaning to be done before or after an event but not both as current.

Yard Special/ Dept Supplies PW $8,174 7
Reduce Sand and Sandbag supplies (over
20,000 last year)
Council Prioirty: High Performing
Government and ability to respond
to unoreseen circumstances
Reduced number of sandbags and amount of sand offered at the City Yard. Residents can buy sandbags and sand from hardware stores. Sand and bags are supposed to be for residents only but likely supplying more regional residents.

Equipment Service and Repairs PW $10,000 8
Reduce equipment services. Delays in getting
fleet vehicles repaired.

Council Priority: High Performing
Government and Infrastructure and
Facilities
Delay or perform in house repairs on vehicles. City has purchased several new vehicles so need for repairs is reducing.

Engineering Intern PT PW $8,000 9
Reduction of hours for PW Engineering Intern to
no more than 16 hours per week.

Council Prioirties: Transparency
and High Performing Government -
responsiveness to Residents and
businesses
Customer services responses to requests would get delayed for copies of plans and some permits. More difficult to get interns as most want more hours over the summer especially.

Item Dept Revenue
Increase
Expenditure
Decrease
Dept Rank
(1 being first cut) Details of What Reduction Is Where is it identified as apriority Impacts 4

Page 61 ends

FY 2024-25 Budget Reduction Summary ATTACHMENT
Hazardous Waste Disposal/Contract PW $35,000 10 Greatly reduced encampment clean up services.

Council Prioirty:  Quality of Life
Community Survey - Address
Homelessness  overall priority for
community
Longer response time for clearing of encampments.  More staff time to deal with smaller encampments requiring more training for staff and resulting in less time for other infrastructure maintenance.

Yard Maintenance PW $10,000 11 Postpone painting and stucco repair Council Priority: High Performing
Government and Infrastructure and
Facilities
Buildings will continue to degrade at a more rapid rate increasing future repair costs Street Sign Maintenance Program PW $15,000 12
Reduce rate of replacement of street name signs.

Will result in faded signs. Not necessarily a
safety issue.

Council Prioirty:  Infrastructure and
Facilities    Community Survey
emphasis to Improve Maintenance
of Local Streets and maintain
Infrastructure
Impacts the current efficiency of replacing 2 zones out of 10 throughout the City to only 1 zone per year. Current program yields replacement of each sign every 5 years.  Life expectancy is 5 to 7 years.  Creates Inefficiency as will have to address some areas by complaints only.

General Professional Services PW $37,000 13
Increase time between pavement striping. May
replace Raised Pavement Markers and not
striping unless critical. No thermoplastic.

Council Priority: Infrastructure and
Facilities Community Survey
Improve maintenance of local
streets was a priority (44%) and
Public Safety.

Traffic striping along roadways won't be as visble and may potentially impact traffic safety Additional Public Works Reduction Total $143,174
Parks and Recreation
Eliminate Components of the Holiday Extravaganza Parks and Rec $28,500 6
$3,500 - Eliminate Snow Area
$12,000 - Eliminate Parade
$13,000 - Eliminate Stage Show
N/A
If all three reductions are made, the event would be re-branded as a ceremonial tree lighting by the City Council and shortened to three hours, from 6:00-9:00 p.m. There would not be a snow area or sled rides, a stage show, parade, or stage or performers. The food vendors would be present, although it is uncertain if the vendors would continue to commit to the event that is shortened to 3 hours. Festive holiday music would be played throughout the duration of the event. The Holiday Extravaganza is the city’s signature event that is typically attended by thousands of residents and non-residents. Curtailing the event will have a high impact on the community.

If this event is curtailed, residents may still attend other events that include the City Birthday , 8 concerts in the park, National Night Out, 5k Fun Run, Halloween Spooktacular, Students in Government Day, the City Olympics, Bowser Bash and Easter Egg Hunt.

Additional Parks and Recreations Reduction Total $28,500 Community Development
Reducing Part-Time Hours for Parking Enforcement Comm Dev $10,000 1 Would result in a reduction of approximately
6 hours per week (day/night). N/A Decrease in amount of tickets issued therefore decrease in revenue. Decrease in overnight anddaytime patrol.

Reduce Planning Intern hours to 20 hours per week Comm Dev $12,120 2 Loss of up to 10 hours of coverage for the
week.

Impacts Community Survey
request to improve city
planning
Would reduce planning efficiency as the planning intern assists with answering zoning questions over the phone and at the planning counter, processes zoning/development applications and provides backup to the front counter staff.

Additional Community Development Reduction Total $22,120

TOTAL ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL
REDUCTIONS $240,330
PROPOSED OPERATIONAL REDUCTIONS $882,136
ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL REDUCTIONS $240,330
TOTAL OPTIONAL REDUCTIONS $1,122,466 65% of
Deficient $603,534 of Reserves Result on GeneralFund Reserve 46% Unassigned General Fund Reserve Balance
109% Unassigned & Assigned General Fund Reserve Balance Item Dept Revenue
Increase
Expenditure
Decrease
Dept Rank
(1 being first cut) Details of What Reduction Is Where is it identified as apriority Impacts 5

Page 62 ends

The following principles shall guide budget development:

C.4.a. A balance between public safety, infrastructure maintenance, and quality of life services is required to ensure a livable community.

C.4.b. A budget must be sustainable into the future, not balanced with one-time fixes, such as transfers of reserves or set asides, and must reasonably reflect expenditures that match available revenues.

C.4.c. Reducing funding for capital projects, or eliminating projects from the Capital Improvement Program, in order to support operating activities sacrifices the community’s longterm interests.

C.4.d. Continuous investment in technology, systems and equipment is needed to improve organizational efficiency, especially when staffing levels are reduced.

C.4.e. Reasonable compensation levels in line with the labor market for similar governmental agencies are desired in order to minimize staff turnover and maintain City productivity; however, compensation levels must stay within a range that the city can sustainably afford while still providing the full range of city services that citizens expect from their city government. Total Compensation will be defined as all pay, benefit, and other elements that provide value to staff (i.e., hourly rate, specialty pays, insurance, time off, in-lieu payments, retirement plans, training, etc.).

C.4.f. Additional revenue sources, such as grants and development related income, should be sought to augment City resources after due consideration of the cost associated with accepting a grant or approving development.

C.4.g. Program cost recovery should be maximized, including reasonable General Fund indirect costs allocated to other funds, to reduce the need for program reductions and to reduce taxpayer subsidies where such subsidy is not in the public interest.

C.4.h. Quality economic development and strengthening the City's economic base through implementation of supportive business strategies should be promoted to expand the City’s revenue base and provide a net resource gain.

C.4.j. Reductions should be avoided that could exacerbate liability issues for the City or have long-term consequences that would be costly to reverse.

C.4.k. The budget must ensure administrative accountability, internal controls, and long-term financial stability.

C.4.l. A balance of long-term liabilities and current operations is necessary to ensure the City avoids the growth in unrecognized or sudden significant liabilities.

Page 63 ends

San Dimas City CouncilMay 14, 2024

San Dimas City Council
May 14, 2024