HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 11-02-2021 Study Session Item No. 1 SB 9 Objective Standards and Regulations_Staff PresentationCity Council
November 2, 2021
SB 9 Objective Standards and
Regulations
CC 11-02-2021 Study Session Item No. 2
Background
•SB 9 (Atkins, 2021) allows
ministerial approval of:
Duplex – attached
or detached Urban lot split
Applicable SB 35 criteria
●Not prime farmland
●Wetlands
●A state designated very high fire severity zone
(subject to limitations)
●Delineated earthquake fault zone (subject to
limitations)
●100 year flood zone (subject to exceptions)
●Regulatory floodway (subject to exceptions)
●Part of a conservation or natural resource protection
plan or under conservation easement
●Habitat for species protected under state and federal
law
More criteria for both types of SB 9
projects
●Does not result in demolition of BMR or rent controlled
units
●Not on property occupied by tenants in past three
years
●Not on property that has been withdrawn from rental
market under Ellis Act for past 15 years
●Not a property located in a historic district, a State
Historic Resources Inventory site, or within county or
local landmark or historic property or district
Urban lot split
Additional criteria
●Not a parcel created through use of SB 9
●Neither owner of parcel being subdivided nor any
person acting in concert with owner has previously
subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split
●Lots created must be limited to residential use
●Applicant must sign affidavit stating that they intend
to occupy one unit as principal residence for
minimum of three years after lot split
Development of up to 2 units
Regulations
●Objective zoning and design review standards
may be imposed provided they do not conflict
with following:
●At least 800 sq. ft. units
●4 foot side and rear setbacks
●Only one parking space/unit unless within ½
mile walking distance of either high-quality
transit corridor or a major transit stop, or car
share vehicle within one block
●No more than 25% of the exterior walls of an
existing unit may be impacted
Ministerial approval of lot split
Regulations
●City may impose objective subdivision
standards provided they do not conflict with
following:
●New lots must be 40-60% of original
●Each new lot is at least 1,200 sq. ft.
●Following cannot be required as conditions
of approval:
●Offsite improvements
●Correction of existing, non-conforming conditions
Local Regulation Possibilities
Unit Size and FAR
●At least 800 sq. ft.
●If proposal meets all other regulations, allow
additional floor area
●Notes:
●Current R1 FAR – 45%; RHS FAR – 45%, up to
6,500 sq. ft. max and reduced by slope
reduction factor.
●Council could consider higher or lower
FAR, subject to legal constraints
Up
t
o
2
u
n
i
t
s
Local Regulation Possibilities
Second story setbacks
●Limited to four foot side and rear setbacks
●Notes:
●If four foot setback proposed, City could
adopt objective privacy standards (e.g.,
opaque, unopenable windows, sill height
> 5 feet)
●Continue to require privacy protection
trees and/or shrubs as allowed by current
R1 requirements
Up
t
o
2
u
n
i
t
s
Local Regulation Possibilities
Second story balconies/decks
●At City’s discretion
●Options for SB 9 projects:
●Disallow balconies
●Allow balconies with much larger setbacks
●Limit balconies to front yards that front public
street or other front yards
●Limit balconies to larger lots (>5,000 sq. ft., wider
than 50 feet, and possibly not on lots that have
a building feet 5 feet or higher than adjacent
properties)
Up
t
o
2
u
n
i
t
s
Local Regulations Possibilities
Parking
●One space per unit, subject to limitations
●Notes:
●Could require parking to be in an enclosed
space of a size that accommodates one car
(10’ by 20’ space)
●If additional spaces proposed, could require
City’s existing objective parking space
standards
Up
t
o
2
u
n
i
t
s
Local Regulations Possibilities
Basements
●At City’s discretion
●Expensive to build
●Environmental impacts
●Options:
●Disallow on SB 9 project
●Allow on larger lots with larger setbacks, small
lightwellsUp
t
o
2
u
n
i
t
s
Local Regulations Possibilities
Design standards
●Architectural look?
●Examples:
●All structures shall have 6” siding
●All roofing must be at a 4:12 pitch
●All windows shall have a minimum 3” wide trim
or be inset 3”
●Only one entry feature is allowed facing streetUp
t
o
2
u
n
i
t
s
Local Regulation Possibilities
RHS Zoning District
●Several large lots on steep slopes
●Suggest grading and size of units be limited
●Ideas:
●Limit development close to existing driveways
●Require driveways to be shared
●Limit size of units by prorating to size of new lots
●Follow existing objective standards related to
grading, massing, following contours,
disallowing development on ridgeline
Up
t
o
2
u
n
i
t
s
Local Regulation Possibilities
Subdivision
●Should consider different lot shapes:
Ur
b
a
n
L
o
t
S
p
l
i
t
Cul de sac
Corner
Interior
FlagPie shaped
Local Regulation Possibilities
Subdivision
●Strategy LU-27.7.2: “flag lots in cases where they
are the sole alternative to integrate subdivisions
with the surrounding neighborhood”
●Some neighborhoods have no flag lots
●Allow flag lots or narrow lots with street frontage?
Ur
b
a
n
L
o
t
S
p
l
i
t
Local Regulation Possibilities
Subdivision – Interior lots
●Policy M-3.5: “[m]inimize the number and width of
driveway openings”
●Require shared driveways?
Ur
b
a
n
L
o
t
S
p
l
i
t
Local Regulation Possibilities
Subdivision – Flag Lots
●Keep orientation same?
Ur
b
a
n
L
o
t
S
p
l
i
t
FRONT
SI
D
E
SI
D
E
REAR
FRONT
SI
D
E
SI
D
E
SI
D
E
SI
D
E
REAR
FRONT
FRONT
SI
D
E
SI
D
E
SI
D
E
S
I
D
E
REAR
REAR
FRONT
REAR
SI
D
E
SI
D
E
FRONT
REAR
SI
D
E
SI
D
E
FRONT
REAR
SI
D
E
SI
D
E
More buildable Less buildable:
two front yards = less
viable building pad
Existing
Local Regulation Possibilities
Subdivision
●Preservation of the natural environment and hillsides
(Page LU-4, LU-9, and Goal LU-12, Policies LU-12.1,
Strategy LU-12.3.1, Policy LU-12.2, Policy LU-12.4)
Ur
b
a
n
L
o
t
S
p
l
i
t
●Steep slopes
●Long driveways
●Require common
driveway?
●Prorate grading
quantities?
●Require development
on flattest part of site
close to driveway?
ADUs/JADUs
SB 9 authorizes City to prohibit
ADUs/JADUs on parcel with SB 9 duplex
created by SB 9 lot split
Consider including prohibition in interim
ordinance
Approval Process
Ministerial
No Public hearings
Notification before or after approval?
Approval ProcessApproval Process
Type of
Development
Non-SB 9 projects
(Existing and future)
SB 9 projects Difference
Single Story
Development
(1 or 2 units)
Building permit for
principal unit and ADU in
R1 zoning district and RHS
zoning district.
Building permit for
up to two units
No change in approval
process
Two Story
Development
(1 or 2 units)
Two story permit with site
signage and noticing of
adjacent property
owners; Decision made
after two-week
comment period
Building permit in RHS
zoning district
Ministerial permit
approval
Building permit in
RHS zoning district
No site signage
No comment period
Council may consider
notice requirements
Lot split Parcel Map with 300 foot
noticing and public
hearing
Parcel Map with
no public hearing
No public hearing
permitted
Council may consider
notice requirements
Next Steps
●Receive comments from City Council
●Introduce an urgency ordinance for
Council on December 7, 2021
Council Questions
●Limitations on construction of ADUs: Can it be
limited to no or one ADU per duplex after a lot is
split into two parcels? Can the type of ADU be
specifically limited, such as a detached, attached
ADU, or JADU?
●Cities can have outright prohibition on ADUs or
●Choose to allow only certain types/sizes of ADUs
Council Questions
●What does Public Notification do if no Public
Hearings are allowed under SB9?
●Notification not required under SB 9 and is
uncommon for ministerial approvals because
there is no public process
●However, could allow neighbors to be aware
that application has been received (if before
decision made) or project has been approved
(if after decision made)
●Questions/Comments/Suggestions?