CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
June 6, 2022
5:30 PM
City Hall Council Chamber
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
Diane Papan, Deputy Mayor
Joe Goethals
Amourence Lee
Eric Rodriguez
AGENDA
THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS WHICH SUSPEND CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE BROWN ACT.
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTELY.
SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.
To join via Zoom – click here: June 6, 2022 Zoom Meeting To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 812 1311 0316 Passcode: 335988
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of these items.
1. New State Housing Law Senate Bill 9 (SB9) – Study Session #2 Provide direction to staff on what requirements should be included in the City’s SB 9 Ordinance.
CLOSED SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment before the consideration of these items. Following the meeting a report of action from Closed Session will be provided if required.
2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: one case
ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS: Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at www.cityofsanmateo.org . Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.
WATCHING A MEETING ON TV: City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.
For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER: There are three ways to stream. 1) Public Meeting Portal www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings 2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube: http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo 3) Watch TV live stream: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream (continue)
1 of 58
PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to: [email protected] until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
During the meeting
By computer: Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.
By telephone: Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.
By Zoom: Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.
In Person: At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form, submit a request at the speaker kiosk or scan the QR code.
ACCESSIBILITY: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected] . Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 2 of 58
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
8 9
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: STUDY SESSION File ID: 22-6078 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: June 06, 2022
SUBJECT:
New State Housing Law Senate Bill 9 (SB9) – Study Session #2 RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff on what requirements should be included in the City’s SB 9 Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) into law to help address the housing crisis. Effective January 1, 2022, SB 9 requires local agencies to ministerially1 approve certain residential subdivisions and housing development projects that allow for the development of up to two main dwelling units (duplexes) within single-family residential zoned areas.
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9)
SB 9 projects that meet the qualifying criteria and development standards outlined below are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), nor local density limits. Application of objective zoning and design standards are permitted so long as they do not preclude a main dwelling unit that is at least 16 ft. tall, 800 sq. ft. in size, and 4 ft. from the side and rear property lines. Per State law, projects may only be denied if certain findings pertaining to adverse impacts to the environment or codified objective public health or safety standards are made, and where there is no feasible method of mitigation.
Qualifying Criteria:
1. Zoned single-family residential (i.e. R1-A, R1-B or R1-C);
2. Not located in a historic district or included on the State Historic Resources Inventory;
3. Not located in specified resource lands or hazard areas per Government Code Sections 65913.4(a)(6)(B-K) (generally including, but not limited to, prime farmland, high fire areas, wetlands, hazardous waste sites, lands under conservation easements, or fault zones etc.);
4. Has not been occupied by a tenant within the last three years;
5. Does not involve the demolition of any affordable or rent controlled housing; and
6. Does not involve the demolition of more than 25 percent of any existing exterior walls of any existing housing unit.
Development Standards – Two Unit (Duplex) Development and Urban Lot Split Development:
1. Setbacks
Minimum four-foot side and rear yard setback;
1 A ministerial permit is a permit granted at the staff level with no environmental review, public hearing, or discretion, based on established objective zoning and building code standards. 3 of 58
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
8 9
No setbacks are required for units constructed in the same location and dimensions of existing legal structures or within exiting living area.
2. Parking
Up to one off-street parking space per unit may be required; No parking shall be required for units located within a half-mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor (e.g. El Camino Real), major transit stop2, or within one block of a carshare vehicle site. (see Attachment 3 for a half mile transit radius map).
3. Limits of Use
Short Term Rentals (i.e. rentals of less than 30 consecutive calendar days) are prohibited for units created under SB 9;
Units restricted to residential uses only.
Development Standards – Urban Lot Split:
1. Parcel Size
1,200 square foot (sq. ft.) minimum (i.e. original parcel must be at least 2,400 sq. ft.); Maximum 60/40 lot split size differential.
2. Parcel Width and Depth
Existing standards (San Mateo Municipal Code Sections 27.18.040 and 26.20.050) still apply so long as they do not preclude the proposed lot split.
3. Access
Newly created parcels shall have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way.
4. Easements and Right-of-Way Dedications
Easements necessary for the provision of public services and facilities may be required by local agencies; Right-of-way dedications or construction of off-site improvements shall not be required by local agencies.
5. Correction of Nonconformities
Correction of existing legal non-conforming zoning conditions shall not be required by local agencies or imposed as a condition of approval.
6. Prohibited Actions
Sequential splitting of lots created from a prior SB 9 application is prohibited; Neither the owner, nor anyone acting in concert with the owner, may have previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using SB 9.
Previous City Council Study Session
The City Council held its first Study Session on SB 9 on February 22, 2022 and provided general policy direction on five key areas where local agencies can exercise discretion within the confines of the State law.
Policy Guidance Areas:
1. Demolition Limits
SB 9 establishes an initial 25 percent exterior wall demolition limit for existing units with local discretion to allow more.
Council recommended staff explore increasing the demolition limit to 50 percent, consistent with existing City requirements, to afford more flexibility to property owners, which may increase the feasibly of building attached units, allow for more architecturally pleasing development and/or the preservation of usable open space on parcels.
2. Public Noticing
No public noticing is required under SB 9.
Council recommended providing a courtesy informational public notice for SB 9 projects prior to their 2 A major transit stop is defined as an existing rail or bus rapid transit station or a bus stop that has an intersection of two or more bus routes with a 15-minute or less service interval during the morning and afternoon peak commute hours (PRC21064.3). El Camino Real is considered a high-quality transit corridor and the City’s CalTrain stations are considered major transit stops. 4 of 58
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
8 9
approval.
3. Subdivision Map Extension
SB 9 allows local jurisdictions to increase the initial term of a subdivision map from two to up to four years. Council recommended to not increase the life of a subdivision map beyond the existing allowable extensions, which can allow up to eight years for recordation, before expiration.
4. Dwelling Unit Maximum for Urban Lot Split Projects
Urban lot split projects under SB 9 are initially limited to a maximum of two dwelling units per lot with local discretion to allow up to four dwelling units.
Staff sought direction on the maximum number of dwelling units for urban lot split projects. Council requested this item be brought back for further discussion in a second study session.
5. Unit Size Limits
Per SB 9, local regulations must allow each main unit to be at least 800 sq. ft. in size. Local jurisdictions have the ability to allow larger sized SB 9 units.
Staff sought guidance on whether additional or different FAR limitations (that do not preclude an 800 sq. ft. unit size) should be set for SB 9 units or if unit size should be restricted 800 sq. ft. Council requested this item be brought back for further discussion in a second study session.
The Council also requested additional information on how neighboring jurisdictions are implementing SB 9 and how the SB 9 duplex development standards compare with the City’s R2 development standards.
A comparison of eight surrounding jurisdictions (included in Attachment 4) found that many jurisdictions have implemented regulations that defer to the minimum standards allowed by State law. The majority of jurisdictions have not limited SB 9 units to 800 sq. ft. in size but have deferred to the maximum FAR of the underlying zoning district to dictate maximum unit size above 800 sq. ft. Some cities have also adjusted their standards/definitions as an additional mechanism to regulate unit sizes in certain situations. For instance, Sunnyvale has established two separate FAR limitations depending on the property or unit features, and San Carlos has limited all new units on SB 9 properties to a maximum of 800 sq. ft. and further defines a new unit as any existing dwelling where more than 50 percent demolition has occurred. Most other jurisdictions have also restricted urban lot split projects to a maximum of two dwelling units per parcel and have additional height restrictions for units located in rear yards.
The Council also raised equitability concerns about allowable development in the City’s existing R2 (Duplex) zoning district compared to duplex development permitted by SB 9. Reflected in a comparison chart included in Attachment 5, R2 development standards shows the following key differences:
1. Require larger parcels (5,000 sq. ft.), as compared to 1,200 sq. ft. minimum under SB 9 lot split;
2. Greater rear and side yard setbacks – 5-foot side setback, 15-foot rear yard setback, and 25-foot rear yard setback above the first story3 compared to the 4-foot requirement under SB 9;
3. Greater on-site parking requirements of up to 2.2. spaces per unit as compared to 0-1 space per unit required under SB 9, and
4. Could allow 2-4 dwelling units (inclusive of ADUs) compared to 4 units allowed for non-urban lot split projects, and a minimum of 2 units (with a potential to increase to 4 units) for SB 9 urban lot split projects.
Areas that are not specifically addressed by SB 9 include maximum height limits, daylight planes, paving limits, minimum parcel width and minimum street frontage, so the underlying standards of the R1 district would still apply. Development standards in these areas are the same in the R1 and R2 zoning districts. Since SB 9 does not address these areas, there is an opportunity to continue to defer to the underlying zoning district or set new standards commensurate with the R2 District as long as those standards do not preclude an otherwise compliant SB 9 or ADU unit as permitted by State law.
DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR CITY COUNCIL INPUT
3 Setback standards stated are for interior lots. Side setback standards for corner lots are greater as outlined in SMMC Section
27.18.080(b)(1)
5 of 58
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
8 9
To aid in the preparation of a local SB 9 Ordinance and associated Zoning Code amendments to ensure consistency with State law, staff is seeking initial policy direction from the City Council on three areas that local jurisdictions have discretion to establish their own development standards.
1. Maximum Number of Units – Urban Lot Splits
There are three types of SB 9 development projects – Two Unit (Duplex) Development, Urban Lot Split, and a combined Urban Lot Split with Duplex Development project. Regarding maximum unit potential per lot, there is a distinction between SB 9 projects that propose an urban lot split and projects that do not. According to HCD guidance, projects that do not involve an urban lot split and that meet the development standards outlined in SB 9, are allowed up to four units per State law. This four-unit development could consist of two primary units, one ADU, and one JADU4. SB 9 projects that involve an urban lot split, however, are initially limited to two units per property (i.e. two main units or any combination of main unit, ADU or JADU). The State recognized that building up to four units on smaller lots with reduced setbacks and parking standards may not be appropriate for every jurisdiction and built flexibility into the law to allow local discretion. As such, local jurisdictions have the ability to allow up to four units (duplex, an ADU, and a JADU) on urban lot split properties.
In July 2021, UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation published a study (Attachment 7) on SB 9 and its impact on housing. The study found that high sales prices, limited buildable area on many lots, and high construction costs limit the feasibility of development. In addition, even if the economies of scale are favorable, many property owners may still choose not to build. As such, the study concluded that single-family homes would continue to be the dominant land use in areas subject to SB 9. For landowners who would take advantage of SB 9, the Terner study found that duplexes would be the more feasible development option for most single-family zoned parcels throughout the state and that most of the new units created through SB 9 would likely be smaller in size and thus more affordable compared to existing residences.
Staff is seeking initial feedback on how many units per lot should be permitted on SB 9 lot split projects. To provide context, San Mateo has approximately 16,200 single-family zoned lots that would be subject to SB 9. Of those, 1,566 parcels are less than 5,000 sq. ft. and 1,542 parcels are greater than 10,000 sq. ft. The majority of R1 zoned parcels (i.e. approximately 13,100 parcels) throughout the city fall between 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. in size. Attachment 8 illustrates maximum development in terms of number of units and FAR currently allowed under State law.
Attachment 9 illustrates maximum development for an urban lot split project if the City chooses to increase the number of units allowed on urban lot split properties. To provide a sense of scale, these attachments demonstrate potential maximum development in terms of the number of units and maximum unit size5 on 60/40 lot split projects based on average lot sizes in the R1-A, R1-B and R1-C zoning districts. Question 1: Should development potential be limited to two units per urban lot split parcels as minimally allowed by State law or increased to three or four units per property? Question 2: Alternatively, should staff explore a tiered approach of potentially limiting smaller sized R1 lots created through an SB 9 urban lot split to two units while perhaps allowing three or even four units on larger sized lots?
Question 3: If more than two units are recommended, what type of unit should be allowed on urban lot split properties in addition to two main dwelling units? ADUs, JADUs, or both? 4 A JADU must be located within the walls of a primary dwelling and would not create additional square footage to a parcel in terms of maximum FAR.
5 The graphics represent maximum development scenarios in which existing development is built to the maximum allowable by the underlying zoning district and where a second main unit of 800 sq. ft. and ADU of 800 sq. ft. are also proposed. Not all potential development scenarios are depicted and not all property owners may elect to build out the maximum development possible under SB 9.
6 of 58
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
8 9
Some potential outcomes of increasing the number of units on urban lot split properties include: creating more housing units to meet the City’s housing needs, creating more potentially affordable units, allowing higher densities that may be considered by some to be architecturally inappropriate in terms of size and scale on smaller sized lots allowed through SB 9, potential on-street parking impacts, and reduction in usable outdoor open space in single-family zoned areas.
2. Unit Size or Other Size Limits
Under SB 9 and the State’s ADU regulations, local jurisdictions must allow a unit size of at least 800 sq. ft. for both SB 9 units and ADUs, and cannot impose local development standards that preclude such development. Though the State set a minimum unit size, local jurisdictions can allow units larger than 800 sq. ft.
In the City, each underlying zoning district contains Floor Area Ratio (FAR) development standards. These standards are based on the size of the parcel and are used to control the maximum size/square footage of development. As such, larger parcels have the ability to construct more square footage compared to smaller parcels. Regardless of the size of a parcel, however, the City has set a maximum FAR limit of 6,000 sq. ft. for all single-family zoned parcels. The City contains three single-family zoning districts – the R1-A, R1-B, and R1-C zoning districts. Average parcel sizes6 for these districts are: 20,000 sq. ft. in the R1-A, 9,000 sq. ft. in the R1-B and 6,000 sq. ft. in the R1-C zoning districts.
Under SB 9, a parcel built to its maximum FAR limit could add one 800 sq. ft. SB 9 primary dwelling unit and one 800 sq. ft. ADU. Thus, maximum development potential under SB 9 could be 1,600 sq. ft. over the site’s otherwise maximum FAR limit. Attachment 9 illustrates potential maximum development for SB 9 Duplex Development and Urban Lot Split projects based on average parcel size.
Staff is seeking initial guidance on if SB 9 unit sizes should be limited in size or if larger unit sizes should be allowed. Question 1: Should SB 9 units be limited to 800 sq. ft.? Question 2: Should SB 9 units be allowed to exceed 800 sq. ft.? Question 3: Alternatively, in the instance where a duplex (either attached or detached) is proposed, should one SB 9 unit potentially be limited to 800 sq. ft. and the other SB 9 unit be larger? Question 4: If larger unit sizes are recommended, should the floor area of any new SB 9 unit in excess of 800 sq. ft. be applied to the maximum floor area allowed by the underlying zoning district? This would be similar to the City’s recently adopted ADU regulations.
Question 5: In addition to, or instead of the options listed above, should reduced or alternative FAR standards (different from the underlying zoning district) be established for SB 9 projects? Some potential outcomes of limiting unit sizes to 800 sq. ft. include: creating unit sizes that are smaller and thus potentially more affordable to either first time buyers or a wider range of income earners as compared to larger units, limiting the overall development intensity (in terms of square footage) of single-family zoned parcels, and potentially preserving more usable open space per parcel that could be utilized as yard space, parking, or for landscaping.
Some potential outcomes of allowing unit sizes in excess of 800 sq. ft. include: increasing the economic returns for property owners, larger unit sizes may allow for more bedrooms and housing for families, and may result in the reduction of usable open space on site.
3. Open Space Standards
SB 9 allows up to four dwelling units per property (2 main units, 1 ADU, and 1 JADU) and up to 1,600 sq. ft. above a property’s maximum FAR if existing development is already at its maximum FAR. As illustrated in Attachment 6, 6 Average parcel sizes are rounded to the nearest whole number. 7 of 58
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
8 9
maximum development potential (both in number of units and FAR) that is one-story in nature, can result in noticeably reduced usable open space on smaller sized parcels.
Staff is seeking initial guidance on whether open space development standards should be explored for SB 9 projects.
This could take the form of lot coverage standards (how much structures can cover a property) or required open space similar to standards used for multi-family development. Question 1: Without precluding a unit size of 800 sq. ft. that is otherwise compliant with the development standards outlined in State law, should staff explore the possibility of requiring on site open space standards for SB 9 projects?
Potential outcomes of including open space standards include: preserving usable open space on a site for tenants and/or property owners, allowing for increased passive onsite drainage and water percolation, and potential incentivization of attached vs. detached units and two-story vs. one-story development.
Community Workshop
On May 17, 2022, a virtual Community Workshop was held to provide an overview of SB 9 and to seek initial feedback on the potential unit size maximums, maximum number of units appropriate for urban lot split projects, and if staff should explore open space requirements for SB 9 projects. Public outreach for the workshop included a newspaper notice, email outreach to the SB 9 interested party list, physical posting at five City facilities including the libraries and Central Park, and a notice in the City’s eNews and the Community Development Department specific eNewsletter. There were ten attendees excluding City staff. A majority of participants identified as residents of San Mateo with the remainder evenly split between renters and those who work and/or would like to live in San Mateo. A survey was prepared to collect initial input on potential objective standards for SB 9 projects and is summarized below. Please see Attachment 6 for full survey results.
Number of Units: One-third of respondents recommended limiting urban lot split project to 2 unit while the remaining two-thirds were evenly split between allowing 4 units per property or allowing 3-4 units per property depending on the underlying lot size.
Maximum Unit Size: Two-thirds of respondents were in favor of allowing unit sizes in excess of 800 sq. ft. with the remainder in favor of limiting unit sizes to 800 sq. ft. Open Space Requirements: A majority of respondents were not in favor of establishing on site open space requirements for SB 9 projects.
NEXT STEPS:
Based on the initial input provided by the public and the City Council, staff will begin drafting a local SB 9 ordinance and code amendments to establish development standards consistent with State law. A second community workshop will be held during the ordinance drafting process in which additional community feedback on more refined potential development standards will be sought. A third City Council study session will be held prior to formal public hearings on this item. Staff anticipates bringing the draft SB 9 ordinance and zoning code amendments to the Planning Commission in the fall of 2022 and City Council in the winter of 2022. During this time, staff will continue to accept and process SB 9 applications under the State provisions and maintain the existing resource page on the City’s website that provides information on SB 9 and the development standards established by State law.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Depending on the nature of the Council’s direction, the costs associated with the research and development of the necessary code amendments and/or policies would be covered under the Community Development Department’s existing operating budget. However, if the direction from Council results in the need to retain outside consultants to complete the work, the associated costs will require further evaluation to determine the appropriate funding source. 8 of 58
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
8 9
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21065, this item is not subject to CEQA, because it is an informational study session item that the City Council is not taking action on at this time.
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Zoning Map (R1 Districts, One-Family Dwellings) Att 2 – Zoning Map (R2 Districts, Two Unit Dwellings)
Att 3 – 1/2 Mile Transit Radius Map
Att 4 – SB 9 Implementation in Neighboring Jurisdictions Att 5 – R2 Comparison Chart
Att 6 – SB 9 Community Survey Results
Att 7 – UC Berkeley Terner Center Study
Att 8 – Development Allowed by State Law - Graphic
Att 9 – Urban Lot Split Maximum Development Potential - Graphic Att 10 – Potential Maximum FAR Table
Att 11 – Senate Bill 9 Government Code
STAFF CONTACTS
Laura Richstone, Associate Planner
[email protected]
(650) 522-7205
Linda Ly, Associate Planner
[email protected]
(650) 522-7217
9 of 58
Zoning Map - R1 Districts
Prepared by Planning Division
Date: 1/28/2022
Disclaimer:
These maps are provided for planning and reference purposes only. Accuracy of boundary information contained is not guaranteed. The official records should be consulted for exact information.
San Mateo City Limits
Zoning Districts
R1A - One Family Dwelling "A"
R1B - One Family Dwelling "B"
R1C - One Family Dwelling "C"
LEGEND
0 0.8 1.60.4 mi
0 1 20.5 km
1:36,000
R1A
CITY OF BELMONT
R1C
R1B
R1A
R1B
R1A
R1B
R1B
R1C
R1B
R1B
R1C
R1C
R1C
R1A
R1C
R1C
R1C
R1C
R1C
R1C
R1C
R1A
R1A
R1B
R1B
R1B
R1C
R1C
R1C
R1C
R1C
R1B
R1B
R1B
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
(UNINCORPORATED)
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
CITY OF BURLINGAME
R1C
10 of 58
Zoning Map - R2 Districts
City Limits
Zoning Districts
R2 - Two Family Dwellings
LEGEND
0 0.8 1.60.4 mi
0 1 20.5 km
1:36,000
CITY OF BELMONT
R2
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
(UNINCORPORATED)
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Prepared by Planning Division
Date: 5/25/2022
Disclaimer:
These maps are provided for planning and reference purposes only. Accuracy of boundary information contained is not guaranteed. The official records should be consulted for exact information.
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
11 of 58
P r e p a r e d b y
P la n n in g D iv is io n
D i s c l a i m e r :
T h e s e m a p s a r e p r o v id e d f o r p la n n in g a n d r e f e r e n c e p u r p o s e s o n ly . A c c u r a c y o f b o u n d a r y in f o r m a t io n c o n t a in e d is n o t g u a r a n t e e d . T h e o f f ic ia l r e c o r d s s h o u ld b e c o n s u lt e d f o r e x a c t in f o r m a t io n .
S C A L E
1 " = 1 , 0 0 0 '
L E G E N D
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
|ÿ
|ÿ
|ÿ
|ÿ
|ÿ
|ÿ
|ÿ
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
2 8 0
2 8 0
T O W N O F H I L L S B O R O U G H
T O W N O F
H I L L S B O R O U G H
C I T Y O F B U R L I N G A M E
T O W N O F
H I L L S B O R O U G H
C I T Y O F B E L M O N T
C I T Y O F B E L M O N T
C I T Y O F B U R L I N G A M E
T O W N O F
H I L L S B O R O U G H
C I T Y O F B U R L I N G A M E
C I T Y O F F O S T E R C I T Y
C I T Y O F F O S T E R C I T Y
C I T Y O F B E L M O N T
C O U N T Y O F S A N M A T E O
( U N I N C O R P . )
C O U N T Y O F S A N M A T E O
( U N I N C O R P . )
P E N I N S U L A G O L F &
C O U N T R Y C L U B
( C O U N T Y O F S A N M A T E O )
R 1 C
R 1 B
R 1 C
R 1 B / Q 6
R 1 C
R 1 C
R 1 B
R 1 C
R 1 C
R 1 B
R 1 C
R 1 C
R 1 C
R 1 A
R 1 C
R 1 B
R 1 B
R 1 C
R 1 C
R 1 C
R 1 B
R 1 C
R 1 C
R 1 A
FOST ERCITY B L V
D
CHRI S
TI A
N
D R
W E L L I N G T O N D R
ROBINWO
O
D
LN
E L M E R S T
CORON E TB L V D
PO R T
ROYALAVE
COMMONSL N
P A
VOLN
H A R B O R B L V D
W E D G E W O O D D R
V E R N O N W A Y
TE RRACED R
H I L L E R S T
MONSERATAVE
AVONDALERD
O N E I L L A V E
H I L L S T
POLARI S
AVE
H U L L D RE X B
OURNEA V E
L AU RELST
C O N C O U R S E D R
L O RICT
LIV E O
A K
WAY
BLACKMOUNTAIN R
D
SHOREW
AY
RD
O N E I L L A V E
RE ADA V E
P R I M R O S E R D
CR Y
STALSPRIN GSR D
ELCER RITOAV E
C O L U M B A L N
PO LHEMUSRD
D O R A D O L N
CATAMARAN
ST
SHARO
N
AVE
HILL M A
NAVE
VIS T A
RD
NORTH RD
SHELFORDAVE
MONTERE Y
AV E
ELCAMINOREAL
RALSTONA V E
L E X I N G T O N A V E
LAKESIDE
DR
MID DL ER D
LIN C
OLNAVE
MALT ALN
TALBRY N
DR
CHULA
VISTA
DR
HIG
HLANDAVE
B U R L I N G A M E A V E
C A
RINAL N
HA YNERD
A
N
D R
OMEDA
LN
LAK ESHOREDR
STJAMES
R D
EMERALDBAY
L
N
VINEST
ALAMEDA
DELA S P
UL G A
S
P A R K A V E
L A G U N A A V E
C ELESTI A
LLN
NEPTUNELN
L I N D E N A V E
L YALLWA Y
E2 8THAV
T H
ATCHER
LN
HASTINGS D R
LEODR
A RTH U R A V E
D A R T M O U T H A V E
L I D O L N
P L A Z A L N
R I G E L L N
S O U
THR D
RALSTO N R A
NCHRD
VAL LEYV IEW
DR
BE LLE V
UEAVE
PALOMAA V
E
OXFORDW
AY
C H A N N I N G R D
FLORIB U
NDA A
VE
C S M D R
EDGEHILLD R
V E N U S C T
NOTREDAMEAVE
OA K G
RO V
E A V
E
PONCEA V
E
W
SANTAI NEZ
AVE
ORIONLN
VILLAGED R
LACUM B R
E
R
D
N O
RTHAMAV
E
S EME R
IAA VE
EXETERAV E
F O
RESTA V E
C O MS T O CKCIR
HILLCRESTRD
PI ZARRO
LNP O
RT O
FI N
O
L N
LOS A
L T
OSD R
H O W A R D A V E
S T A G A V E
STONE H E
D G
ERD
G R A N A D A S T
MO U
N T
AIN
VIEW
AVE
SUNNY S
LOPE
A VE
N O R M A L N
ECOURTLN
ISLA N
D
PKW
Y
S U S S E X C T
SANJUANBLVD
J U L I A C T
COBBLE H ILLPL
P H O E N I X L N
VALERGA
D R
P A
UL
SCANNELLDR
EUCA LYPTUS A V
E
C I
PRIANIBLVD
HA
R
BORBLVD
B R O A D W A Y
C O R V U S L N
HI LL S
B O R O
UGH
BLV D
B U R L I N G A M E A V E
W
OOSTE R A
V E
LYON A V
E
C A L I F O R N I A D R
P A R K R D
K R I S T I N C T
O R
ISKANYDR
LONGVIEW
R D
BELAI RERD
C A R O L A N A V E
R A M L
N
S ANRAYMUNDORD
S E A
GATEWAY
BELMONTCANYON R D
C A
SA B
ONAA VE
A L B R Y N L N
BIL LINGSGAT E
LN
NEW L
ANDS A
VE
DE
SOTO
L N
P L
Y M
OUTHLN
M E R V A T P L
TRINIDADLN
R O L L I N S R D
A L A
M
E D
A D
E L A
S P U
LGA S
SOUTHDOW
N
RD
PALM
DR
CA R M E LITAAVE
R O B E R T A V E
P A
LOMAAVE
A R A L N
A L T A L N
O L D C O U N T Y R D
V O L A N I S L N
CLIPPERD R
R A L
STONAVE
R A L S T O N A V E
B E
ACH
PARKBLVD
NEWHALLRD
W I N D E M E R E R D
M A L C O L M A V E
ELV E R A
NOWAY
MOUNT AIN
WOO DLN
CHE STNUTS T
FORE STVIEWAVE
T ART ANTRL
W
AVON D A L E
R D
HI LLCRES T D
R
A R B O R A V E
DALEVIEW A V E
C0M M
ONSLN
JUNO
LN
E A S T L N
DE
LEO N
ST
C LIF FSI D ECT
A N I T A C T
SHIRLEY
R
D
CASTLEL N
BRYCE
CT
S A T U R N C T
A R C A D I A P L
O A KCT
HA L L M
ARK
D R
C O R A L L N
S A L M A R K C T
L Y M E L N
ROLL INS RD
LA S S E
N
DR
C E
DAR CT
BALBOAST
ALDEN
C T
TAHO E
DR
M O R R E L L A V E
RIDGE
RD
LA N E
ST
LYN D
HURSTAVE
P L A I D P L
A M B O Y C T
MA Y W
OOD
DR
P A R R O T T D R
D E B B I E L N
WAKEFIELD D
R
AVALON A V E
NO R THAM A V E
B U C K L A N D A V E
OLD C
OUNTYRD
ELM
ST
LIDO
ST
L A T H A M C T
LOWERLOCKAVE
CHA P I N
LN
F R
AN
CISA V E
E L
CA M
INORE A L
NAU G H T O N
A V E
ENGLISH C T
VIRGO
LN
C L U B
DR
R O XBURYL N
SOLAN A D R
L O R T O N A V E
B O
TAN Y CT
BROMFIELDRD
M A
RSTENA V E
MONTEC
RESTADR
MIL L
ER
AV E
B U
CKINGHAM
W
AY
M I R A S O L C T
B UNK ERHI LLD R
A L T A I R A V E
W I N D S O R D R
CA M
AH O
PL
B O W H I L L R D
S C O R P I O L N
T E
VI S
P L
WIL LOWAVE
ESSEX
L N
L A U
RIE L
N
I N
VERNES S
W
AY
ROSSLN
ROBLAR A V E
MA N
ZANITAA V E
G A R D E N C T
DRAK E CT
6 T H
A V
E
A N I T A A V E
JEWELLPL
MAR I N
E V
IEW
A V
E
RIC H
MOND R
D
LAUREL
AVE
C H E S T E R T O N A V E
VE S
PUCCILN
K O R B E L W A Y
ASCEN S
IOND R
B U C K E Y E C T
BROADWAY
C R Y S T A L C T
S A N C H E Z A V E
SANCARL O
S A
VE
OAKKNOLLDR
C A M B R I D G E S T
B R I D L E W A Y
RIDGEWAYR D
CHELMFORDR D
FOL GER DR
M E T R O C E N T E R B L V D
MASO N
ICWA Y
MARLBOR O
U G
H
RD
C HI LTER N R
D
ROCKRIDGERD
TOYON
D R
BISCA Y
NE A V
E
TA M
AR A
CK
DR
W P A R K W A Y L N
P R I M R O S E L N
FA IRFIE L
DRD
V E G A C I R
GALVESTO N
ST
SUGAR H I
LL D
R
C O
LLEGEVIEW
W
A Y
D W I G H T R D
P O R T A L L N
BOOTH B
A Y
A V E
A LDENA VE
MEZESAVE
A V O N D R
L A K E
V I E W
D R
B E L B U R N D R
BODEGA ST
B L O O M F I E L D R D
WILL OWR D
UPLA N D
SD R
HOL L
YRD
W A V E R L Y P L
LARK S P
U R
DR
CHE SAP EA KE AV E
W O O D S T O C K R D
PU LLMANAV E
L I N D E N L N
F O L G
ER C
T
SPRINGL N
D R
ACOLN
C L A R E N D O N R D
B A R B A R A L N
BATESR D
E L M
A V E
PINEKNO LLDR
SH ELLBLVD
N O
TRE
DAME
AV E
N O R T H L N
C H E V Y S T
W A L T E R M I R E S T
F O R G E R D
T I O G A W A Y
B AIR N
DR
S P R I N G S T
YORK T O W
N
R D
SKYM
ONT
DR
WINC H
ESTER
C T
N E W P O R T S T
E N
CHANTEDWAY
Y O S E M I T E D R
SENECAL N
CH I L T E
RN
RD
P L Y M O U T H W A Y
ROSSST
A C
A D
EM
Y
AVE
L U N
DYS
LN
A L L VIE W W A Y
NE W
PORT C T
LO H
OM A
C T
W
INCHE S
TERD R
WILLIAMSA V E
B E R
ESFORD
AVE C O T T A G E L N
PL EASAN TST
B A Y S W A T E R A V E
6 T H A V E
VISTA
RD
B RA NDYWINERD
BR E
NTWO
ODRD
B A Y C T
WICKHAMPL
VINT A
GE
P A
R K
DR
P E
NS A
COLA
ST
GARD
E N L
N
OC C
IDEN T
ALA V E
M A J I L L A A V E
PIL A R
CITOSCT
V ALL E YRD
FAIRFIE L
D C
T
O X
FORDWAY
C A R M E L I T A A V E
S H E R
A T
ONPL
N E W B R U N S W I C K D R
D R
A Y
T O
N
R D
LAU RELHILLCT
C R
ESCENTAVE
LO
R ID
R
P ARADIS E C T
VIRGINIA
A V E
CONTIN E N
T A
LSWAY
CLAREMONT
DR
O A K R I M D R
B LUE BELL L
N
BUENAVISTAAVE
KENILWORTHRD
T O U R N A M E N T D R
D E V O N D R
C L Y D E S D A L E D R
S H A R O N A V E
PA R K
SI DE AVE
TO
URN A M
ENT
DR
TROPH
Y
CT
S ANMAT EOAVE
PO RTOFIN O
LN
RIZAL
DR
S K Y L I N E B L V D
B A Y B E R R Y P L
EDGEWATER
BLVD
RAINBOW D
R
S T F R A N C I S R D
HASKIN
S
DR
MONSERATAV E
U P P
ER L O
CKAVE
H E RI T A G ECT
E H I L L S D A L E B L V D
ROSEL N
LA D E R A
W
AY
H I G H L A N D A V E
MIS T
Y
LN
N O R T H C T
OLDBA YS HOR E
BLVD
C O N I F E R L N
MT N
VIEW P L
HI GHGATELN
JO
YCERD
P O E T T R D
LYN D
HUR STCT
AQUARIU S
LN
MAR S
H
DR
COUNTRYCLU B
DR
L Y D I A C T
W EMB E RLE YDR
K AMMERERC T
HAYN E
R D
M I R A N
D A
CT
THURM
A V E
E S T
G A T E W A Y D R
F E RNWOODWAY
P E
PPER
LN
T A R R Y
T O
W
N S T
T O B I N C L A R K D R
B E N N
IN
G
TO N
DR
BRAN D
ON C T
ACACIACT
F S T
E LAUR E LCRE E K RD
C O N C O R D W A Y
CITYHAL L L
N
FAIRW A Y
D R
S E A B U R Y R D
EDGEWATE RB LVD
B A Y
VIEW
PL
T O W E R L N
BRAEMARDR
H A
INLINE D
R
PR
INDLERD
B A R
ROIL H E
TAVE
C H A
PINAVE
B U C
KING
HAMCT
M O N R O E A V E
KING
ST
LA H O
NDAR D
BR O O
KECT
COVI N
GTON
R D
V I L L A A V E
WESS E X
WAY
B E N
GL O E L
N
BELMONTC A
NYONRD
CHULAVISTAA V E
LA SALLERD
R O BIN W H
IP PL EWAY
CEDAR
ST
K E N T O N A V E
5 T H A V E
WOODCRESTC T
ECAROLAV E
T E R R
I E R
P L
M A R I N D R
C H E S S D R
CA L
AV E
RA S C T
C A P U C H I N O A V E
VIADELIZIA
KIT T
IELN
SOUTHV IEWCT
ANSELAV E
K I N G S L N
REDWOO D
DR
VELOCITYWAY
BARCLAYWA Y
P E P
PER
AVE
K I M M I E C T
A I R P O R T B L V D
TREN T
O N P
L
FOXPLAZALN
BRIAR F
IELD
W
AY
C A R O L
A
V E
G O R D O N A V E
P A L M E R A V E
ARC
WA Y
CLIF TON A V
E
N E W L A N D S A V E
T R I T O N D R
AN GUID O
CT
NEU C H
ATEL A V E
M O L I T O R R D
KNOLLCRES T R D
WALTONS T
ANCHORLN
LO
MBARDILN
W E S T L N
C R
ESTV IEW
AVE
MERRYMOP P E
TLN
ARDEN
RD
END F
I
ELD
W
A Y
BRIDGER D
M I L
F O
RD
AV E
ERICKSON
L N
C L E E S T
E L M W O O D C T
C Y P R E S S A V E
C U
MB E R
LANDCT
S A
NDYHOO K
CT
E3R DA V E
T W I N P I N E S L N
BOW
HILLRD
LANCASTERRD
Q U E E N S L N
WINDINGWAY
S E A
RS V I
LLE CT
LAKE
RD
C A N T E R B U R Y R D
ARGUSCT
ASCOTRD
C A D
IL L A
CWA Y
A L P I N E A V E
B AR FO RDAVE
M A P L E A V E
LE X I N
GTO N
WAY
P E R
SEUSLN
RESERVOIRRD
COBBLESTO
N
ELN
W
IL L
IAM SLAN DINGLN
NOTREDAM E P L
IR ENECT B ELMONTAVE
READAVE
C O
R N
IS H W
AY
URSALN
T R E N T O N W A Y
K A R E N W A Y
H A T T E R A S C T
W I
LLOWL N
L I N K R D
F I R S T
MID D
LE S
E X
RD
C R Y S T A L D R
SHADY
L N
B A N C R O F T R D
V I C T O R I A R D
S T A N L E Y R D
A R U N D E L R D
A N I T A R D
BREWERDR
M Y R T L E R D
H A T C H L N
A V O N S T
S E
QU O
I A
W
A Y
R E P O S O W A Y
ELSIER RADR
D ES V IOW A Y
C O R B I T T D R
RO EHAMPTON RD
D A I R Y L N
M A N O R D R
C R O S S W A Y R D
R U T H A V E
EW
EL L
R D
ALTU
RAWA Y
ARDE NLN
GREENWICHLN
STO
NE P
IN E
RD
W
ILLA R D
LN
T A
MPACT
CRYSTALSPR I N G
STER
B E A C H R D
ACACI A
D R
CASTOR
ST
GLENG A
R R
YWAY
F R A N C I S C O D R
PLATEAUD R
RO X
BU R
YWAY
DOU G
LA S A V E
B E L M
ONTCANYONR D
SANARDO
WAY
DENISE
DR
C H A T H A M R D
S O
UTHDOWNCT
CARLM
ON T
DR
RO
B
INRD
D
E
KOVENA V
E
C O S T A
RICA
AVE
G
EN E
VRA
RD
S E A
SPRAYLN
C U M B E R L A N D R D
PILGRIMDR
ALOMAR W
AY
VERBA L
EE L
N
L A N G R D
D O N N E L L Y A V E
C O U R T
LANDRD
L A U R E L A V E
AST E R A V
E
ELDERDR
ROCKHARBORLN
B E N SO N WAY
O L D C
A N A D
A
RD
CARDIGAN
R
D
F U R L O N G S T
J U D S O N S T
I R W I N S T
K E D I T H S T
ENSENADA
R D
FAR M
LN
B ERRYE S
SA
C
T
Q U A R R Y R D
FAR R
IN G D O N
L N
REGULUSST
SANDRA
RD
CULE BRARD
M I R A M A R T E R
B A Y V I E W A V E
KINGSTON R D
W A L N U T A V E
HARTFOR D A V E
VANIE R
DR
STAR LITEDR
CARLTON
RD
DE
SABL A
RD
E R L I N D R
H A
TCH
DR
LINCOLN
CENTER
DR
L ESSINGIA
CT
LAURELHILLDR
VALDEZ
AVE
LO O K
OUTR D
W
NAUGHTON
AVE
NANTU CKETST
BRAN DTRD
PINEHILL R D
A L LEGH E N Y W
A Y
VIEW
HAVE
NRD
MERNERR D
B E
L LEM O
NTIA VE
LASEN
DARD
L A
GUNA
CIR
R AV ENSCOURTRD
W H I T E W E L L R D
D A V I S D R
BISHOPRD
M
IR A
ST
G
LEN BROOKDR
KINGS W
OODDR
L ODGE D R
C OR NELIA
DR
E L
A R R O
YO
R D
C A N A
DAR D
ANZABLVD
C I V I C C E N T E R D R
LA
C A N
ADA
RD
EL
CENTRO
RD
MANZA N
ITAAVE
FAL L
ENLE A
F
DR
F A
LKIRK
LN
LA
CUE S T
AR D
J A M A I C A S T
WOODBR I
DGE
R D
CORO N
ADO
LN
FAIRWAYCIR
BLACKMOU N T A
IN R D
MON T I C E L L
O
RD
BROOK V
ALER D
ES CON D I D OWAY
ALHAMBRADR
A D E L
A
ID E W
A Y
MAR BURGERAVE
SH E L
DONAVE
ARCTURUS
CIR
BRIDGE RD
TOW
E R R
D
DAVEYGLENRD
B I K E T R A I L
OLDL A K E
RD
LAK E
R D
BARTL E
T T
W A
Y
WSANT A
INEZAVE
N O R T H R D
E3R D
A V E
K E HOE A V E
S U N N Y B R A E B L V D
2NDA V
E
DEAN Z A B L V D
B A R N E S O N A V E
ELCA M I
N O R
EAL
M O N
TE D
IABLO A
V E
ALAM E
D A D
ELASPUL G
A S
VANBU REN
ST
4 1 S T A V E
H A C I E N D A S T
BROMFIELD
RD 2 N D A V E
CSM D
R
W3 R D
AV ES A N R A Y M U N D O R D
2 8 T H A V E
EPOPLARA V E
C O L E G R O V E S T
9 T H A V E
CYPRESSA V E
E A T O N R D
AMYD R
B A H I A
CRESCENTA V E
NAMPHLET T
BLVD
GR E E NFIEL DA VE
E 4
THAV E
E3 R
DA V
E
SNORFOLKST
NKINGSTON
ST
W3 9TH A V E
BORELA VE
ELCAMINOREAL
T I L T O N A V E
1 2 T H A V E
W I L L I A M S P L
E V A C T
E5THAV E
FAT HOMDR
NEWLAN DSA VE
P E
NINSU
LA
AV E
L ANDING A V
E
D E R B Y A V E
WHIL LSDALE BLVD
E28TH
AV E
K I N G L N
E I S E N H O W E R S T
BO
RD E N S
T
LASE LV ACIR
K E N T C T
EDINBU R
GH
ST
BAYRIDGEWAY
P A R R O T
T
DR
B E
RES F
ORD
ST
WPOPLARA V E
FATHOM
D R
Y A L E D R
O R I N D A D R
MURPHYD R
4 2N D
AVE
P A U L S O N C T
LAS E
L V A
ST
NBA Y
SH O R
EBLVD
O C H O A L N
1 6 T H A V E
N H U M B O L D T S T
4 3 R D A V E
H A C
IENDA S
T
G Y M K H A N A R D
E N G L E R D
R E E F D R
P A R R O T T D R
TROLLM A
NA V E
V I N E C T
C S M D R
PORTOL A
D R
E D I N B U R G H S T
HARVARDRD
C U E S T A A V E
S E A L S T
T R I N I T Y S T
B E R M U D A D R
B I R C H A V E
D O L O
R E
SST
CLIPPERST
B A Y S W A T E R A V E
L A U R E L A V E
SEAGATED R
F A L D A A V E
B A R R O I L H E T A V E
J A M E S C T
E M E R A L D C T
L O L A S T
RID G
EC R
E S
TTER
WOODBRIDGE
CIR
S
DELAW
A R E
S T
I R I S C T
RE G A
NDR
GIL L
ISDR
A R C H E R C T
W 2 0T HA V E
J U N I P E R S T
E D I S O N S T
D O R E A V E
NORTON
ST
2 2 N D A V E
S A N J U A N C T
T E R M I N A L P L
N E
LC A
MINOREAL
E2 5THAVE
G I N N E V E R S T
1 6 T H A V E
D A L E A V E
F L O R E S S T
O R E G O N A V E
S A R
ATO G
ADR
O L Y M P I C A V E
7 T H A V E
S C L A R E M O N T S T
B U C K N E L L D R
B E
ACONA V
E
C A R Y A V E
M A P L E S T
M U R P H Y P L
SANMIG UELW AY
NEVES
RD
STATIONP A
RKC
IR
H I L L S D A L E P L
S B S T
P A L M P L
E3 9THA V E
G L O R I A C T
P A L M A V E
H E L E N E C T
C O L L E G E A V E
BUD DCT
VIRGI N I
AAV E
E4 0 T H
AVE
IRVINGST
M O N
TEDIABLOAV E
C A S A N O V A D R
T H O M A S C T
C A S C A D E C T
S E R R A C T
S T A T E S T
C R E E K R I D G E C T
C U
RTISS S
T
K N A P P C T
S U S A N C T
EDGEW
OODRD
P A R R O T T D R
P A
RKW
OODDR
N E W B R I D G E A V E
P A
CIFIC
BLVD
CLARK
DR
S T M A R Y S C T
1 0 T H A V E
L E S L I E S T
B E R E S F O R D C T
D O L O R E S C T
S S A N M A T E O D R
C H E R Y L C T
A F T O N C T
A L L I S O N C T
3 7 T H A V E
3 0 T H A V E
C A M D E N A V E
2 4 T H A V E
2 3 R D A V E
1 0 T H A V E
D A L E H U R S T C T
D A K O T A A V E
3 1 S T A V E
C O Y O T E P O I N T D R
Y O R K A V E
CL E A R V
IEW
W
AY
BALDWINAVE
N B A Y S H O R E B L V D
S F R E M O N T S T
W5THAVE
S C E N I C W A Y
G R E E N F I E L D C T
D O U G L A S C T
C U L V E R C T
I S A B E L L E A V E
COTTAGEGROVEA VE
FE R
NW O O
D
ST
B A L M O R A L C T
MIDV ALE A VE
N I D A H O S T
L A W R E N C E R D
M O N T E R E Y S T
WO ODS IDEWA Y
E A S T W O O D D R
P R
OS P E C
TROW
CED ARWOODDR
J O D Y C T
E L A U R E L C R E E K
DR
WBEL LEVUEAVE
2 7 T H A V E
W38 THA V E
D A R C Y A V E
D O N N E R S T
EDISON
ST
HO L L
AN D
ST
TIM
B E
RLANEW A Y
DALEHURS T A V E
W
ILSHIRE
AVE
P A R K L N
M U R R A Y C T
C H R I S L N
S G R A N T S T
C H U K K E R C T
W20THAVE
42 N D
AV E
ASHWOODDR
E L E A N O R D R
PO RTD R
K E L T O N C T
E H I L L S D A L E B L V D
E S A
NTAI NEZAV E
P A R R O T T D R
P A
CIFIC B
LVD
WI N WAYCIR
S R O C H E S T E R S T
HERSCHEL
ST
H U R O N A V E
PALOSVERDESD R
KIMBERLYWAY
G U M S T
3 6 T H A V E
F O L K S T O N E A V E
2 6 T H A V E
D E E R L A K E C T
P E N I N S U L A A V E
M I S S I O N D R
WOLFEDR
W K Y N E S T
SOUTH
BLVD
6 T H A V E
7 T H A V E
8 T H A V E
H I L L S I D E C T
ROB E
RTAD R
S Q U E B E C S T
I N D I A N A V E
LOS
PRADO S
BIRCH S
T
HARROWDR
AN NA POLISDR
NE L
L S
WORTHA V E
1 S T A V E
K E N T S T
NEL L
SWOR T
HAV E
HARRISONAVE
W E S
TWO O
DC T
CON NIEAV E
P I N E
W
OOD C T
CO S
TAR
ICA
AVE
T R A N S I T C E N T E R W A Y
F I E S T A D R
L O S G A T O S W A Y
HIGH
VIEW
DR
O N T A R I O S T
O T T A W A S T
ADAMSST
E N S E N A D A A V E
A N T I O C H D R
P A S A D E N A D R
F I L L M O R E A V E
D A I S Y S T
A D R I A N A V E
HAML E
TST
W A S H I N G T O N S T
B O S T O N A V E
LAFA YETTEST
D A R L E N E A V E
SAN T
IAG O
ST
S H O R E V I E W A V E
N K I N G S T O N S T
YEWST
LAKEWOOD
CIR
V AI LWOO DPL
1 7 T H A V E
L O D I A V E
V A N
NESSA D R
FO O
THILL DR
S U L L I V A N S T
E P O P
LARA V
E
B E T T Y L N
HAV E
N R
IDG E
CT
H A N C O C K A V E
Q U E E N S A V E
C L E V E L A N D A V E
P E R S H I N G A V E
M A S O N L N
R O S I L I E S T
H O B A R T A V E
ROYALA VE
S H
A S T
A
DR
C H A R I N G C R O S S
B A R N E S O N A V E
GRAMERCYDR
R O C K W O O D C T
H O B A R T A V E
S C O T T S T
1 8 T H A V E
P E C K A V E
ECH OA V E
P L A Y A S T
R O G E L L C T
D O L A N A V E
LEA F W
OOD C T
W
ARREN
RD
BETTINAAVE
E
4T H
AVE
AL D E
R
W O O D C
T
K E T T E R I N G C T
G A R F I E L D S T
D A R W I N A V E
F L I N T A V E
OCE A N
VIEW A V
E
DE L M O
NTEPL
H A N S E N D R
N R
AILROADA V
E
AS C E N S I O N
D R
WOODLA NDDR
LA U R
I E
MEADOWSDR
N C L A R E M O N T S T
OAK W
OO D
DR
T A Y L O R S T
RYDERST
ERIC S
ON
RD
S I D A H O S T
B R A N S O N D R
CA XTONCT
NOTREDAMEAVE
2 N D A V E
P A L O S V E R D E S C T
M I C H A E L D R
TRADERLN
F E R N W O O D S T
ARMADAWAY
K ING R I DGED R
E B E
L LEVUE A
V E
V E R A N O C T
P A
RK S
IDEWA Y
A L T A A V E
E2 0THAVE
HIL L S B
OR O U G
H
BLV D
FRANKLINST
SPYGLASSDR
N E
V A
DA
AV E
CR Y
STA L
SP R
INGS R D
F A I R
OA K
SCT
TUL A N E R
D
R A N D S T
LOS A L
TOS P
L
E H I L L S D A L E C T
S H U M B O L D T S T
S E L D O R A D O S T
TICONDEROGADR
C Y P R E S S A V E
S E L
L S W
ORTH A V E
T I M
BERL A
NE
R D
M
ULBER R
Y
DR
T U L A N E C T
P A
TRICIAA V E
CASADECA M
PO
E H I L L S D A L E B L V D
DESA BLARD
GRANDBLVD
G L
EN D O
RA
DR
H I L L B A R N C T
S E L D O R A D O S T
E3 8THA V E
CRAGMONTCT
ALVARADOA V E
1 9
THAVE
FAIRFAX A
VE
H A Y W A R D A V E
OVERLAND
DR
2 9 T H A V E
OVERLOOK C T
N D E L A W A R E S T
E L K H O R N C T
H I C K O R Y L N
DEL M O
NTES T
EDNAW
AY
ROL LING HILLSAVE
NSANM A
TEOD R
HAWTHORNEDR
3 1 S T A V E
NRA IL R
OADAVE
G L E N D A L E R D
B A K E R R a m p
ELCER R
ITOAVE
P I K E L N
4 4 T
H
AVE
S T A T E S T
O T A Y A V E
O C C I D E N T A L A V E
W Y O M I N G W A Y
WOODBERRYAV E
G A R V E Y W Y
W E E P
ING
RIDG
E
CT
NB S
T
V I S T A A V E
A R R O W O O D L N
P A R K V I E W W A Y
S T A T E S T
WHITECLI F
F
W
AY
N C L A R E M O N T S T
RANELAGH
R D
2 9 T H A V E
HIGHLANDAV E
SAMPHLET T
BLVD
A R B O R L N
M U
LRYANCT
4 3 R D A V E
DART M
OU
T H
RD
M A I N S T
C O N C A R D R
H O W A R D A V E
S T J O H N C T
SHOALDR
D E R B Y A V E
MARGARE T
CT
BR O
A D V
IEW
CT
B R I A R L N
ELPORTALAVE
C R E E K S I D E L N
AMESBURYA V E
S E X T A N T C T
MELROSECT
N E L D O R A D O S T
C H E S T N U T L N
ARK S
T
P O L H E M U S R D
ALAN H
ILLL N
WESTMORLANDAVE
M O U N D S R D
E D G E W A T E R B L V D
K L A M A T H A V E
FAS HIONI SLANDBLVD
CARMELCIR
W 4 0 T
HA VE
W40THA VE
2 9 T H A V E
2 6 T H P L
SUZIE
ST
TR E
ETO P L
N
C A T A L P A A V E
MC
A K E
R C
T
P I C O A V E
L E O N A S T
E K Y N E S TW 25THA V E
31STAVE
S U N S E T T E R
H U
RLIN G H
AMAVE
M A R
INACT
V E N T U R A A V E
CRE STWOOD DR
B A Z E R D
LACAS AA VE
GREEN
OAKCT
BRIDGEPOINTE
CIR
M
ARINERS
ISLANDBL VD
C A R L I S L E D R
FRANKLINST
BUNK E
RHILLD R
LIN D
A
CT
NEPTUNE
CT
C O
NDO N C
T
AR R
OYOCT
GREENWOODAVE
C H E S T E R T O N P L
P A D D O C K W A Y
DOR C
HES
TER R
D
S T A R B O A R D D R
P O W E L L S T
C L A U D I A A V E
C R
OW
N
CT
FRA N
K LINP K
WY
LA S A
L L
E
D R
RAN D
AL L
RD
M A D E R A D R
A N C H O R R D
ELPARQUEC T
H E A T H E R L N
A L D E R L N
FU L T
ON
RD
NASHDR
S I D A H O S T
NRAILROAD
AV E
A V I L A R D
OFA R R E L L
ST
CO L
UMB IAD R
P A R K P L
P O R T S M O U T H W A Y
2 1 S T A V EP I O N E E R C T
BORELPL
VILLATER
N G R A N T S T
N F R E M O N T S T
ASH WO ODCT
I V Y S T
S Y L V A N A V E
TOY O NC T
S O N O R A D R
T E R R A C E W A Y
HOMEWOODAVE
AMHERS TAV E
H I L L T O P R D
B Y R O N A V E
HEMLOCKAVE
L OUISEL N
E 4 1 S T P L
L A N S D A L E S T
B E V E R L Y S T
D E L R A Y S T
E V E R G R E E N S T
C A P I S T R A N O W A Y
EELLSWORTHCT
SA LISB U R Y
WA Y
LODATOAVE
2 7 T H A V E
W C A P I S T R A N O W A Y
SU G
ARLOAFD R
SP R
ING
FIELD
W A Y
1 3 T H A V E
1 5 T H A V E
1 4 T H A V E
1 1 T H A V E
S E V I L L E W A Y
M A R T I N D R
SB A Y
SHOR E
B L V D
I V Y S T
SRAILR O
ADA V
E
S H A R O N P L
P O L K A V E
RAMONA S
T
E L M S T
L O R R A I N E A V E
N F R E M O N T S T
N G R A N T S T
C O B B S T
N I D A H O S T
D I X S T
BUENA VISTAAVE
P R A G U E S T
N Q U E B E C S T
K E
NTUCKYAV E
O S
O
ST
G
ARF IELD
C T
L A U R E L W O O D D R
V O E L K E R D R
S A
NANTONIOST
ME LIS S ACT
LA N D
FA
IRA VE
S T M A T
THEWS A
V E
LAJO LLA A V E
W 3 8
TH A V E
R H U S S T
T I L I A S T
Q U I N C E S T
S H A F T E R S T
M E F F E R D A V E
W 4
THAVE
C A S T I L I A N W A Y
MARISMA
ST
TURNER
TER
REXST
E L L I O T T C T
HADDON D
R
WHILLSDALEB L V D
VENTURAAVE
M A RSHALLAV E
LLANO
ST
W I L M I N G T O N R D
CARIBBEANWAY
FO S T
E R
ST
A N N A S T
C H
ES S
DR
A L M A D E N W A Y
T E X A S W A Y
A R A G O N B L V D
P O T O M A C W A YD U B L I N W A Y
S TE PHENRD
M C K I N L E Y S T
M E A D O W V I E W P L
P I E R C E S T
M C
C O
W
NAVE
M A R Y L U L N
L ULA B E L L E L N
W I S N O M A V E
S K I N G S T O N S T
S B
AYSHORE B
L V
D
L I N D B E R G H S T
W E L L E S L E Y A V E
S G R A N T S T
BAYVIEWA V E
B U R B A N K A V E
N A D I N A S T
O A K S T
1 9 T H A V E
ROSSIWAY
SRAILRO A
DA V E
S A
MPHLET T
BLVD
CA N Y
ONOA K
C T
F L E E T W O O D D R
BAKER
W
AY
LYO
NR
IDGELN
C O L G A T E W A Y
L A K E S T
P R I N C E T O N D R
OA K
VALLEYRD
C U P E R T I N O W A Y
GARVEY W
AY
B A Y L A N D I N G
D U R A N D D R
JEF F
ERSONCT
S E Q U O I A A V E
A D A S T
NOE A VE
H O W E S T
E L
S O
BR A N T
E
ST
HIL L
CRE S T
A V E
D E L M A R W A Y
DAYAVE
I O W A D R
D E W E Y S T
M O N R O E A V E
K A L M I A S T
J A S M I N E S T
L O C U S T S T
SYCAMOREDR
D E L R O S A W A Y
N R
AILRO A
D
A V
E
C O R N E L L A V E
RO
SEWO O
DDR
P A R K L N
VERNONTER
ST R A T
FO R
D W
A Y
KATHRYNEAVE
W 2 5 T H A
VE
MCLELLA N
AVE
MIDW
AY
A V E
KENW
OOD
AVE
I S A B E L L E A V E
B R O O K S S T
E S T R E L L A W A Y
CELESTE
DR
K E L L Y S T
G E O R G E T O W N A V E
JOANNED R
S O
UTHW
OOD
AV E
P A R R O T T D R
W O O D L A N D D R
POIN S E
TT IAA VE
D A V I D S T
M A D I S O N A V E
Y O U N G S T
MAGNOLIADR
N R O C H E S T E R S T
V E R D U N A
VE
F O R D
HAMR D
WGRANTPL
T A N
GLEW
O O
D
W
A Y
HOSMER S T
C A V A N A U G H S T
B A Y W O O D A V E
PEBBLEWOODWA Y
STUDIO C
IR
O N E I L L D R
EGRA N
TPL
YATESWAY
RA M BLEWOOD
WAY
CHU R CHAV E
A L H A M B R A R D
G U I L D F O R D A V E
DETROIT
D R
S P U R A W A Y D R
F A L L O N A V E
E3R DA VE
LA GOST
MA XINE AVE
BRIDGE P
OINTEP K
WY
BOV E
TRD
F A I R M O N T D R
V IEWRIDGE
D R
C O U N
TRYSI D
E
D R
SAMP H
LETTBLV D
GEORG
EAVE
C S M D R
WAYNE
WAY
J H A R T C L I N T O N D R
CHERR Y
W
OODDR
C A M P U S D R
S A
NTACLARAWAY
PARK
P
L
9 2
9 2
9 2
9 2
8 2
8 2
8 2
Z o n in g C la s s if ic a t io n
R 1 A
R 1 B
R 1 C
E l C a m in o R e a l H a lf M ile B u f f e r
C a lt r a in H a lf M ile B u f f e r s
C a lt r a in S t a t io n s
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!
S a n M a t e o C it y L im it s
S a n F r a n c is c o B a y & L a g o o n
A s s e s s o r P a r c e ls
12 of 58
1 LOCAL JURISDICTION SB 9 REGULATIONS COMPARSION TABLE 1 Jurisdiction Summary Unit Size & FAR Max Height Units – Urban Lot Split Burlingame Adopted SB 9 Two Unit
Residential Overlay District
32% FAR + 1,100 sq. ft.
+ 400 sq. ft.
30 ft.
10 ft. plate and 15 ft.
peak height limit within
rear 20 ft. of parcel
Restricted to two dwelling
units
Redwood City City Council Study Session
planned June 2022
40% lot coverage
(no FAR standards) 28 ft. or 2.5 stories Restricted to two dwelling units
San Francisco
Adopted SB 9 Objective
Design Standards (ODS)
January 2022
Defers to ODS for setback and
height requirements; Second unit
may not be less than 800 sq. ft.
3-story limit at 45%
rear yard line
2-story limit at 30%
rear yard line
Restricted to two dwelling
units
Sunnyvale
Adopted local Ordinance
(“Dual Urban Opportunity
Housing – Chp. 19.78)
45% FAR or 3,600 sq. ft.
(whichever is less);
50% or 4,000 sq. ft. (which ever is
less) if project meets at least 3
certain findings (Chp.19.78.040(2))
30 ft.
17 ft limit within the
rear 20 ft.
Restricted to two dwelling
units
San Carlos Adopted Interim Urgency
Ordinance through 2022
Max 800 sq. ft. SB 9 unit size cap.
Existing units that remove more
than 50% are considered new
units and will be capped at 800 sq.
ft.
Additions to existing SB 9 units not
permitted.
16 ft for new units
20 ft. for hillside sites
Restricted to two dwelling
units
1 Notes: Local jurisdictions’ development standards shall not preclude at least two SB 9 units that are 800 sq. ft . each in size. Except for San Francisco, the cities shown on this list generally defer to underlying zoning and development standards and have not adopted specific SB 9 standards at this time. 13 of 58
2 Foster City Adopted Interim Urgency
Ordinance on 2/22 50% lot coverage 25 ft, 2 stories Restricted to two dwelling units
Millbrae Adopted Interim Urgency
Ordinance 55% FAR and 50% lot coverage
25 ft
(or up to 30 ft if the
additional 5 ft has a
min 3” roof slope)
Restricted to two dwelling
units
Affordability requirements
Woodside Adopted Urgency
Ordinance
All SB 9 units limited to 800 sq. ft.
Basements prohibited.
11 ft plate
17 ft. peak
Restricted to two dwelling
units
14 of 58
1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPARISON TABLE: R1 vs. R2 vs. SB 9-R1 R1 R2 SB 9 R1
Minimum Parcel
Size
R1-A: 10,000 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
60/40 split; No
less than 1,200
sq. ft.
R1-B: 6,000 sq. ft.
R1-C:5,000 sq. ft.
Maximum FAR
R1-A: 0.4(10,000) +0.2(parcel-10,000)** 0.60 Maximum
permitted by
underlying
zoning district
plus 800 sq. ft.
for SB 9 unit and
800 sq. ft. for
ADU
R1-B & R1-C: 0.5(6,000) +0.2(parcel-
6,000) **
Central & North Central:
0.50 parcels less than
7,500 sq. ft. and 0.60 for
parcels greater than 7,500
sq. ft.
Front Setback
R1-A: 25 ft.
15 ft. Silent*
R1-B and R1-C: 15 ft.
Front Setback –
Private Roads and
Easements
50 ft. from centerline of private road or
access easement
50 ft. from centerline of
private road or access
easement
Silent*
Side Setback –
Interior Side
R1-A (SM Park): 10 ft. for lots 75 ft. wide
or larger; 7 ft. for lots less than 75 ft.
wide.
5 ft. 4 ft.
R1-A: 7 ft.
R1-B & R1-C: 5 ft.
Corner Side Setback
– Street Side Yard
R1-A (SM Park): Additions – 15% lot
width; Min: 10 ft., Max: 25 ft.
New residences – 25 ft. for lots 75 ft.
wide or greater
Ground Floor: 15% lot
width, Min: 7.5 ft., Max:15
ft.
Upper Floors: 10 ft.
4 ft.
R1-A Ground Floor: 15% lot width; Min
7.5 ft., Max: 25 ft.
Upper Floors: 10 ft.
R1-B & R1-C: Ground Floor: 15% lot
width, Min: 7.5 ft., Max:15 ft.
Upper Floors: 10 ft.
Rear Setback
Ground Floor: 15 ft.
Upper Floors: 25 ft.
Ground Floor: 15 ft.
Upper Floors: 25 ft.
4 ft.
15 of 58
2 Garage Setback
R1-A (SM Park): 50 ft when garage faces
street; Or 25 ft. when doors do not face
street. 20 ft. Silent*
R1-B and R1-C: 20 ft.
Height
24 ft. Plate
32 ft. Peak
24 ft. Plate
32 ft. Peak
16 ft. minimum
Daylight Plane 12 ft./45 Degrees 12 ft./45 Degrees Silent* Parking
Under 3,000 sq. ft.: 2-car garage
3,000 - 3,749 sq. ft.: 2- garage plus 1
uncovered
3,750+sq. ft.: Same as above plus 1 space
for ea. 750 sq. ft***.
Studio: 1.3 Resident; 0.2
Visitor
1 Bedroom: 1.6 Resident;
0.2 Visitor
2 Bedroom: 1.8 Resident;
0.2 Visitor
3+Bedroom (or over 1,400
sq. ft.): 2.0 Resident; 0.2
Visitor
1 space per unit
maximum; No
parking required
within 0.5 mi of
major transit
corridor or major
transit stop
Parcel Width
R1-A: 75 ft.
30 ft. Silent* R1-B: 60 ft.
R1-C: 50 ft.
Width at Street
Frontage 30 ft. 30 ft. Silent*
Paving Limits (Front
and Side Yards)
Driveways: 1-car garage, Max 17 ft. wide
or 40% frontage
2-garage, Max 20 ft wide
Pedestrian walkways limited to 5 ft. wide
Driveways: 1-car garage,
Max 17 ft. wide or 40%
frontage
2-garage, Max 20 ft wide
Pedestrian walkways
limited to 5 ft. wide
Silent*
Unit Maximum 3 (1 main, 1 ADU, 1 JADU) 2-4 units 2-4 units**** *Opportunity to defer to underlying zoning district; cannot preclude 16 ft. tall 800 sq. ft. unit with 4 ft. setbacks or a 60/40 urban lot split.
**Max 6,000 sq. ft. FAR limit regardless of parcel size ***Calculation excludes garages, covered patios, uninhabitable structures. May not be located within required front/side yards
****Urban lot split project are limited to two dwelling units. Local jurisdiction can increase to four units.
16 of 58
1 Community Workshop Poll 1
Yes
20%
No
80%
Q1. Is this your first-time hearing about SB 9?
Yes No
I am a resident; I own
property
60%I am a resident; I am
a renter; I work here
10%
I don't live here but I would like to
30%
Q2. Tell us about yourself
I am a resident; I own property I am a resident; I am a renter; I work here I don't live here but I would like to
17 of 58
2 Community Workshop Poll 2
33%33%33%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Q1: SHOULD THE CITY ALLOW MORE
THAN 2 UNITS ON EACH LOT CREATED
THROUGH AN SB 9 LOT SPLIT?
No, limit the maximum to 2 units on each lot.
Yes, allow up to 3-4 units on each lot depending on the lot size (tiered approach).
Yes, allow up to 4 units on each lot with 1 ADU and 1 JADU in addition to the SB9 units. 33%
67%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Q2.WHAT DO YOU THINK THE
MAXIMUM SIZE OF SB 9 UNITS
SHOULD BE?
State-required minimum of 800 square feet
Larger than 1,000 square feet
18 of 58
3 11%
89%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Category 1
Q3. SHOULD THE CITY LIMIT BUILDING
HEIGHTS FOR SB 9 UNITS
No, follow existing height limits in the R1 zoning code Yes, implement additional height limitations for SB9 projects 67%
22%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Q4. WOULD YO UPREFER TO LIMIT SB
9 UNITS IN HEIGHT OR LOT COVERAGE
Limit the lot coverage, meaning SB 9 units will be taller but will have a smaller building footprint and more open space.
Limit the lot coverage, meaning SB 9 units will be taller but will have a smaller building footprint and more open space.2
Nether
19 of 58
4 78%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Q5. SHOULD THERE BE OPEN SPACE
REQUIREMETNS FOR SB 9 PROJECTS?
No, do not require additional open space.
Yes, require usable open space on-site.
20 of 58
Copyright 2021 Terner Center for Housing Innovation
For more information on the Terner Center , see our website at www.ternercenter .berkeley.edu
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
Will Allowing Duplexes and Lot
Splits on Parcels Zoned for
Single-Family Create New
Homes?
Assessing the Viability of New Housing Supply
Under California’s Senate Bill 9
AUTHORS:
BEN METCALF, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TERNER CENTER
DAVID GARCIA, POLICY DIRECTOR, TERNER CENTER
IAN CARLTON, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO, MAPCRAFT LABS
KATE MACFARLANE, PRODUCT MANAGER, MAPCRAFT LABS
21 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
2 Introduction
In recent years, California lawmakers have
proposed a number of legislative changes
to address the state’s ongoing housing
shortage and affordability crisis. While the
most ambitious of these efforts have not
passed, momentum has increased around
one solution in particular: legislation to
allow modest increases in smaller-sized
units in existing single-family neighbor -
hoods. In 2020, Senate Bill 1120—which
would have allowed for up to four new
homes on existing single-family parcels—
passed both the California Assembly and
Senate, but fell short of becoming law as
time ran out at the end of the session. This
year, Senate President Pro Tempore Toni
Atkins has introduced Senate Bill 9 (SB
9), which proposes a similar policy shift.
SB 9 has now passed through the State
Senate and is under discussion in the State
Assembly; if approved by the Assembly, it
may be poised to be the most significant
housing bill coming out of California’s
current legislative session.
SB 9 has potential to expand the supply
of smaller-scaled housing, particularly in
higher-resourced, single-family neighbor -
hoods. In this way, SB 9 builds on recent
state legislation that opened up access to
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for virtu-
ally all California single-family parcels.
What distinguishes SB 9 is that it allows
for the development of new, for-sale
homes, either on a newly subdivided lot or
through the conversion of existing single-
family homes into multiple units. This
ability to create duplexes and/or split the
lot and convey new units with a distinct
title would allow property owners to
pursue a wider range of financing options
than are available for ADU construction to
build these new homes.1 In so doing, SB 9
could open up new homeownership oppor-
tunities at more attainable price points
for prospective purchasers, who would be
able to apply for a traditional mortgage to
buy the home.
Yet, the likelihood of creating new housing
and homeownership opportunities as
a result of SB 9 largely depends on local
context. While Senate Bill 9 does not
apply to single-family parcels in historic
districts, fire hazard zones, and rural
areas, local market prices and develop -
ment costs play a large role in determining
where there is financial viability for the
addition of new homes. Moreover, phys -
ical constraints, such as small lot sizes
and other local regulations, can limit the
number of new homes built as a result of
this bill. To assess the potential impact
of SB 9 on new housing supply, this anal -
ysis assesses the market feasibility of new
homes as allowed by the current version of
the Bill (as of July 2021).2
This analysis finds that SB 9’s primary
impact will be to unlock incrementally
more units on parcels that are already
financially feasible under existing law,
typically through the simple subdivision
of an existing structure. Relatively few
new single-family parcels are expected
to become financially feasible for added
units as a direct consequence of this bill.
While this analysis does not attempt to
measure the actual rate of uptake for
adding new units to single-family parcels,
it is reasonable to assume that SB 9 will
modestly accelerate the addition of new
units relative to the status quo by facilitating
access to conventional mortgage products
for multiple households able to purchase
homes on newly subdivided single-family
parcels.
22 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
3 Background
California’s recent housing laws have
largely failed to unlock significant housing
production changes that would ease
the ongoing housing and homelessness
crisis. One of the state’s more effective
housing solutions has been recent laws
removing barriers to the construction and
financing of ADUs. In 2016, Senate Bill
1069 and Assembly Bill 2299 expanded
the ability of homeowners to build ADUs
and Junior ADUs (JADUs). Subsequent
legislation (Assembly Bill 68, Assembly
Bill 881, Senate Bill 13) removed other
barriers to ADU development, including
lowering impact fees and removing owner
occupancy requirements. The impacts
of this legislation are already apparent
throughout the state. Published state data
demonstrates that the initial 2017 ADU
law had immediate impacts: California
jurisdictions went from issuing 5,911
ADU permits in 2018 to 15,571 in 2019,
with ADU completions following a similar
upward trend, more than tripling over the
same period (from 1,984 to 6,668 units)
(Figure 1).3 The ADU laws that took effect in
2019 allowing two ADUs on single-family
parcels and more on multi-family parcels
are already having a significant impact
on gently adding density across the state
in single- and multi-family properties. In
early 2021, the City of Los Angeles reports
processing upwards of 20,000 ADUs
where ADUs make up nearly 40 percent of
all housing building permits, and the City
of San Jose reports that ADUs make up 38
percent of all housing building permits. 4
This progress signals the significance of
easing approvals and barriers to smaller-
scale, infill development in low-density
areas.
Figure 1. ADU Permits and Completions in California, 2018 and 2019 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Permits Completions
2018 2019
Source: Chapple, K., et. al. (2020). “Reaching California’s ADU Potential: Progress to Date and the Need for ADU Finance.” Retrieved from: https:// ternercenter .berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ADU-Brief-2020.pdf. 23 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
4 The early success of recent ADU legisla -
tion has prompted lawmakers to examine
similar policies that would incrementally
unlock more homes in low-density urban
infill neighborhoods where the housing
crisis is particularly acute. Such poli -
cies would also align with state climate
change policies encouraging additional
homes near jobs and services to reduce
vehicle miles travelled. Last year, SB 1120
proposed allowing up to four units in
single-family-zoned parcels throughout
the state. Analysis by the Terner Center
of SB 1120 found that nearly six million
single-family parcels statewide would
theoretically be eligible, a significant
expansion of buildable area in Califor -
nia.5 For example, if just 5 percent of those
parcels created new two-unit structures
as a result of SB 1120, that would have
resulted in 597,706 new homes. That’s
more than five times the number of new
homes that have been built in California
annually since 2015. 6 However, in a
session marked by the disruptions related
to the COVID-19 pandemic, SB1120 ran
out of time to be sent to the governor’s
desk, despite passing both the Assembly
and the Senate.
SB 9 was introduced with nearly identical
language to its predecessor, SB 1120, but as
the bill has progressed through the legisla-
tive process, some important changes have
been made. Most notably, properties that
have developed an ADU are not eligible for
the density or lot split provisions of SB 9,
and jurisdictions would have the option of
imposing owner-occupancy requirements
for lot split applicants, where the applicant
would have to make one of the units on
the site their primary residence for at least
one year. This owner-occupancy provision
has been added to address concerns that
current homeowners could be incentiv -
ized to sell to private entities interested in
speculative investment on single-family
parcels and to encourage use of the law to
create more opportunities for California
families to buy a home. The provisions also
ensure the law cannot be used to divide
homes occupied by renters as a measure
to prevent displacement. Other new provi-
sions have made the legislation potentially
more impactful. For example, SB 9 allows
more flexibility in how the lot is split.
SB1120 required that both newly created
lots be of equal size, potentially limiting
the number of instances where new homes
would be feasible. New language in SB 9
requires that one of the newly created
parcels only needs to be more than 40
percent of the original parcel size. Table 1
summarizes the key provisions of SB 9 as
of July 2021.
24 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
5 Location
• The parcel, lot, or development must be located in a single-family residential zone. • The parcel cannot not be located in a historic district or be a historic property itself (as defined by the state or local county or city).
• The parcel cannot be located in a high fire zone area. • The parcel must be in a city whose boundaries include some portion of an urbanized area or urban cluster as designated by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• If the parcel lies in an unincorporated area, then the parcel at stake must be a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area/cluster .
Parcel Size
• The parcel must be a minimum of 2,400 square feet in size. • The newly created parcel as a result of a lot split may not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel.
• A locality cannot impose any standards that would preclude the construction of up to two units or physically precluding either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area. • A side and rear setback of up to four feet is allowed.
Anti-Displacement
• The lot split cannot require the demolition or alteration of a housing unit currently serving moderate-, low- or very-low income household(s) or a rent-controlled unit. • The lot split cannot result in the demolition or alteration of housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years or where an owner has used the Ellis Act to remove a rental unit from the market within the last 15 years.
• A jurisdiction may impose an owner-occupancy restriction for lot splits, where the applicant must intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of one year from the date of the approval of the urban lot split.
Other
• The parcel cannot have been created from a previous lot split as provided by this policy. • The same person (or another party acting on their behalf) cannot perform a lot split on adjacent lots.
Table 1: Eligibility Criteria Proposed for Split Lots Under SB 9 25 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
6 To inform our model, several assump -
tions were made about market conditions
and trends. For example, all properties
with single-family detached land uses
were assumed to conform to zoning and
currently have exactly one existing unit
(e.g., no ADUs). In combination with tax
assessor data, we estimated the value of
each existing single-family property on
those parcels. MapCraft calculates stan -
dard development “pencil out” models
to compute snapshots of market feasi -
bility on every relevant parcel, both under
current policies and as proposed in SB 9.
These models are based on the financial
evaluations conducted by developers to
assess an investment’s viability early in
the development process by balancing the
cost of developing the site with expected
rental or sale income.8 MapCraft’s models
of small-scale development look at finan -
cial feasibility from the perspectives of
owner-occupants, owner-occupant land -
lords, small-scale investors, and commer -
cial investors, with market-feasible unit
potential based on a probabilistic blend of
all possible development options. Finan -
cial expectations of investors and lending
terms are based on conversations with
industry professionals and are updated by
MapCraft regularly.
MapCraft’s calculations incorporate data
and assumptions about current rents, sales
prices, construction costs, and investors’
expected return on investment rates, and
are validated by ECONorthwest, a West
Coast economics consultancy. MapCraft’s
market demand information relies on
multiple sources, including CoStar, Zillow,
tax assessors, U.S. Census, and transaction
records. MapCraft’s construction cost
information is based on interviews and
RS Means. Finally, the modeling relies on
Methodology
It is unrealistic to assume that under SB
9, every single-family lot would be split,
or that every existing single-family home
would be demolished and replaced with
four new units. For example, some lots
may be too small, have other existing
structures or ADUs, have a history of
being rented, or other physical conditions
that prevent changes. Some owners may
have no interest in developing their prop -
erty. And finally, even if a property owner
is interested in pursuing new development
on their land, trying to recoup this invest -
ment with market-rate rental or sales
will prove financially infeasible in many
instances. To develop a better estimate
of the potential impact of SB 9 on new
supply, we conducted an analysis of how
many new homes would be both physically
eligible and financially feasible as a result
of SB 9, as well as what types of develop -
ment would be most likely, taking into
account on-the-ground market dynamics.
We partnered with MapCraft Labs, which
developed a financial feasibility model to
assess market-feasible housing capacity
on existing parcels with detached single-
family homes. The base layer for the
analysis is a parcel dataset from Urban -
Footprint which includes all counties in
California with populations greater than
45,000 people, and covers homes built
prior to 2020. 7 This dataset includes
roughly 7.5 million single-family parcels
across the state. We used MapCraft’s Lab
analysis tool to determine what types and
scales of housing development would be
feasible with an approach that considers
construction costs, market demand,
financing, land use policies, and individual
parcel characteristics.
26 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
7 assumptions about parking requirements
based on previous Terner Center research,
typical unit sizes, and other factors that
inform development.9
The provisions of SB 9 would allow for a
variety of development options. For this
analysis we examined the most likely devel-
opment scenarios as shown in Appendix B.
Our business-as-usual scenario evaluates
development feasibility for housing supply
changes currently permissible under
single-family zoning, while the alternative
policy scenario considers the additional
set of development options allowed under
SB 9. For example, under the business-as-
usual scenario, a homeowner may decide
to build an ADU but would only be able
to split the parcel into two lots, each with
two homes, under the alternative policy
scenario allowed under SB 9.
Our estimates also account for the fact that
SB 9 includes anti-displacement language
that prohibits alteration or demolition of
renter-occupied homes. To approximate
this, we used the percentage of single-
family home rentals in each census tract
(as determined by ACS data) to discount
results for development outcomes that
alter or demolish the existing structure.
We also examined the potential impacts
of owner-occupancy requirements by
removing financial scenarios that assume
all the new units are rentals, as well as
development scenarios that require demo-
lition of an existing structure. In addition,
we assumed that owners received a 25
percent discount for the unit they occu -
pied in split lot development scenarios.
Market-feasible capacity is not a
forecast of future production.
While this analysis identifies the number
of market-feasible units, in most cases
these market-feasible units will take years
to be developed, and some may never get
built. This analysis considers the market
feasibility of redevelopment on each
eligible single-family parcel in isolation,
and assumes that every property owner
is maximizing the economic potential of
their lot. However, that is not the case for
several reasons.
First, the most economically feasible use
does not consider the motivations and
preferences of individual property owners.
Any change in use requires the coopera -
tion of the owner, either to sell the site or
to redevelop it themselves. The economics
All Single-Family Parcels
Eligible Parcels
Market-Feasible
Parcels
Developed
Parcels
TBD
Figure 2: Production Funnel
27 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
8 may suggest that the highest value of a
house may be to tear it down and rebuild
it into a much larger house, but if a home-
owner prefers a small house or the existing
architecture, they’re not going to rebuild.
Converting a house to a duplex and renting
out half may be most profitable for a home-
owner, but that will not happen if that
homeowner is uninterested in living more
closely with others in what was formerly
“their” space or in becoming a landlord or
homeseller. Even when a property owner
does wish to redevelop their site, they may
lack the upfront capital and sophistica -
tion to initiate the process; and then may
be unable to access financing due to a low
credit score or other underwriting barrier.
In addition, redevelopment does not
happen instantaneously; it requires home-
owner awareness and interest, available
construction industry capacity, a suitable
financing ecosystem and viable routinized
business models for development in order
to proceed. State ADU laws, for example,
have taken several years to ramp up as
awareness, delivery models, industry and
local agency capacity have adapted to law
changes. It is reasonable to assume that
it may take years for that capacity to fully
emerge in California if SB 9 becomes law.
Findings
SB 9 could enable the creation of
over 700,000 new homes that would
otherwise not be market feasible.
Under our business-as-usual scenario, we
estimate 1,800,000 new ADUS/JADUS
are currently market-feasible and could be
built under today’s zoning laws across Cali-
fornia’s 7,500,000 existing single-family
housing parcels. With SB 9, we estimate
that approximately 700,000 additional
new units would become market-feasible,
representing a 40 percent percent increase
in existing development potential across
California’s single-family housing parcels.
All Single-Family Parcels
7.5 million
Eligible Parcels
6.1 million
Market-Feasible Parcels
~410,000
(including 110,000
newly feasible parcels)
Developed
Parcels
TBD
Figure 3: Parcel Development Funnel (Total Numbers)
28 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
9 SB 9 would enable the development
of more units on 410,000 single-
family parcels, of which only 110,000
parcels would become newly feasible.
Overall, SB 9 would change the
development feasibility of a relatively small
number of parcels. First, the conditions
stipulated by the legislation limit the
number of parcels that can utilize the bill’s
provisions, as illustrated in Figure 3. For
example, the bill’s current limitations
on new development in high fire hazard
areas, historic districts, non-urbanized
areas, and existing renter homes removes
approximately 1.4 million existing single-
family homes from consideration. 10 Of
the 6.1 million remaining parcels, the
majority would not be affected because
of an absence of physical capacity or
financial feasibility. However, on 5.4
percent of current single-family parcels,
SB 9 would enable new development. For
110,000 single-family parcels (1.5 percent
of total single-family parcels), SB 9 would
enable new development where none was
financially feasible before, and for another
300,000 parcels, SB 9 would allow for
more units than under our business-as-
usual scenario.
For the majority of single-family proper -
ties, we find the most financially viable
outcome is not to pursue any develop -
ment whatsoever, both under our busi -
ness-as-usual scenario and under our SB
9 scenario.
Under our assumptions about today’s
regulations, market conditions, and devel-
opment alternatives, we found that doing
nothing was the most likely option for
California’s single-family parcels: devel -
opment is not feasible for 80 percent
of parcels (Figure 4). If SB 9 passed,
110,000 parcels would be newly devel -
opable, causing the share of infeasible
parcels to tick down slightly to 78 percent.
The primary benefit of SB 9 comes from
allowing slightly more units on parcels
where development already makes sense
and in opening up any added units to
homeownership opportunities through the
ability to legally subdivide those parcels.
Figure 4. Likely Parcel Feasibility By Number of Feasible Units 78%
80%
1%
1%
12%
16%
7%
4%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Under SB 9
Business-As-Usual
No feasibility 1 New Unit 2 New Units 3 New Units 4 New Units 29 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
10 SB 9 is unlikely to lead to significant
demolition of the existing stock.
We found that nearly 97 percent of single-
family homes would be retained under SB
9’s provisions, either without any modifi -
cation or with less intensive development
(e.g., subdividing the existing structure
to enable a duplex conversion). In many
places, existing zoning allows homes to
be demolished and replaced with larger
single-family homes, which we found was
the most financially attractive scenario on
1 percent of all single-family parcels under
our business-as-usual scenario. Under SB
9, the likelihood of tearing down a single-
family home and replacing it with a larger
single-family home falls by half to 0.5
percent due to other viable development
opportunities.
While SB 9 would provide a boost
in three- and four-unit feasibility,
duplexes would be the most domi-
nant form of financially-feasible
development.
The majority of viable development oppor-
tunities should SB 9 be enacted would
result in two units per existing lot (Figure
5). Duplexes comprise an important block
of this new capacity, accounting for 35
percent of all new units, two thirds of
which would be in converted existing
single-family homes. SB 9 would also
enable a somewhat higher total number of
feasible units by allowing greater uptake
of three- and four-unit development.
Figure 5. Estimates of Parcels with Feasible Capacity Under SB 9 0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1 Unit (1 for 1
replacement of existing
home)
2 Units 3 Units 4 Units
30 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
11 There is wide regional variation in
market-feasible units.
The amount of new market-feasible units
varies by region. Los Angeles County
resulted in the most new market-feasible
units under SB 9 with approximately
126,000 new homes. While significant,
Los Angeles County also comprises both
the most single-family parcels and SB 9
eligible parcels (Table 2). Analyzing new
market-feasible units per eligible single-
family parcel finds that Yuba, El Dorado,
Sutter, and Nevada counties would see
the most new market-feasible potential
per parcel, although the overall number
of new feasible units is relatively low
compared to larger counties. Many coastal
California counties exhibited higher than
average per parcel unit ratios, such as
Marin, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, and
Santa Barbara counties, signaling that
rents and sales prices there could support
new homes resulting from SB 9. Mean -
while, most Central Valley counties, such
as Fresno, Merced, Kern, and Stanislaus,
showed below average potential for new
homes per parcel, reflecting lower finan -
cial feasibility. For a list of all county
results, see Appendix A. At the city level,
the state’s most populous jurisdictions
were all below average for market-feasible
units per parcel, as shown in Table 3.
Owner-occupancy requirements
would have a limited negative impact
on the market feasibility of devel-
opment pursuant to SB 9, but they
could have a much larger impact on
actual delivery of units under SB 9.
SB 9, as currently written, allows juris -
dictions to impose owner-occupancy
requirements for lot split applicants, but
not for duplex conversions. Our analysis
finds that, if every jurisdiction imposed
owner-occupancy requirements, the total
financially feasible units enabled by SB 9
would decrease by roughly 6 percent, or
approximately 40,000 units. This limited
impact reflects the fact that our model
indicates only 10 percent of new units
under SB 9 would be attributable to lot
splits.
While the owner-occupancy requirement
would have only a modest impact on the
financial viability of new units, it may have
a significant effect on the number of owners
willing to actually pursue new develop -
ment on their properties. By preventing
owners from splitting a lot unless they
plan to live there themselves for at least
a year, or from allowing a developer to
take on development involving a lot-split
pursuant to SB 9, the owner-occupancy
requirement may reduce the number of
homes that will result from SB 9.
Shifts in construction costs and
rental and sales prices could change
development feasibility.
In addition to assessing the potential
impact of SB 9 using current market
conditions, we also ran a sensitivity anal -
ysis to examine the potential impact of SB
9 under different market scenarios. Our
analysis found that a 10 percent decrease
in construction costs could increase the
amount of market-feasible units by 5
percent, or roughly 36,000 more units
than the 700,000 baseline impact of SB
9. Local and state policymakers should
therefore also consider policies that could
help reduce the costs of production to
enable policies such as SB 9 to work more
effectively in more places. In the oppo -
site direction, we found that a 10 percent
increase in construction costs lowers
development feasibility by 4.5 percent,
or by approximately 32,000 units. Our
31 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
12 County
Total single-
family
parcels
SB 9-eligible
parcels
Parcels
where SB
9 would
increase
the number
of market-
feasible
units
Parcels
where SB
9 changes
feasible
outcome
from no net
new units to
1+ net new
units*
Total
market-
feasible new
units if SB 9
is enacted**
Total
market-
feasible new
units divided
by SB 9
eligible lots
Los Angeles 1,441,000 1,210,500 79,500 18,000 127,000 0.10 San Diego 554,500 398,500 28,500 9,000 54,500 0.14
Orange 557,000 486,000 26,500 8,500 47,000 0.10
Riverside 563,000 483,000 36,500 10,000 62,500 0.13
San
Bernardino 493,000 385,000 32,000 8,000 56,500 0.15
Santa Clara 331,000 319,500 22,000 8,500 40,000 0.13
Alameda 306,500 277,000 16,000 3,500 25,000 0.09
Sacramento 369,500 360,500 25,000 5,000 40,500 0.11
Contra Costa 263,500 239,000 20,000 7,500 38,000 0.16
Fresno 203,500 186,000 5,500 500 10,500 0.06
Statewide
totals
(excluding
counties
with pop.
under
45,000)
7,470,500 6,182,500 410,000 111,500 714,000 0.12 Table 2. SB 9-Eligible Parcels and Market-Feasible New Units by Largest Counties *Note: This is a subset of the parcels where SB 9 would increase the number of market-feasible units. **Note: Market-feasible new units are rounded.
32 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
13 City
Total single-
family
parcels
SB 9-eligible
parcels
Parcels
where SB
9 would
increase
the number
of market-
feasible
units
Parcels
where SB
9 changes
feasible
outcome
from no net
new units to
1+ net new
units**
Total
market-
feasible new
units if SB 9
is enacted
Total market
feasible new
units divided
by SB 9
eligible lots
Los Angeles 447,500 355,000 23,000 6,000 37,500 0.11
San Diego 203,500 133,000 7,000 3,000 13,000 0.10
San Jose 168,500 168,000 10,500 2,500 16,000 0.10
San Fran-
cisco 94,500 93,500 6,500 500 8,500 0.09
Fresno 104,000 104,000 2,000 100 4,000 0.04
Sacramento 116,500 116,000 6,500 800 9,500 0.08
Long Beach 59,500 58,500 3,000 200 3,500 0.06
Oakland 66,500 51,000 3,000 100 3,500 0.07
Bakersfield 87,500 87,500 5,000 2,000 9,000 0.10
Anaheim 43,000 36,000 2,500 1,000 4,000 0.11
Table 3. SB 9-Eligible Parcels and Market-Feasible New Units by Most Populous California Cities*
*Note: This is a subset of the parcels where SB 9 would increase the number of market-feasible units. **Note: Market-feasible new units are rounded.
33 of 58
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
14 model also analyzed sensitivity to changes
in rental and sales prices. We found that
a 10 percent increase in prices resulted in
an 8 percent increase in market-feasible
units, or roughly 57,000 more units.
Policy Implications
A significant amount of land in California
has historically been designated for single-
family homes, limiting the development of
a greater diversity of urban infill housing
options in jurisdictions across the state.
Solving California’s housing crisis—let
alone tackling the challenges of climate
change and residential segregation—
requires policies that intensify land use in
these communities. California’s statewide
ADU laws were a step in the direction of
gently adding more density to simulta -
neously address the housing, climate,
and equity challenges faced by the state.
But, in other ways, California lags behind
other states in its land use regulations
and dogged resistance to changing single-
family zoning. For example, the state of
Oregon recently required jurisdictions to
allow multifamily housing—either two or
three units—on all single-family parcels.
Some cities have gone even further, such
as Portland and Minneapolis, both of
which have voted to loosen allowable
homebuilding on single-family parcels.
While many cities in California—including
Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Sacra -
mento, Berkeley, and Oakland—are
exploring similar options, SB 9 could play
an important role in enabling the construc-
tion of a significant amount of new house
options that are smaller-scale, more
cost-effective, more varied, and inclusive
across the urban areas of the state.
Our analysis shows that approximately
700,000 new, market-feasible homes
would be enabled under SB 9. But despite
the concerns of some of its detractors,
SB 9 will not lead to the overnight trans -
formation of residential neighborhoods.
Differential owner preferences and limited
applicability means that only a share of
that potential is likely to be developed,
particularly in the near term as aware -
ness and capacity expands. As such, while
important, the new units unlocked by SB
9 would represent a fraction of the overall
supply needed to fully address the state’s
housing shortage.
Policymakers should consider comple -
mentary strategies to ensure that this
legislation is effective. These strategies
could include outreach to make sure that
homeowners are aware of and understand
the opportunities allowed by recent policy
changes, either through SB 9 or existing
ADU laws, and the expansion of more
robust financing options to moderate- and
low-income owners who wish to add new
units to their parcels. Increasing housing
production in single-family zoned areas
is also not the only policy shift that is
needed. Policymakers should add addi -
tional tools to boost supply overall,
including by expanding permissible
residential development on commercial
property and by further reducing local
barriers to new housing through expe -
dited approval processes for conforming
projects and reform of the local regula -
tory barriers and fees.
34 of 58
APPENDIX A
County Name Existing SFR
Lots
SFR Lots
Eligible for
SB 9
Additional Lots
with 1+ Unit
Capacity Under
SB 9
SB 9 Net
Change in
Market-
Feasible Units*
SB 9 Net Units
Per Eligible Lot
Alameda 306,306 276,795 3,633 25,000 0.09
Butte 65,020 32,720 47 3,000 0.09
Contra Costa 263,303 238,957 7,438 38,000 0.16
El Dorado 57,386 19,133 583 4,500 0.24
Fresno 203,474 185,908 564 10,500 0.06
Humboldt 35,672 22,560 93 2,500 0.11
Imperial 33,036 27,002 76 1,500 0.06
Kern 216,321 174,219 2,226 14,500 0.08
Kings 29,045 26,784 87 1,500 0.06
Lake 27,095 10,257 60 1,000 0.10
Los Angeles 1,441,148 1,210,729 18,130 127,000 0.10
Madera 35,785 22,474 1,196 4,500 0.20
Marin 60,998 46,841 2,163 9,500 0.20
Mendocino 19,350 8,949 90 1,500 0.17
Merced 55,676 51,972 106 2,500 0.05
Monterey 75,348 55,097 845 6,000 0.11
Napa 31,248 25,890 1,108 5,000 0.19
Nevada 43,090 5,618 199 1,500 0.27
Orange 557,820 485,756 8,730 47,000 0.10
Placer 125,458 94,273 1,448 13,000 0.14
Riverside 562,935 482,821 10,149 62,500 0.13
Appendix Table 1. County-Level Results
35 of 58
APPENDIX A
County Name Existing SFR
Lots
SFR Lots
Eligible for
SB 9
Additional Lots
with 1+ Unit
Capacity Under
SB 9
SB 9 Net
Change in
Market-
Feasible Units*
SB 9 Net Units
Per Eligible Lot
Sacramento 369,605 360,485 5,006 40,500 0.11
San Benito 12,747 9,940 740 2,500 0.25
San Bernardino 492,806 385,243 7,848 56,500 0.15
San Diego 554,502 398,386 9,015 54,500 0.14
San Francisco 94,400 93,514 486 8,500 0.09
San Joaquin 164,796 147,577 2,159 14,000 0.09
San Luis Obispo 75,016 53,068 1,229 8,500 0.16
San Mateo 151,508 134,531 3,112 17,000 0.13
Santa Barbara 91,540 75,399 1,506 10,000 0.13
Santa Clara 331,232 319,319 8,527 40,000 0.13
Santa Cruz 54,817 43,522 1,422 8,000 0.18
Shasta 55,366 25,997 402 3,500 0.13
Solano 110,592 105,962 684 8,500 0.08
Sonoma 124,610 103,452 2,688 16,500 0.16
Stanislaus 123,922 116,754 1,542 9,500 0.08
Sutter 24,707 19,357 1,111 4,000 0.21
Tehama 18,504 7,903 35 500 0.06
Tulare 104,235 86,679 1,096 6,000 0.07
Tuolumne 25,386 995 1 100 0.10
Ventura 184,033 135,836 1,604 14,500 0.11
Yolo 43,761 40,940 550 4,500 0.11
Yuba 16,743 13,064 2,016 4,500 0.34
Statewide Total 7,470,342 6,182,678 111,746 714,100 0.12 Appendix Table 1. County-Level Results (Continued)
+Note: Parcels that could have feasibly built ADUs or JADUs in a pre-SB 9 scenario are not included in the “New Market-Feasible Lots Under SB 9” category in this table, even if our analysis found that under SB 9, they could now feasibly build three or four units. As a result, per lot averages of new feasible units will yield results higher than four units per lot. *Note: Market-feasible new units are rounded
36 of 58
APPENDIX B
Specific Modeling Assumptions
The following assumptions were incorporated into MapCraft’s analysis of SB 9.
Allowed Prototypes
The prototypes in the following tables were evaluated on each site.
Keep Existing Structure Demo Existing Structure
Do nothing Build new single-family residence (SFR)
Add detached ADU (DADU) Build new SFR + detached ADU (DADU) JADU conversion + DADU Build new SFR + DADU + JADU
Convert to duplex Build duplex
Convert to duplex + DADU Build duplex + DADU
Convert to duplex + DADU + JADU Build duplex + DADU + JADU Appendix Table 2. Prototype Options When SB 9’s Lot Split Provision Is NOT Used Italicized indicates outcomes that are possible in the business-as-usual scenario under current single-family zoning, without SB 9.
Keep Existing Structure Demo Existing Structure and
Create Two Lots
Subdivided Lot with Existing
Structure New Lot Build two new SFR
Do nothing SFR Build two new SFR + ADU
Add detached ADU (DADU) SFR Build two new SFR + JADU + ADU JADU conversion SFR Build two new duplexes
JADU conversion + DADU SFR
Duplex conversion SFR
Do Nothing SFR + ADU
Add detached ADU (DADU) SFR + ADU
JADU conversion SFR + ADU
JADU conversion + DADU SFR + ADU
Duplex conversion SFR + ADU
Do nothing SFR + JADU + ADU
Add detached ADU (DADU) SFR + JADU + ADU
JADU conversion SFR + JADU + ADU
JADU conversion + DADU SFR + JADU + ADU
Duplex conversion SFR + JADU + ADU
Do nothing Duplex
Add detached ADU (DADU) Duplex
JADU conversion Duplex
JADU conversion + DADU Duplex
Duplex conversion Duplex
Appendix Table 3. Prototype Options When Using SB 9’s Lot Split Provision 37 of 58
For new-built duplex prototypes, MapCraft evaluated both stacked and side-by-side vari- ations at a variety of scales. Also, four scales of single-family prototypes were tested. In total, 652 pro formas were evaluated on each parcel.
Data Inputs
The parcel data for this analysis was provided by UrbanFootprint and includes approxi - mately 7.5 million parcels: all parcels with single-family dwellings in California counties with populations greater than 45,000 people.
For the purposes of this work, all properties with single-family detached land use were assumed to currently have one existing unit (i.e., no ADUs) and single-family zoning that limited development of multiple primary units. To support the assumption, UrbanFoot - print scanned zoning in a sample of cities, finding that the vast majority of parcels with single-family homes are zoned for single-family. UrbanFootprint’s parcel data included information on each lot and the single-family homes on those lots. In combination with tax assessor data, the value of each existing single-family property was estimated in the second quarter of 2020.
To be realistic about the policy constraints that limit development under current policies and SB9, MapCraft relied on coarse zoning-like limitations interpolated from homes built in each tract between 2005 and 2020. MapCraft assumed that developments on a parcel would need to conform to the 90th percentile of height, FAR, and lot coverage of other recently built homes in the same census tract. In other words, MapCraft assumed that plexes would be held to the same bulk restrictions as newer single-family homes.
MapCraft’s financial calculations incorporated data and assumptions about early 2020 rents, sales prices, construction costs, and investors’ expected return rates, which were validated by ECONorthwest and Economic & Planning Systems, two West Coast economics consultancies. Early 2020 data was used given the volatility of both the rental and for-sale prices during the COVID-19 pandemic. MapCraft’s market demand informa- tion relied on multiple sources, including CoStar, Zillow, tax assessors, U.S. Census, and transaction records. MapCraft’s construction cost information was based on interviews with cost observations localized based on RS Means. Financial expectations of investors and lending terms were based on MapCraft’s conversations with industry professionals.
Finally, the modeling relied on assumptions about parking requirements, typical unit sizes, development fees, and other factors that inform development. The Terner Center provided input on parking and fees that were incorporated into the analysis.
Tenancy-Based Eligibility Restrictions
SB 9 prohibits demolition or alteration of renter-occupied housing. To address this, Mapcraft used the percentage of single-family rentals in each tract (per the U.S. Census) to discount results for outcomes that require demolition of the existing structure.
SB 9 also allows jurisdictions to impose certain owner-occupancy requirements. Mapcraft tested the impact of this provision by running bookend scenarios at two extremes: 1) no jurisdictions impose owner-occupancy restrictions, and 2) all jurisdictions impose 38 of 58
owner-occupancy restrictions. To model the owner-occupancy requirement, Mapcraft disallowed all-rental valuation options and prototype options that required demolition of the existing structure. Mapcraft also tested the imposition of a risk premium threshold that eliminates any second split lot prototypes that do not generate residual land values that exceed the reduced value of the original property by 25 percent.
Notably, the results do not estimate the number of owner-occupants that may pursue development given an owner-occupancy requirement.
Lot Splitting Limitations
MapCraft used the following assumptions in modeling the ability of a parcel to split into two lots:
• Lots smaller than 2,400 square feet cannot be split.
• In cases where the existing structure is retained, the lot must have at least 4,000 sq ft of unbuilt area (after deducting the footprint of the existing structure from the lot size).
Parking Provision
MapCraft used Terner Center’s California Residential Land Use Survey to help define parking delivery minimums. Even if a jurisdiction’s code or SB 9 eliminates parking requirements, demand for parking may still exist, and developers will still provide parking. MapCraft assumed that developers will provide at least the parking ratios shown in Appendix Table 4.
Within ½ Mile of High-Capacity
Transit Not Near High-Capacity Transit
Small Units (2 Bedrooms or
Fewer) 0.5 stalls/unit 1 stall/unit
Large Units (3+ Bedrooms) 1 stall/unit 2 stalls/unit
Appendix Table 4. Assumptions of Minimum Demanded Parking for New Construction In prototypes where a small unit is added without a lot split or demolition of the existing structure, MapCraft assumed that no new parking spaces will be added.
Relaxed Zoning Restrictions
SB 9 prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing zoning standards on two-unit develop - ments or newly split lots that would physically preclude the construction of up to two units, or that would preclude units from being at least 800 square feet. To reflect this, MapCraft increased the existing zoning restrictions on FAR, lot coverage, and impervious coverage. FAR was relaxed by increasing the allowed FAR by one quarter, lot coverage was relaxed by one quarter up to 75 percent coverage, and impervious coverage was increased one quarter up to 90 percent coverage.
39 of 58
ENDNOTES
1. It is often difficult for a homeowner to finance an ADU. Few loan products exist to finance ADU construction, and those that are available often do not go far enough to cover the costs of development. See https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/ reaching-californias-adu-potential-progress-to-date-and-the-need-for-adu-finance/.
2. Senate Bill 9: Housing development approvals, April 27, 2021. https://leginfo.legis - lature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9
3. Chapple, K., et. al. (2020). “Reaching California’s ADU Potential: Progress to Date and the Need for ADU Finance.” Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-con - tent/uploads/2020/12/ADU-Brief-2020.pdf.
4. 2021 Casita Coalition Best Practices Webinar Series. https://www.youtube.com/ playlist?list=PLRPPog7f6IzVUuadN9ED5HztZGU_tgY32
5. Garcia, D., Tucker, J. & Schmidt, I. (2020). “Single-Family Zoning Reform: An Analysis of SB 1120.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Single-Family_ Zoning_Reform_An_Analysis_of_SB_1120.pdf.
6. On average, California added roughly 100,000 new homes each year between 2015 and 2019. California Industry Research Board, “Housing Production in California, 2005- 2019”.
7. The following counties are not included: Calaveras, Siskiyou, Amador, Lassen, Glenn Del Norte, Colusa, Plumas, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Trinity, Modoc, Sierra, and Alpine.
8. For more information on the financial dynamics of development decisions, see our 2019 brief “Making it Pencil: The Math Behind Housing Development”.
9. Mawhorter, S. & Reid, C. (2018). Terner California Residential Land Use Survey.
Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://californialan - duse.org/.
10. Historic areas were determined using National Park Service data, which does not include local or state historic designations.
40 of 58
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to the Terner Center team including Issi Romem, Carolina Reid, and Elizabeth Kneebone for their review and expertise as well as Paavo Monkkonen and Denise Pink - ston for their input and feedback. Also, thank you to UrbanFootprint for the use of their statewide parcel dataset.
This research does not represent the institutional views of UC Berkeley or of Terner Center’s funders. Funders do not determine research findings or recommendations in Terner Center’s research and policy reports.
ABOUT THE TERNER CENTER
The Terner Center formulates bold strategies to house families from all walks of life in vibrant, sustainable, and affordable homes and communities. Our focus is on generating constructive, practical strategies for public policy makers and innovative tools for private sector partners to achieve better results for families and communities.
For more information visit: www.ternercenter.berkeley.edu 41 of 58
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00011
/gid00002
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00011
/gid00002
Lot
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00002
/gid00017/gid00005/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00017/gid00005/gid00017/gid00005 /gid00017/gid00005 /gid00017/gid00005/gid00002
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00011
Street
Lot
Street
Lot
Street
Lot
StreetLot Lot
SB 9 Development Options: No Lot Split (Up to 4 Units Per Lot) SB 9 Development Options: Lot Split (Up to 2 Units Per Lot) Key:
PD = Primary Dwelling
A = Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
J = Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU)
Prepared by Planning Division Staff Last Updated May 2022 California Senate Bill 9 (SB 9)
Site Plan Development Potential
CITY OF SAN MATEO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7000
1 Detached
A�ached
42 of 58
/gid00002/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00011
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00011
/gid00002
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00002
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00011
Street
Street
Street
Prepared by Planning Division Staff Last Updated May 2022 SB 9 Development Potential By Zoning - Duplex Development (No Lot Split)
Note: Iden�fied average lot sizes and FAR limits are approxima�ons. Refer to Chapter 27.18 of the San Mateo Municipal Code for Development Standards. Lot square footage is rounded to the nearest thousand and are based on median average lot sizes for single-family zoned parcels in San Mateo. Lots depicted and building dimensions are generaliza�ons and are not to scale.
R1-A Zoning District
R1-B Zoning District
/gid00135/gid00001/gid00022/gid00041/gid00036/gid00047/gid00046/gid00001/gid00017/gid00032/gid00045/gid00001/gid00013/gid00042/gid00047 Maximum Floor Area Ratio Under SB 9: Maximum allowed per San Mateo Municipal Code Section 27.18 plus an additional 1,600 sq. ft., which allows for one additional primary unit of 800 sq. ft., one ADU of 800 sq. ft., and one JADU within a primary dwelling.
R1-C Zoning District
2 Average lot size 20,000 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 7,600 sq. �.
Average lot size 9,000 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 5,200 sq. �.
Average lot size 6,000 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 4,600 sq. �.
43 of 58
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00017/gid00005/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00002/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00017/gid00005/gid00002
/gid00017/gid00005/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00011
/gid00002
Street
Street
Street
Lot 1: 12,000 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 4,400 sq. �.
Lot 2: 8,000 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 4,000 sq. �.
Lot 1: 5,400 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 3,500 sq. �.
Lot 2: 3,600 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 2,600 sq. �.
Lot 1: 3,600 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 2,600 sq. �.
Lot 2: 2,400 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 2,000 sq. �.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio Under SB 9 - 60/40 Lot Split: Under a 60/40 lot split scenario, one unit with a maximum FAR allowed by the underlying zoning district plus an additional 800 sq. ft. second primary dwelling, ADU, or internal JADU to allow a total of two units on each lot.
Prepared by Planning Division Staff Last Updated May 2022 R1-A Zoning District
R1-B Zoning District
R1-C Zoning District
SB 9 Development Potential By Zoning - Duplex Development (Lot Split)
2 Units Per Lot
Note: Iden�fied average lot sizes and FAR limits are approxima�ons. Refer to Chapter 27.18 of the San Mateo Municipal Code for Development Standards. Lot square footage is rounded to the nearest thousand and are based on median average lot sizes for single-family zoned parcels in San Mateo. Lots depicted and building dimensions are generaliza�ons and are not to scale. 3 1
2 1
2 1
2 44 of 58
Prepared by Planning Division Staff Last Updated May 2022 /gid00002
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00011
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00017/gid00005 /gid00002/gid00017/gid00005/gid00011 Street
Street
Street
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00011/gid00002
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00002/gid00001/gid00196/gid00133/gid00001/gid00046/gid00047/gid00042/gid00045/gid00052/gid00017/gid00005/gid00011 /gid00017/gid00005/gid00017/gid00005
/gid00011
/gid00017/gid00005/gid00017/gid00005/gid00011
/gid00002/gid00001/gid00196/gid00133/gid00001/gid00046/gid00047/gid00042/gid00045/gid00052 /gid00002
/gid00196/gid00133/gid00001/gid00046/gid00047/gid00042/gid00045/gid00052 Max. SB 9 Lot Split Development Potential (4 Units Per Lot) Maximum Floor Area Ratio Under SB 9 - 60/40 Lot Split: Potential development on single-family zoned parcels in San Mateo, which may include one primary unit plus two 800 sq. ft. units and one internal JADU per lot for a total of four units.
R1-A Zoning District
R1-B Zoning District
R1-C Zoning District
Lot 1: 12,000 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 6,000 sq. �.
Lot 2: 8,000 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 4,800 sq. �.
Lot 1: 3,600 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 3,400 sq. �.
Lot 2: 2,400 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 2,800 sq. �.
Lot 1: 5,400 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 4,300 sq. �.
Lot 2: 3,600 sq. �.
Maximum development poten�al 3,400 sq. �.
Note: Iden�fied average lot sizes and FAR limits are approxima�ons. Refer to Chapter 27.18 of the San Mateo Municipal Code for Development Standards. Lot square footage is rounded to the nearest thousand and are based on median average lot sizes for single-family zoned parcels in San Mateo. Lots depicted and building dimensions are generaliza�ons and are not to scale. 1 2
1 2
1 2
45 of 58
SB 9 – CITY OF SAN MATEO MAXIMUM POTENTIAL FAR
TABLE 1: SECTION 27.18.060 R1-DISTRICT FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) STANDARDS Districts Maximum Floor Area Ratio
R1-A 0.4 for parcels of less than or equal to 10,000 sq. ft. plus 0.2 for additional parcel area over 10,000 sq. ft.
R1-B and R1- C 0.5 for parcels of less than or equal to 6,000 sq. ft. plus 0.2 for additional parcel area over 6,000 sq. ft.
TABLE 2: POTENTIAL MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIOS (FAR) UNDER SB 9 Duplex
Development
R1-A R1-B R1-C
Average Parcel Size 20,00 0 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft.
Maxi mum FAR Based on Zoning District 6,000 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft.
Maxi mum Potential FAR Under SB 9* 7,600 sq. ft. 6,100 sq. ft. 4,600 sq. ft.
Urban Lot Split
Development
R1-A R1-B R1-C
60/40 Lot Split Average Parcel Size 60% Split
12,000 sq. ft.
40% Split
8,000 sq. ft.
60% Split
5,400 sq. ft.
40% Split
3,600 sq. ft.
60% Split
3,600 sq. ft.
40% Split
2,400 sq. ft.
Maxi mum FAR Based on Zoning District 4,400 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. 2,700 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft.
Maxi mum Potential FAR Under SB 9* 6,000 sq. ft. 4,800 sq. ft. 4,300 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. 2,800 sq. ft. *Maximum potential development is based on the maximum allowed per San Mateo Municipal C ode Section 27.18.060 plus an additional 1,600 sq. ft. to accommodate two additional units of 800 sq. ft. (one main unit built out to maximum FAR, one SB 9 main unit of 800 sq. ft. and one 800 sq. ft. ADU). 46 of 58
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 La w 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, w ould 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 f amilies of moderate, lo w, or very low income, that the proposed housing de velopment does not allo w for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, except as provided, and that the de velopment is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources In ventory, 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 agenc y 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 objecti ve design standards, as defined, unless those standards w ould ha ve the ef fect of ph ysically precluding the construction of up to 2 units or ph ysically 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 le gislative 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
47 of 58
months after its appro val or conditional appro val or after an y 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 w ould not require the demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded co venant, ordinance, or la w that restricts rents to le vels affordable to persons and families of moderate, lo w, or v ery low income, that the parcel is located within a single-f amily 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 agenc y can and cannot require in approving an urban lot split, including, b ut not limited to, authorizing a local agency to impose objecti ve zoning standards, objecti ve 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 affida vit 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 appro val of the urban lot split, unless the applicant is a community land trust or a qualified nonprofit corporation, as specified. The bill w ould prohibit a local agenc y from imposing an y additional owner occupancy standards on applicants. By requiring applicants to sign affida vits, thereby e xpanding the crime of perjury , the bill w ould 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 abo ve, 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 ha ve a significant ef fect on the en vironment. 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 pro vides for the planning and regulation of de velopment, under a coastal de velopment permit process, within the coastal zone, as defined, that shall be based on v arious coastal resources planning and management policies set forth in the act. 94 — 2 — Ch. 162
48 of 58
This bill would exempt a local agency from being required to hold public hearings for coastal de velopment 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 de velopment containing no more than two residential units within a single-f amily residential zone shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary re view or a hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all of the following requirements:
(1) The parcel subject to the proposed housing de velopment 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 le gal 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 an y 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 co venant, ordinance, or la w 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 de velopment is not a parcel on which an o wner of residential real property has e xercised 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 de velopment proponent submits an application.
94 Ch. 162 — 3 —
49 of 58
(5) The proposed housing de velopment does not allo w 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 In ventory, 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 an y local la w and e xcept as pro vided in paragraph (2), a local agenc y may impose objecti ve 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 objecti ve 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 agenc y may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines.
(c) In addition to an y 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, e xcept that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the follo wing 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 w astewater 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 e vidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdi vision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is 94 — 4 — Ch. 162
50 of 58
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 agenc y 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 subdi vision (b), an application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures pro vided that the structures meet b uilding 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 de velopment contains tw o 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 “objecti ve zoning standards, ” “objecti ve subdi vision standards,” and “objecti ve design re view standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjecti ve judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion a vailable and kno wable by both the de velopment applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternati ve 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 agenc y shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal de velopment 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 follo wing requirements:
94 Ch. 162 — 5 —
51 of 58
(1) The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than two new parcels of approximately equal lot area pro vided 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 pro vided in subparagraph (B), both ne wly 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 w ould 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 o wner of residential real property has exercised the o wner’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 o wner of the parcel being subdi vided nor an y person acting in concert with the o wner has pre viously 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 — 6 — Ch. 162
52 of 58
2 (commencing with Section 66410)), except as otherwise expressly provided in this section.
(3) Notwithstanding Section 66411.1, a local agenc y 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 an y local law, a local agenc y may impose objecti ve zoning standards, objecti ve 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 objecti ve design re view standards that w ould have the ef fect of ph ysically precluding the construction of tw o 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 b uilding official mak es a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the e vidence, that the proposed housing de velopment project would have a specific, adv erse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the ph ysical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. (e) In addition to an y 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 ha ve access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way.
(3) Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, e xcept that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the follo wing 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 affida vit stating that the applicant intends to occup y one of the 94 Ch. 162 — 7 —
53 of 58
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 Re venue and Taxation Code, or is a “qualified nonprofit corporation” as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(3) A local agenc y shall not impose additional o wner occupanc y 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 an y pro vision of Section 65852.2, 65852.21, 65852.22, 65915, or this section, a local agenc y shall not be required to permit more than two units on a parcel created through the e xercise of the authority contained within this section.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “unit” means an y 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 b uilding 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 de velopment 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 o verlay 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 — 8 — Ch. 162
54 of 58
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 agenc y shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal de velopment 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 appro val or conditional appro val, or after any additional period of time as may be prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 24 months. Ho wever, if the subdivider is required to expend two hundred thirty-six thousand se ven hundred ninety dollars ($236,790) or more to construct, impro ve, or finance the construction or improvement of public impro vements 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 e xtend the e xpiration of the appro ved or conditionally approved tentative map by 48 months from the date of its expiration, as pro vided in this section, or the date of the pre viously 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 tw o hundred thirty-six thousand se ven hundred ninety dollars ($236,790) shall be annually increased by operation of law according to the adjustment for inflation set forth in the state wide cost inde x 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 tentati ve and v esting tentative maps whose applications were received after the effective date of the adjustment. (3) “Public improvements,” as used in this subdi vision, 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 subdi vision (a), including an y extension thereof granted pursuant to subdivision (e), shall not include any period of time during which a de velopment moratorium, imposed after approval of the tentati ve map, is in e xistence. However, the length of the moratorium shall not exceed five years.
94 Ch. 162 — 9 —
55 of 58
(2) The length of time specified in paragraph (1) shall be e xtended for up to three years, b ut in no e vent be yond January 1, 1992, during the pendency of any lawsuit in which the subdivider asserts, and the local agency that appro ved or conditionally appro ved the tentati ve 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 w as 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 subdi vision (a), including an y 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 tentati ve map is or w as pending in a court of competent jurisdiction, if the stay of the time period is appro ved by the local agenc y pursuant to this section. After service of the initial petition or complaint in the lawsuit upon the local agenc y, the subdi vider 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 re viewing the requests, including, b ut not limited to, notice and hearing requirements, appeal procedures, and other administrative requirements.
(d) The expiration of the appro ved or conditionally appro ved 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 tentati ve map shall be filed with the le gislative body without first processing a ne w tentative map. Once a timely filing is made, subsequent actions of the local agency, including, but not limited to, processing, appro ving, and recording, may lawfully occur after the date of expiration of the tentative map. Delivery to the county surv eyor 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 appro ved tentative map, the time at which the map expires pursuant to subdivision (a) may be extended by the legislative body or by an advisory agenc y authorized to appro ve or conditionally approve tentative maps for a period or periods not e xceeding a total of six years. The period of e xtension specified in this subdi vision shall be in addition to the period of time pro vided by subdi vision (a). Before the expiration of an appro ved or conditionally appro ved tentative map, upon an application by the subdi vider to e xtend that map, the map shall automatically be e xtended for 60 days or until the application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first. If the advisory agenc y denies a subdi vider’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 — 10 — Ch. 162
56 of 58
(f) For purposes of this section, a de velopment moratorium includes a water or sewer moratorium, or a w ater 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 agenc y with the authority to appro ve or conditionally appro ve the tentati ve map, which thereafter prevents, prohibits, or delays the appro val 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 o wn action or inaction w as 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 agenc y, 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. Ho wever, nothing in this subdi vision 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, whiche ver is later . A de velopment 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 f ailure or refusal, e xcept that the de velopment 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 agenc y to convey the necessary property interest for a f air market value, paid in a reasonable time and manner.
SEC. 4. The Le gislature finds and declares that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of state wide 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 Go vernment Code and Section 3 of this act amending Section 66452.6 of the Go vernment 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 agenc y 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 Ch. 162 — 11 —
57 of 58
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 Go vernment Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
O
94 — 12 — Ch. 162
58 of 58