CC 09-20-2022 Study Session Item No. 1. SB 9 Study Session Review of Objective Standards_Staff Presentation1
City Council
September 20, 2022
SB 9 Study Session
Review of Objective Standards
Background
●Senate Bill 9 effective January 1, 2022
●Urgency / Interim Ordinance 21-2235 adopted on
December 21, 2021
●Expires on December 19, 2022
●Planning Commission – October 11, 2022
●CC 1st Reading – November 1, 2022 (tentative)
●CC 2nd Reading – November 15, 2022 (tentative)
●Effective Date – December 15, 2022 (anticipated)
1
2
CC 09-20-2022 Study Session Item No. 1
2
Senate Bill 9 (Atkins, 2021) conditionally
allows ministerial approval of:
Two units on one
Single Family lot Urban Lot Split –
Two-lot subdivision
State Law Overview
State Law Overview
Development Criteria:
-In Single Family zoning
-Cannot demolish affordable or rental housing
-Not in sensitive areas identified under SB 35
-Not a historic landmark or in historic district
-No short-term rentals permitted
3
4
3
State Law Overview
Additional Urban Lot Split Criteria:
•Must reside on one lot for at least three years
•Resulting lots must be 1,200 square feet min.
•Resulting lot area must be 40% of original lot
•SB 9 lot split can only be used once
•SB 9 lot split cannot be used by same owner
across neighboring lots
•Lots created must be limited to residential use
State Law Overview
Development Allowances:
•Unit Size - 800 square feet
•Setback – 4 feet
•No setback if built within existing structure footprint
•One parking space per unit
Urban Lot Split Allowances:
•No off-site improvements required
•Non-conforming zoning conditions can remain
5
6
4
Objective Standards
State law supersedes certain City regulations for
subdivisions and development standards.
City may impose regulations that are:
●Objective
●Do not prevent Urban Lot Splits or two 800 sq.
ft. units
Ordinance Aims
Objective standards have been adopted to:
1.Preserve neighborhood character;
2.Maintain privacy protection;
3.Minimize traffic conflicts; and
4.Protect environmental resources.
7
8
5
Areas of discussion
●Other existing interim ordinance standards to
remain
●Staff requests input in following areas:
a.Lot configuration
b.Second story decks and balconies
c.Grade change limitation
d.Zero-foot setback allowance
e.Second story building envelope
Lot Configuration – Urban Lot SplitsLot Configuration – Urban Lot Splits
●Regulations adopted result in specified lot
configurations based on existing lot shape.
●Interior/Pie-shaped lots ≥60 feet, side-by-
side lots.
●Interior/Pie-shaped lots <60 feet, flag lots.
Why?
●Consistent with GP Strategy 27.7.2
●Only 1.7% of R1 lots in City are flag lots
●Reduce excess hardscape (long driveway)
●Privacy Concerns
●Regulations adopted result in specified lot
configurations based on existing lot shape.
●Interior/Pie-shaped lots ≥60 feet, side-by-
side lots.
●Interior/Pie-shaped lots <60 feet, flag lots.
Why?
●Consistent with GP Strategy 27.7.2
●Only 1.7% of R1 lots in City are flag lots
●Reduce excess hardscape (long driveway)
●Privacy Concerns
9
10
6
Lot Configuration - PrivacyLot Configuration - Privacy
Lot Configuration
Comments have noted that this standard:
a.Limits development potential
b.Does not reflect pattern of lot configuration in
City (only 1.7% of R1 lots are flag lots in CU)
c.Creates lots that are too narrow to
accommodate two-unit development
(Concerns potentially addressed by zero-foot
setback allowance)
11
12
7
City Council Direction - Lot Configuration
a.Retain existing lot configuration standards? or
b.Modify regulations to allow flag lots on lots of
all widths?
Second Story DecksSecond Story Decks
●Disallowed in SB9 developments in R1 and RHS*zones
due to:
•Privacy Concerns from smaller, narrower lots
•Ministerial nature of permit issuance
●After SB 9 permits, balconies allowed in:
●R1 zones with discretionary Minor Residential permits
●RHS zones with Building Permit *
* Correction since staff report published on 9/14
●Disallowed in SB9 developments in R1 and RHS*zones
due to:
•Privacy Concerns from smaller, narrower lots
•Ministerial nature of permit issuance
●After SB 9 permits, balconies allowed in:
●R1 zones with discretionary Minor Residential permits
●RHS zones with Building Permit *
* Correction since staff report published on 9/14
13
14
8
Second Story DeckSecond
Story
Decks
Second
Story
Deck
Second
Story
Decks
15
16
9
Second
Story
Deck
Second
Story
Decks
Second
Story
Decks
17
18
10
Second
Story
Decks
City Council Direction -
Second Story Decks
a.Retain existing second story deck and balcony
regulations?
or
b.Modify regulations to disallow them:
i.In RHS zones; or *
ii.For all future lots and homes developed using SB
9?
* Update since staff report published on 9/14
19
20
11
Grade Change LimitationGrade Change Limitation
●Urban Lot Splits: Change in natural grade > six inches disallowed
●Does not apply to homes built under SB 9
Why does it matter?
●Increased height and privacy impacts
●May substantially alter natural contours
●Exorbitant cuts leading to significant
environmental impacts
Grading for
Building PadUrban Lot SplitR1 LotResidential
Development
Grade Change LimitationGrade Change Limitation
21
22
12
Grade Change Limitation
Existing standard may be too restrictive.
One property owner noted that this standard
limited their ability to pursue an Urban Lot Split.
City Council Direction -
Grade Change Limitation
a.Retain existing grade change limitations?
or
b.Modify regulations and apply to both Urban
Lot Splits and SB 9 developments?
23
24
13
Zero-Foot SetbackZero-Foot Setback
●Applies to new shared
property lines in side yards
●Proposed for inclusion by
Vice Mayor Chao
●Adopted to incentivize
increased setback along
other side property lines
●Applies to new shared
property lines in side yards
●Proposed for inclusion by
Vice Mayor Chao
●Adopted to incentivize
increased setback along
other side property lines
Zero-Foot SetbackZero-Foot Setback
●Potential to result in
setbacks of varying size
between 0-feet and 4-feet
●Contrary to intent
●Inconsistent application of
side yard setback
●Potential to result in
setbacks of varying size
between 0-feet and 4-feet
●Contrary to intent
●Inconsistent application of
side yard setback
25
26
14
Zero-Foot Setback
Staff proposes clarification by allowing zero-foot
setbacks only if:
a)Other side yard setback is minimum of five feet
on first floor and 10 feet on second floor; and
b)Units along 0-foot setback developed at same
time; and
c)Entirety of wall faces with zero-foot setback are
structurally attached.
City Council Direction -
Zero-Foot Setback
a.Retain existing zero-foot setback allowance?
or
b.Modify regulations to either…
i.Clarify objective design standards; or
ii.Require 4-foot setback, consistent with state
law?
27
28
15
Second Story EnvelopeSecond Story Envelope
Regulations require 2nd story to
comply with a building envelope
Why?
●Privacy concerns
●Massing concerns
Regulations require 2nd story to
comply with a building envelope
Why?
●Privacy concerns
●Massing concerns
One member of public commented:
●Limits modern designs (walls can be stacked, with more setback)
●Limits development potential (does not restrict floor area)
One member of public commented:
●Limits modern designs (walls can be stacked, with more setback)
●Limits development potential (does not restrict floor area)
City Council Direction -
Second Story Envelope
a.Retain existing second story building envelope
regulations? or
b.Modify regulations to eliminate the
requirement?
29
30
16
Council Direction Summary
Flag Lot Configuration
a.Retain existing lot configuration standards?
b.Modify regulations to allow flag lots on lots of all widths?
Second Story Decks and Balconies
a.Retain existing second story deck and balcony
regulations?
b.Modify regulations to disallow them:
i.In RHS zones; or *
ii.For all future lots and development using SB 9?
* Updated since staff report published on 9/14
Council Direction Summary
Grading Change Limitation
a.Retain existing grade change limitations?
b.Modify regulations and apply to both Urban Lot Splits
and SB 9 developments?
Zero-Foot Setback
a.Retain existing zero-foot setback allowance?
b.Modify regulations to either…
i.Clarify objective design standards; or
ii.Require 4-foot setback, consistent with state law?
31
32
17
Council Direction Summary
Second Story Building Envelope
a.Retain existing second story building envelope
regulations?
b.Modify regulations to eliminate the requirement?
Next Steps
Community Meeting
Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6 p.m.
Planning Commission
Tuesday, October 11, 2022
City Council
Tuesday, November 1, 2022 (tentative)
33
34
18
Questions
Questions, comments, or suggestions?
35