HomeMy WebLinkAboutOpposition Letter - SB 9 (Atkins) - 03.11.2021
page 1 of 2
March 11, 2021
The Honorable Toni Atkins
State President Pro Tempore
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 9 (Atkins) – OPPOSE
Dear Pro Tem Atkins,
On behalf of the City of Cupertino, I am writing to express our opposition to SB 9, your
measure that would require cities and counties to permit ministerially either a housing
development of up to two units, or the subdivision of a parcel into two equal parcels, as long as
they meet specified conditions. This bill harms the public through foreseeable negative impacts
to infrastructure and the environment due to the elimination of local input and consideration of
legitimate concerns.
Specifically, SB 9 requires a housing development containing two units to be considered
ministerially, in single family zones, if the development is located on an eligible parcel. The
project also cannot require demolition or alteration that would require the evacuation or eviction
of an existing rental housing that has been occupied in the past three years.
SB 9 also requires a city or county to ministerially approve or deny a parcel map for an urban
lot split that meets specified requirements. In addition to the requirements for eligible parcels that
apply to both duplexes and urban lot splits, urban lot split must meet the following requirements:
The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create two new parcels of equal size.
Both newly created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet, unless the local agency
adopts a smaller minimum lot size.
The parcel being subdivided is zoned for residential use.
The parcel does not contain rent‐restricted housing, housing where an owner has exercised
their rights under the Ellis Act within the past 15 years, or housing that has been occupied
by tenants in the past three years.
MAYOR DARCY PAUL
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CORRESPONDENCE TO PRO TEM ATKINS OPPOSING SB 9 page 2 of 2
The parcel being subdivided was not previously created through an urban lot split, and
none of the adjoining parcels were created by an urban lot split and owned by the same
owner.
While SB 9 does allow a local government to adopt an ordinance to implement its duplex
and lot split provisions, and does not require a local government to ministerially approve
accessory dwelling units on parcels or duplexes approved under this measure, the bill otherwise
eliminates public review and input on these projects. SB 9 would override local land use plans
and regulations and ignore the careful planning that has been undertaken at the local level. Local
planning efforts encourage public engagement and provide a collaborative process by which a
local agency can determine what housing solutions are most appropriate for communities and
how to appropriately plan for future growth.
SB 9, and similar legislation to streamline permit review processes, reduce public
engagement and eliminate the opportunity for input on pending developments. Public comments
by local residents often bring to light a potential adverse impact of a proposed development, or
elements that the community would like to see incorporated into the project. Consideration of
such public input during the permit review process leads to safer, higher quality development
and should not be eliminated.
SB 9 does not take into account the impact that additional units can have on the supporting
infrastructure. In order to support residents of a community, adequate water, wastewater, and
other utility infrastructure is put into place; however, these systems can only support so many
households before the system needs to be expanded. SB 9 does not take into account the capacity
for the infrastructure to serve the new units that would be generated. Similarly, SB 9 does not
take into account the impact that these additional housing units would have on the local school
districts and their needs to support additional students. It is imperative that any new housing
units can be supported by the local community, or that they financially offset the costs associated
with the supporting infrastructure, as is currently done with new housing developments.
It is for these reasons that the City of Cupertino has taken an oppose position on SB 9.
Sincerely,
Darcy Paul
Mayor
City of Cupertino
cc: Senator Dave Cortese
Assemblymember Evan Low
Assemblymember Marc Berman