SR 03-15-2022 4A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 15, 2022
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 22
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Study Session on California Senate Bill 9: The California Housing Opportunity
and More Efficiency ("HOME”) Act
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Review and comment on the impacts of Senate Bill 9, the California Housing
Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, in Santa Monica;
2) Provide direction to staff regarding concepts to be considered in an
implementation ordinance; and
3) Direct staff to return with an ordinance to codify regulations for implementation of
SB 9 that are within the City’s discretion.
Summary
The California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (“HOME”) Act, Senate Bill 9
(“SB9”), was signed by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2021, and became
effective on January 1, 2022. SB9’s provisions largely are directed towards providing
an incentive for homeowners to add more units to properties with an existing single-unit
dwelling, by either adding an additional dwelling unit or splitting an existing lot in two.
SB9 applies only to the City’s single-unit dwelling zoning districts (i.e., R1 and OP1
zones) and requires cities to issue approvals without public hearings for qualifying
projects if they meet:
• State and local law requirements,
• Certain pre-conditions as specified in SB9, and
• City’s zoning ordinance and codes, to the extent they do not conflict with SB9.
4.A
Packet Pg. 7
2 of 22
SB9 has two primary pathways for applicants:
1. Option 1 - “Duplex”: Constructing two units on an existing single-unit zoned
parcel; or
2. Option 2 - “Lot Split”: Subdividing a single-unit zoned parcel into two lots.
These pathways are further described in this report and can be used together such that
an applicant could subdivide a lot and add two units on each parcel, for a total of no
more than four units. The summary of SB9’s key provisions and how they apply to
Santa Monica largely repeats the information presented in the SB9 Information Item,
dated December 29, 2021.
Staff has analyzed SB9 and identified areas where SB9 appears to provide opportunity
for the City Council to exercise local control. The purpose of this study session is to
receive policy direction from the City Council regarding options that staff has identified
in the course of reviewing the bill. Based on direction given at the study session, staff
will return to Council with an ordinance to implement SB9 within the City.
Background
While SB9 requires the City to issue approvals without public hearings for qualifying
projects, the one exemption is if the project would have a specific, adverse impact on
public health and safety or the physical environment, as specified in Government Code
Section 65589.5(d)(2). Per guidance from the State legislature, the conditions under
which a project could be denied are intended to be rare. SB9’s overarching requirement
is that the City’s objective municipal code standards must be applied in a manner so as
not to preclude a project applicant from achieving two units of at least 800 square feet
on a single lot.
While SB9 includes a list of pre-conditions that projects must meet to be eligible to
proceed, it is important to note that all SB9 projects will be subject to the local, regular
entitlement and plan review process that applies to any new construction in Santa
Monica that is subject to ministerial review. Projects will still be reviewed by various
City Departments (e.g., Community Development, Fire, Public Works, Rent Control,
4.A
Packet Pg. 8
3 of 22
Department of Transportation, etc.) to ensure compliance with applicable municipal
code standards and technical codes (i.e., Building Code & Fire Code).
Unlike State Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law, SB9 does not exempt SB9 units from
the City’s fees. This means that existing standards and fees would be applied to SB9
projects, including but not limited to:
1) Existing R1/OP1 Standards: The City’s existing R1 and OP1 zone
standards will apply to all SB9 projects. In 2019, after an extensive public
process, the R1 zone standards were updated to address concerns regarding
the size of new homes and have standards that encourage remodel over new
construction.
2) Existing Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) In-Lieu Fees:
Santa Monica’s Affordable Housing Production Program, which requires the
payment of an affordable housing in-lieu fee for projects involving the
construction of two or more units, would apply to SB9 projects that result in
two dwelling units. As a result, the City will be able to collect affordable
housing in-lieu fees without any changes to the AHPP.
3) Existing Development Impact Fees and Requirements: SB9 allows the
City to charge generally applicable impact fees such as Transportation and
Parks and Recreation Impact Fees, utility connection fees, school fees, and
fees for water neutrality and energy reach codes that require net zero energy
buildings and more energy efficient buildings, and AHPP in-lieu fee payments,
as applicable.
The only express exception from local requirements that SB9 provides is with respect to
lot splits: in this scenario, the City cannot require dedication of new rights-of-way or off-
site improvements.
Past Council Actions
On February 9, 2021, Council took a formal position to oppose SB9, as drafted, due to
concerns regarding the lack of affordability requirements in the bill and concern
4.A
Packet Pg. 9
4 of 22
regarding the potential effects in Santa Monica (Attachment A). In response to Council’s
stated concerns regarding SB9 as drafted at the time and as indicated in the City
Manager’s report on December 7, 2021, staff has been taking a conservative approach
in the interim period in order to be consistent with Council’s prior direction on SB9. The
full text of SB9 is provided in Attachment B.
Summary of Planning Commission Discussion and Direction
On February 16, 2022, the Planning Commission held a study session to review
possible concepts for consideration in an implementing ordinance for SB9. The
Commission voted 4-0 (2 abstained) that it was the sense of the Planning Commission
that the City Council’s implementation of SB9 ought to facilitate the certification of the
Housing Element. The following summarizes the Planning Commission’s
recommendation on key issues to consider in the SB9 ordinance:
• Do Not Allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Combination with SB9 Projects
o Allow applicants to add ADUs to all SB9 projects as an incentive in North of
Montana, Northeast, and Sunset Park R1 neighborhoods where lots may be
large enough to accommodate the units. However, do not allow applicants to
add ADUs to all SB9 projects in Pico and Ocean Park where lot sizes tend to
be smaller, on average.
o The Commission’s recommendation was within the context of Housing
Element certification and intended to expand SB9’s provisions in certain R1
neighborhoods as a strategy to demonstrate the City’s efforts to Affirmatively
Further Fair Housing.
• Deed Restriction for Rental Units
o The Commission did not come to a consensus recommendation on this issue
but there was general support for this concept as a way to ensure new units
are used as permanent housing.
o Commissioners who did not support this concept were:
▪ Concerned requiring SB9 units to be rental units could be a constraint
to feasibility of SB9 projects.
4.A
Packet Pg. 10
5 of 22
▪ More interested in finding ways to support SB9 units as ownership
units instead.
• Owner Occupancy for Duplex Path
o The Commission discussed the challenges in implementing and enforcing a
requirement that an applicant only needs to intend to occupy one of the SB9
units as their primary residence.
o One Commissioner also expressed concern that requiring owner occupancy
in the duplex path would make that option infeasible as it would not allow a
homeowner to demolish an existing home and replace it with two units.
• Increase Demolition Allowance for Duplex Path and Reconcile with Demolition
Thresholds for Properties on Historic Resources Inventory (HRI)
o The Commission did not come to a consensus recommendation on this issue
but generally did not support increasing the demolition limits for the duplex
path beyond 25% unless there are effective ways to protect HRI properties.
• Require that an Occupant of a SB9 Unit Must be Natural Person
o Planning Commission supports this concept.
• Update Land Division ordinance
o Planning Commission supports this concept.
Discussion
SB9 Eligible Properties
SB9’s provisions only apply in single-unit dwelling zones. In Santa Monica, these are
the R1 and OP1 zones as shown in Figure 1. In Santa Monica, single-unit dwelling
zones are designated as R1 and OP1, which represent approximately one-third of
Santa Monica’s land area.
4.A
Packet Pg. 11
6 of 22
Figure 1: Map of Single-Unit Dwelling Zones Where SB9 Projects Could be Proposed
(note that there are pre-conditions that must be met that might disqualify some parcels)
What Does SB9 Allow? Option 1 – Duplex Path
Option 1 allows the establishment of two units on a single-family zoned property. Cities
are required to issue by-right approvals for two residential units within a single-unit
zoned parcel, provided the project meets the following requirements:
1) Restrictions on Location - The parcel is not located in any of the following
restricted areas (note: most conditions do not apply to Santa Monica):
a. Farmland
b. Wetlands
c. Very high fire hazard severity zone
d. Hazardous waste site
4.A
Packet Pg. 12
7 of 22
e. Earthquake fault zone unless the development complies with applicable
seismic protection building code standards
f. Special flood hazard area or regulatory floodway, unless certain Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements are met
g. Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community
conservation plan
h. Habitat for protected species
i. Lands under conservation easement
j. Within a historic district or is a designated historic resource (this includes
resources designated under the SMMC Chapter 9.56, the Landmark and
Historic District Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica)
2) Anti-Displacement Measures - SB9 includes limitations on the types of single-
unit dwellings that are eligible for redevelopment as part of an SB9 project as
well as the applicant pool that may utilize SB9’s provision in an effort to reduce
displacement of tenants and to restrict speculative investor use of SB9. SB9
projects must not include demolition of:
a. Housing with an affordable housing deed restriction.
b. Rent-controlled housing or housing subject to any form of price control. In
addition to Santa Monica’s Rent Control law, AB1482 was enacted by the
State in 2019 and established Statewide rent control. AB1482’s
provisions contain limited exemptions for owner-occupied single-unit
dwellings including where ADUs or JADUs are rented. However, AB1482
only applies to units that are owned by a real estate investment trust, a
corporation or LLC in which at least one member is a corporation.
c. Housing occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
3) Parcel has not had Ellis Act removal within 15 years from date of application.
4) Does not require demolition of more than 25% of existing exterior structural walls
unless:
a. The local ordinance allows more than 25% demolition
b. Site has not been occupied by tenant in the last three years
4.A
Packet Pg. 13
8 of 22
What Does SB9 Allow? Option 2 – Lot Split Path
Option 2 allows the subdivision of a single-family zoned parcel into two lots. Like the
duplex path, cities are required to issue by-right approvals for lot splits within a single-
unit zoned parcel, provided the project meets all of the same requirements for the
duplex path and the following additional requirements:
1. Lot Split Standards:
a. The resulting lots are at least 1,200 square feet
b. Both lots are approximately equal in size
c. Neither lot is less than 40% of the original lot size
d. Meet all of the City’s requirements that would apply to subdivisions,
including, but not limited to, requirements that parcels have access to a
public right-of-way and utility or access easements
e. The property has not previously been split through SB9 (a lot can only be
split once using SB9)
f. The same applicant may not split adjacent properties in succession
2. Owner Occupancy: The owner must reside on the parcel for three years from
the date of approval of the lot split. Owner occupancy restrictions are intended
to ensure that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their
principal residence.
It should be noted that the statute is not clear about how this requirement where
the applicant must occupy one of the units as their principal residence for three
years from approval of the lot split would be practically applied in the case of a
proposed demolition and replacement of the primary residence as part of an
SB9 project and in the case of vacant land. Approval of the lot split is not the
same as approval of building permits for structures on the resulting lots, which
will occur sometime after the lot split is approved. It appears that the lot split
pathway could only be used by property owners with an existing dwelling unit on
the parcel that is to be split. For example, the language could be read to mean
that:
4.A
Packet Pg. 14
9 of 22
a) A dwelling unit must remain on the property as part of the SB9 lot split to
provide a primary residence for the applicant to occupy. This has the
practical effect of preventing an applicant from purchasing a single-unit
dwelling, have a lot split approved, and then propose a duplex project that
requires the demolition and replacement of the dwelling unit on the property.
If the plan review and construction process take three years, it is possible
that the applicant would never occupy the property for three years after
approval of the lot split; and
b) In no case could a vacant lot (i.e. no existing dwelling units on the lot) be
subdivided under SB9. This is because SB9’s requirement that the applicant
intend to occupy one of the units as their principal residence three years from
the approval (emphasis added) of the lot split. If there are no units for the
applicant to reside at the time of the lot split’s approval, it appears this
condition cannot be met.
SB9 prohibits the City from requiring a dedication of right-of-way or construction of off-
site improvements as a condition of approving the lot split. The City Engineer, however,
retains full authority, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”)
Section 7.04.800, to require improvements to provide proper access for users and to
prevent congestion and other hazards related to new development such as alleys,
curbs, gutters, street trees, replacement of damaged existing sidewalks in addition to
other off-site improvements that would be generally required of any new development.
Standards and Process to Review SB9 Projects: Existing Objective R1/OP1 Zoning
Standards
SB9 generally allows the City to apply it’s “objective zoning standards”, “objective
subdivision standards” and “objective design review standards” to projects seeking
approval under SB9 so long as the standards to not conflict with the provisions of SB9
or prevent the establishment of two dwelling units on a single parcel of at least 800
square feet. The City’s existing Zoning Ordinance contains objective development
standards for both the R1 and OP1 zones. These standards regulate new construction,
4.A
Packet Pg. 15
10 of 22
including additions to existing structures, in all R1 and OP1 zones. The R1 standards
were updated in 2019 in response to community concern regarding the size of new
home construction. The R1 standards update was intended to address the size of new
home construction, incentivize the retention of existing homes, and make the standards
more user-friendly. Some of the key changes included:
• Revisions to maximum allowable parcel coverage – this standard controls how
much of the parcel homes can cover in addition to their overall floor area;
• Exempting ADUs from parcel coverage calculations – this was intended to
incentivize retention of existing homes and encourage the production of ADUs;
• Revisions to maximum building height;
• Increased minimum front and side upper-story stepback areas – this standard
results in the second floor of homes to be smaller than the first floor; and
• Size limitations on upper-story outdoor spaces – this standard places a limit on
second floor outdoor spaces like balconies and decks.
The City’s current R1 standards also already allow for a duplex to be proposed in the
R1 zone with a Minor Use Permit (requires Zoning Administrator approval, which is a
public hearing). Duplexes are not a permitted use in the OP1 zone. A duplex is defined
in SMMC Section 9.51.020(A(1)(c) as:
A single building that contains 2 dwelling units or 2 single unit dwellings on a
single parcel. This use is distinguished from accessory dwelling units and junior
accessory dwelling units, which are accessory residential units as defined by
State law and Division 3, Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units.
As a result, SB9 would make duplexes that satisfy SB9’s minimum requirements a
permitted use that do not require a public hearing. Figure 2 illustrates the review
process for SB9 Projects.
4.A
Packet Pg. 16
11 of 22
Figure 2: Review Process for SB9 Projects Using Duplex and/or Lot Split Paths
Allowable Objective Standards
The City cannot apply objective standards that would have the effect of physically
precluding the construction of two units of at least 800 square feet each or that directly
conflict with the provisions of SB 9. Existing Santa Monica Zoning Code objective
standards that directly conflict with SB9 are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Comparison of SB9 Standards vs. Santa Monica Zoning Code
Standard SB9
Santa Monica Zoning Code
(Briefly summarized from R1 standards in
SMMC Section 9.07.030)
Setbacks • None required for:
o Existing structure, or
o Structure constructed in same
location in the same dimensions as
existing structure
• Option to require up to max of 4 feet
from side and rear parcel lines for new
construction
• Cannot require correction of non-
conforming zoning conditions, but the
project also cannot increase an existing
non-conformity
• Side, generally 10% of parcel width
• Would typically require
reconstructed structures in same
location to conform to current zoning
standards
Accessory • Not permitted if SB9 project utilizes both • Local ADU ordinance in SMMC
4.A
Packet Pg. 17
12 of 22
Dwelling
Units
(ADUs) and
Junior
Accessory
Dwelling
Units
(JADUs)
“duplex” and “lot split” pathways, i.e., the
parcel has been split into two lots and a
duplex is constructed on both lots.
• Not permitted to add an ADU or JADU if
there are already two existing units on a
parcel that has been split. This includes
a scenario where there is a single-unit
dwelling and ADU or JADU already on a
parcel that is subject to a lot split under
SB 9.
Section 9.31.025, based on State
law, which allows multi-unit
properties to either convert
existing non-habitable space to
ADUs or add two detached ADUs
All other development standards would apply to SB9 projects, as they would apply for
any new development, to the extent the objective standards do not prevent the
construction of two units with a minimum 800 square feet each, including: height, parcel
coverage, and limitations on upper-story outdoor space that are already established in
the Zoning Ordinance for R1 and OP1 zones.
Parking
SB9 does not permit the City to impose a minimum parking requirement in areas that
are within one half-mile of a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop. High
quality transit corridors are defined as a corridor with fixed route bus service with
service interval no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. (Public
Resources Code Section 21155(b).) Major transit stops are defined as a site containing
any of the following:
• An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
• A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service.
• The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service
interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute
periods. (Public Resources Code Section 21064.3)
As depicted in Figure 3, nearly all of Santa Monica is located within one-half mile
walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop, except for some
limited R1 areas that are north of Montana and a portion of Sunset Park. Areas located
within one-half mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor or major transit
4.A
Packet Pg. 18
13 of 22
stop are collectively referred to as High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs). The City is not
permitted to impose a minimum parking requirement on SB9 projects in those HQTAs.
However, SB9 does permit the City to require one parking space for each SB9 unit that
is not in an HQTA. Properties located within the Coastal Zone will be required to obtain
a Coastal Development Permit, which may have parking requirements in accordance
with the provisions of the California Coastal Act.
Figure 3: Map of High Quality Transit Areas in Santa Monica. These represent areas
where the City cannot impose minimum parking requirements for SB9 projects (based
on current bus schedules).
Leasing of SB9 Units
Pursuant to SB9, the City must require that the rental of any unit created pursuant to
SB 9 be for a term longer than 30 days. The City does not need to enact any additional
regulations in this regard. The SMMC already has prohibitions on short-term rentals,
4.A
Packet Pg. 19
14 of 22
except as provided in Chapter 6.20 related to home-sharing. The City’s home-sharing
regulations would prohibit a host from residing in one unit created on a parcel under SB
9 and renting out the other unit created under SB 9 as a home-share. Further, Chapter
6.22 sets forth the City’s residential leasing regulations which require that all residential
housing units be leased unfurnished, to a natural person, for an initial term of a
minimum of one year, as the tenant’s primary residence.
Feasibility of Requiring On-Site Affordable Housing Units in SB9 Projects in Santa
Monica
As part of the Housing Element update process, HR&A analyzed several scenarios to
evaluate the feasibility of increasing maximum density in the City’s R1 zones
(Attachment C). The purpose was to understand the feasibility of enacting affordability
requirements for any new construction in the R1 zones if additional units were allowed,
and the tipping point at which on-site inclusionary units would be feasible. The analysis
found that a minimum of 6-7 units would be needed to support an on-site inclusionary
unit in R1 zones and that replacing single-unit dwellings in R1 zones with two- and
three-unit 100% market-rate ownership (i.e. condominium) projects with no affordable
units would be infeasible. Since SB9 would only allow two-unit projects that would likely
be rental units, due to the requirement that applicants occupy one of the units as their
primary residence or that the existing unit must be owner-occupied in the first place, it is
unlikely that requiring on-site affordable housing units in SB9 projects would be feasible
in Santa Monica as it would effectively prohibit the creation of any additional housing in
direct conflict with the objective of SB9 by creating an obstruction to implementation.
Intersection of SB9 and ADU Law: Limitations on Maximum Number of Units that the
City Could Establish
SB9 gives the City express authority to place limits on allowing additional ADUs/JADUs.
Specifically, SB9 explicitly does not require the City to allow ADUs or Junior ADUs
(JADUs) on parcels that have: 1) used the lot split pathway; and 2) either construct two
dwelling units on each of the resulting parcels, or already have two units (e.g. parcels
that already have a single-unit dwelling and ADU and are subject to a lot split). This
4.A
Packet Pg. 20
15 of 22
particular provision of SB9 appears to place a cap of no more than four units that could
be established on an existing single-unit dwelling zoned parcel.
SB9 does not contain limitations on ADUs and JADUs for SB9 projects that have
constructed two units under SB9 but have not split the lot. However, based on
preliminary guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development, parcels with an existing single-unit dwelling and existing ADU are
considered to have one existing unit for purposes of SB9 (the ADU is not considered a
primary dwelling unit). This means that one more additional SB9 unit could be added to
the parcel. In this scenario, the City could enact a local ordinance that prohibits the
addition of more ADUs or JADUs.
Potential Impact of SB9 in Santa Monica
While some cities have taken action to enact urgency ordinances to implement SB9’s
provisions, as noted above, Santa Monica has existing development review and plan
check processes that will govern processing of SB9 projects. A concern that has been
raised by community members is how SB9 projects may alter R1 and OP1
neighborhoods. This section provides an initial assessment based on the City’s existing
rules and currently available analyses and studies.
As shown in Table 2, the North of Montana neighborhood has majority lot sizes of
generally 7,500-8,000 sf. A very typical lot size is 50’W x 150’D. There are larger
estate-size lots north of San Vicente Boulevard and in the Palisades Tract. In Sunset
Park, lot sizes are typically approximately 6,000 square feet and in Pico they are
generally around 5,000 sf.
4.A
Packet Pg. 21
16 of 22
Table 2: Parcel Size by Neighborhood by Number & Percentage
All of the R1 standards would apply to any new development on these parcels. In the
case of an applicant choosing the “duplex” path, while adding a unit may violate the
55% parcel coverage limitation, SB 9 would still require the City to approve a new unit
with a maximum size of 800 square feet. In the case of a lot split, creating two lots
would result in lot sizes of possibly between 2,500 to 3,750 sf with lot widths of
approximately 25 feet. In this case, there may not be sufficient physical space on the
parcel to build more than one single-unit dwelling other than on very large lots, of which
there are a limited number in Santa Monica.
SB9’s Interactions with SB8
SB8 also went into effect on January 1, 2022, and prohibits cities from reducing the
intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was in effect as of
January 1, 2018. The statute defines “reducing the intensity of land use” to include
reduction in height, density, floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size
requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements,
or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or
cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity.
4.A
Packet Pg. 22
17 of 22
After review of SB8’s provisions, including its extensions of key provisions of SB330
previously adopted in 2019, staff has concluded that the City can apply all objective
standards that are already applicable in the R1 and OP1 districts to the extent they do
not preclude the construction of SB9 units or directly conflict with SB9. However, the
City cannot adopt standards that would result in reduced residential development
capacity than allowed under existing zoning (i.e., reduced parcel coverage, height, etc.).
Considerations for SB9 Ordinance + Concepts for Council Direction
Based on staff’s analysis of SB9’s requirements and the City’s existing codes and
requirements, the following are potential concepts that could be included into an SB9
implementation ordinance. Council should consider each concept and provide direction
as to whether Council agrees or disagrees with the concept as proposed by staff.
Where appropriate, a table showing the range of policy options from minimum SB9
compliance to incentivizing use of SB9 is also provided with each concept.
1. Applicability of ADU law to Multiple-Unit Dwellings
a. What local discretion does SB9 allow?
i. ADU regulations require that the City allow the addition of up to two
detached ADUs or the conversion of non-habitable space into
ADUs for existing multiple-unit dwellings. SB9 does not require the
City to allow an applicant to add ADUs to an SB9 project, which
would be considered a multiple-unit dwelling.
b. Question
i. Should the City require that ADU law for multi-unit developments in
R1 zones only apply to multiple-unit dwellings existing as of
January 1, 2022?
c. Purpose
i. If yes, the purpose of this would be to ensure that the SB9 duplex
path does not eventually result in the establishment of 6 units
(including ADUs and JADUs) from one R1 parcel but protects the
4.A
Packet Pg. 23
18 of 22
ability for single-unit dwellings in multiple-unit zones to still convert
to multiple-unit development and exercise rights of ADU law.
Range of Policy Options
Minimum SB9 Compliance Approach Incentivize SB9
• Require that applicants choose either
ADU or SB9 project
• Allow applicants to combine ADU and
SB9 allowances on lots of at least
7,500 sf
2. Deed restricting SB9 unit as rental unit
a. What local discretion does SB9 allow?
i. The duplex and lot split paths do not have any requirements that
resulting SB9 units be rented or sold. Should an applicant choose
to rent any resulting units, SB9 requires that the rentals be for a
term longer than 30 days. Rental of residential units is already
regulated by Chapter 6.20 (Home-sharing and Vacation Rentals)
and Chapter 6.22 (Residential Leasing Requirements) so no
change to the Municipal Code is necessary in this regard. SB9
does not prohibit cities from requiring rental or sale of resulting
units, as long as it does not impede construction of the SB9 unit.
The lot split path on its own would only result in land division so
while not required, it would be possible for the property owner to
sell one or both lots without any new development or if a
homeowner wanted to sell the units constructed on the resulting lot,
it would require a subdivision.
b. Question
i. Should the City require that the additional SB9 unit created under
the duplex path or a combination lot split/duplex path be rented or
sold (note that ownership units would require a subdivision)?
c. Purpose
i. The purpose of this would be to ensure that multiple-unit dwellings
created under the SB9 duplex path will contribute to alleviating
Santa Monica’s housing needs. This ensures that SB9 units
actually create more housing units and aligns with the City’s
4.A
Packet Pg. 24
19 of 22
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) strategy, adopted in the
6th Cycle Housing Element1.
Range of Policy Options
Minimum SB9 Compliance Approach Incentivize SB9
• SB9 contains no provisions requiring
that SB9 units are rented or sold
• Require that SB9 units are rented or
sold
• Do not impose any requirements that
SB9 units be rented or sold
3. Owner Occupancy for Duplex Path
a. What local discretion does SB9 allow?
i. The lot split path requires that the applicant sign an affidavit stating
that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as
their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date
of approval of the lot split. SB9 does not allow the city to impose
any additional owner occupancy requirements under the lot split
path. The duplex path has no owner occupancy requirements.
b. Questions
i. Should the City require that one of the units created under the
duplex path be subject to an owner occupancy requirement?
c. Purpose
i. Applicants choosing to pursue a SB9 lot split are required to
declare that they intend to occupy the primary dwelling unit for 3
years following approval of the subdivision. Adding this
requirement to applications for the SB9 duplex path would make
the requirements for both pathways consistent.
Range of Policy Options
Minimum SB9 Compliance Approach Incentivize SB9
4.A
Packet Pg. 25
20 of 22
• SB9 does not require owner occupancy
for duplex path
• Similar to lot split path, require that
applicants for duplex path occupy one
of the resulting units as their primary
residence
• Do not impose any owner occupancy
requirements on applicants for duplex
path.
4. Increase Demolition Allowance for Duplex Path
a. What local discretion does SB9 allow?
i. SB9 does not require the City to allow an applicant to demolish
more than 25% of the existing structure in the duplex path.
b. Questions
i. Should the City allow projects using the duplex path to demolish
more than 25% of the existing structure?
c. Purpose
i. Increasing the demolition allowance beyond 25% would facilitate
the demolition of existing single-unit dwellings and replacement
with two units. This could result in more SB9 projects that involve
demolition and replacement of existing single unit dwellings with
two units instead of SB9 units that are added to parcels while
retaining existing single-unit dwellings.
Range of Policy Options
Minimum SB9 Compliance Approach Incentivize SB9
• Do not allow more than 25% of an
existing single-unit dwelling to be
demolished for duplex path
• Allow more than 25% of an existing
single-unit dwelling to be demolished
for duplex path
5. Reconcile Demolition Thresholds with Historic Resources Inventory (HRI)
Properties: The HRI is an informational listing of potential historic resources
throughout the city. The HRI is the result of a cursory survey of properties as
visible from the public right-of-way and consists of approximately 2,000
properties, a significant percentage of which are located in the R1
neighborhoods. The City’s demolition ordinance considers an HRI property
demolished if 25% of the street-facing exterior is removed. Because SB9’s
duplex path only requires that cities allow a minimum of 25% of the exterior walls
4.A
Packet Pg. 26
21 of 22
to be removed as a pre-condition, it is possible that this provision will nullify the
intended review process for technical demolitions of HRI properties because SB9
requires only a ministerial process. Therefore, the SB9 ordinance would need to
make clear that State law would override the local demolition ordinance for HRI
properties.
a. Purpose: Adding this clarification to the SB9 ordinance would mean that
HRI properties that become technically demolished (because more than
25% of the street-facing exterior has been removed) would not be required
to go through the 75-day demolition waiting period.
6. Occupant must be natural person: Clarify that the applicant who is occupying
one of the units per SB9 must be a natural person.
a. Purpose: This would be consistent with the requirements already
established in the City’s leasing regulations (Chapter 6.22) and would
reduce concern of SB9’s use by speculative investors.
7. Update Land Division ordinance: Update the land division ordinance to codify
the ministerial process for SB9 lot splits.
a. Purpose: There is already a defined workflow for subdivisions so this
would simply restate the process, eliminate the requirement for a Planning
Commission hearing, and clarify findings that don’t apply.
As staff receives inquiries and possibly applications for SB9 projects, there may be
other development standards that may need to be adjusted or clarified.
Prior to adoption of a formal implementing ordinance, the City is still required to follow
State law, including SB9’s applicable provisions related to ministerial approval of
qualifying projects. However, as the City Manager explained in his oral City Manager’s
Report at the Council’s December 7, 2021, meeting, due to lack of specificity in some
areas of SB9, staff will take a conservative approach in the interim period in order to be
consistent with Council’s prior direction on SB9.
Following Council direction on these concepts, staff proposes to return with an
ordinance that would apply to SB9 projects.
4.A
Packet Pg. 27
22 of 22
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of
recommended action. Should additional single-unit or multi-unit units be completed,
modest fees will be collected. The addition of an ADU is exempt from most of the fees
beyond construction fees. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are
required in the future.
Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - Council 13 item February 9 2021
B. Attachment B - Full Text SB9
C. Attachment C - HR&A SaMoAHPP R1 Analysis
D. Written Comments
4.A
Packet Pg. 28
13.C
February 9, 2021
Council Meeting: February 9, 2021 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services
Department
Date: February 9, 2021
13.C Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council
authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to
Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through
lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Background
4.A.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Attachment A - Council 13 item February 9 2021 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
SB 9 would override local control over zoning codes, requiring cities to ministerially
approve, without public input or consideration, two residential units as well as lot splits
on all single-family parcels that meet specified criteria, primarily designed to prevent the
demolition of existing affordable housing or displacement of moderate, low, or very-low
income families or historic properties. The bill would exempt these approvals from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which was established to require the
thoughtful consideration of development on the environment and infrastructure. The bill
would also exempt a local government from being required to hold public hearings for
coastal development permit applications under the California Coastal Act of 1976, which
recognizes that there are unique zoning and land management requirements in coastal
areas. Both of these state laws specifically require community participation and input;
SB 9 would eliminate the currently required community participation and input. It is for
these reasons that the City Council, representing our residents, should oppose this bill.
In the last legislative session, Senator Toni Atkins of San Diego wrote, and the state
Legislature nearly passed SB 1120, which would require a proposed housing
development that contains two residential units to be considered ministerially, without
discretionary review or hearing, within a single-family zone, if the proposed housing
meets certain requirements. At the start of the current legislative session, Senator
Atkins introduced SB 9, which similarly circumvents local planning and zoning control
and public input by requiring the ministerial approval of housing developments
containing two residential units and lot splits without a public hearing. If enacted, SB 9
would undermine local land use authority by imposing state legislation on local
government agencies and municipalities. The City Council should strongly oppose
legislation that seeks to limit local land use authority.
Given this bill’s widespread impact on the City’s ability to review certain proposed
housing developments, Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre recommend the
City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to Senator Atkins opposing SB 9 as
drafted, and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in
Sacramento.
4.A.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Attachment A - Council 13 item February 9 2021 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
Senate Bill No. 9
CHAPTER 162
An act to amend Section 66452.6 of, and to add Sections 65852.21 and
66411.7 to, the Government Code, relating to land use.
[Approved by Governor September 16, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 16, 2021.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 9, Atkins. Housing development: approvals.
The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of accessory
dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an
ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards
and conditions.
This bill, among other things, would require a proposed housing
development containing no more than 2 residential units within a
single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without
discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets
certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the proposed housing
development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that is
subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels
affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income,
that the proposed housing development does not allow for the demolition
of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, except as provided,
and that the development is not located within a historic district, is not
included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site
that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic
property or district.
The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in
approving the construction of 2 residential units, including, but not limited
to, authorizing a local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective
subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless
those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the
construction of up to 2 units or physically precluding either of the 2 units
from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, prohibiting the imposition
of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum
setback requirements under all other circumstances.
The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the
design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local
agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing,
approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final,
and parcel maps, and the modification of those maps. Under the Subdivision
Map Act, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map expires 24
94 4.A.b
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Attachment B - Full Text SB9 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
months after its approval or conditional approval or after any additional
period of time as prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional
12 months, except as provided.
This bill, among other things, would require a local agency to ministerially
approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements,
including, but not limited to, that the urban lot split would not require the
demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant,
ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and
families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the parcel is located
within a single-family residential zone, and that the parcel is not located
within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources
Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city
or county landmark or historic property or district.
The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in
approving an urban lot split, including, but not limited to, authorizing a
local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision
standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards
would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of 2 units,
as defined, on either of the resulting parcels or physically precluding either
of the 2 units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, prohibiting
the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and
setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. The
bill would require an applicant to sign an affidavit stating that they intend
to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum
of 3 years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split, unless the
applicant is a community land trust or a qualified nonprofit corporation, as
specified. The bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing any
additional owner occupancy standards on applicants. By requiring applicants
to sign affidavits, thereby expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would also extend the limit on the additional period that may be
provided by ordinance, as described above, from 12 months to 24 months
and would make other conforming or nonsubstantive changes.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency,
as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion
of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out
or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA
does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects.
This bill, by establishing the ministerial review processes described above,
would thereby exempt the approval of projects subject to those processes
from CEQA.
The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for the planning and
regulation of development, under a coastal development permit process,
within the coastal zone, as defined, that shall be based on various coastal
resources planning and management policies set forth in the act.
94
— 2 — Ch. 162 4.A.b
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Attachment B - Full Text SB9 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
This bill would exempt a local agency from being required to hold public
hearings for coastal development permit applications for housing
developments and urban lot splits pursuant to the above provisions.
By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use
regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address
a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore,
apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies
and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory
provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for
specified reasons.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 65852.21 is added to the Government Code, to
read:
65852.21. (a) A proposed housing development containing no more
than two residential units within a single-family residential zone shall be
considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing, if the
proposed housing development meets all of the following requirements:
(1) The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is located
within a city, the boundaries of which include some portion of either an
urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census
Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel wholly within the
boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United
States Census Bureau.
(2) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B)
to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.
(3) Notwithstanding any provision of this section or any local law, the
proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration
of any of the following types of housing:
(A) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law
that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate,
low, or very low income.
(B) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through
a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
(C) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
(4) The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is not a
parcel on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the
owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of
Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within
15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an
application.
94
Ch. 162 — 3 — 4.A.b
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Attachment B - Full Text SB9 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
(5) The proposed housing development does not allow the demolition
of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior structural walls, unless the
housing development meets at least one of the following conditions:
(A) If a local ordinance so allows.
(B) The site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
(6) The development is not located within a historic district or property
included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section
5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or
listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant
to a city or county ordinance.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding any local law and except as provided in
paragraph (2), a local agency may impose objective zoning standards,
objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that
do not conflict with this section.
(2) (A) The local agency shall not impose objective zoning standards,
objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards that would
have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to two units
or that would physically preclude either of the two units from being at least
800 square feet in floor area.
(B) (i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), no setback shall be required
for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and
to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
(ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in all other circumstances not
described in clause (i), a local agency may require a setback of up to four
feet from the side and rear lot lines.
(c) In addition to any conditions established in accordance with
subdivision (b), a local agency may require any of the following conditions
when considering an application for two residential units as provided for in
this section:
(1) Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local
agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the following
instances:
(A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either
a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155
of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section
21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
(B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel.
(2) For residential units connected to an onsite wastewater treatment
system, a percolation test completed within the last 5 years, or, if the
percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency may deny a proposed
housing development project if the building official makes a written finding,
based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing
development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and
determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon
public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is
94
— 4 — Ch. 162 4.A.b
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Attachment B - Full Text SB9 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse
impact.
(e) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created pursuant
to this section be for a term longer than 30 days.
(f) Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 or 65852.22, a local agency shall
not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory
dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this
section and the authority contained in Section 66411.7.
(g) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision
(b), an application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent
or connected structures provided that the structures meet building code
safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance.
(h) Local agencies shall include units constructed pursuant to this section
in the annual housing element report as required by subparagraph (I) of
paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400.
(i) For purposes of this section, all of the following apply:
(1) A housing development contains two residential units if the
development proposes no more than two new units or if it proposes to add
one new unit to one existing unit.
(2) The terms “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision
standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that
involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are
uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or
criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or
proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may
be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a
local agency, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones,
specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances.
(3) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether
general law or chartered.
(j) A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions
of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this section shall not be
considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)
of the Public Resources Code.
(k) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way
alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976
(Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources
Code), except that the local agency shall not be required to hold public
hearings for coastal development permit applications for a housing
development pursuant to this section.
SEC. 2. Section 66411.7 is added to the Government Code, to read:
66411.7. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division and
any local law, a local agency shall ministerially approve, as set forth in this
section, a parcel map for an urban lot split only if the local agency determines
that the parcel map for the urban lot split meets all the following
requirements:
94
Ch. 162 — 5 — 4.A.b
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Attachment B - Full Text SB9 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
(1) The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than
two new parcels of approximately equal lot area provided that one parcel
shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel
proposed for subdivision.
(2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), both newly created
parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet.
(B) A local agency may by ordinance adopt a smaller minimum lot size
subject to ministerial approval under this subdivision.
(3) The parcel being subdivided meets all the following requirements:
(A) The parcel is located within a single-family residential zone.
(B) The parcel subject to the proposed urban lot split is located within a
city, the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized
area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or,
for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an
urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census
Bureau.
(C) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B)
to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.
(D) The proposed urban lot split would not require demolition or
alteration of any of the following types of housing:
(i) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that
restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low,
or very low income.
(ii) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through
a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
(iii) A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property
has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with
Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from
rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent
submits an application.
(iv) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
(E) The parcel is not located within a historic district or property included
on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of
the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a
city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or
county ordinance.
(F) The parcel has not been established through prior exercise of an urban
lot split as provided for in this section.
(G) Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person
acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent
parcel using an urban lot split as provided for in this section.
(b) An application for a parcel map for an urban lot split shall be approved
in accordance with the following requirements:
(1) A local agency shall approve or deny an application for a parcel map
for an urban lot split ministerially without discretionary review.
(2) A local agency shall approve an urban lot split only if it conforms to
all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division
94
— 6 — Ch. 162 4.A.b
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Attachment B - Full Text SB9 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
2 (commencing with Section 66410)), except as otherwise expressly provided
in this section.
(3) Notwithstanding Section 66411.1, a local agency shall not impose
regulations that require dedications of rights-of-way or the construction of
offsite improvements for the parcels being created as a condition of issuing
a parcel map for an urban lot split pursuant to this section.
(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), notwithstanding any local
law, a local agency may impose objective zoning standards, objective
subdivision standards, and objective design review standards applicable to
a parcel created by an urban lot split that do not conflict with this section.
(2) A local agency shall not impose objective zoning standards, objective
subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that would
have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on
either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than
800 square feet.
(3) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), no setback shall be required for
an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to
the same dimensions as an existing structure.
(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), in all other circumstances not
described in subparagraph (A), a local agency may require a setback of up
to four feet from the side and rear lot lines.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency may deny an urban
lot split if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a
preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development
project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined
in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health
and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible
method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.
(e) In addition to any conditions established in accordance with this
section, a local agency may require any of the following conditions when
considering an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split:
(1) Easements required for the provision of public services and facilities.
(2) A requirement that the parcels have access to, provide access to, or
adjoin the public right-of-way.
(3) Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local
agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the following
instances:
(A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either
a high-quality transit corridor as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155
of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop as defined in Section
21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
(B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel.
(f) A local agency shall require that the uses allowed on a lot created by
this section be limited to residential uses.
(g) (1) A local agency shall require an applicant for an urban lot split to
sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the
94
Ch. 162 — 7 — 4.A.b
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Attachment B - Full Text SB9 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from
the date of the approval of the urban lot split.
(2) This subdivision shall not apply to an applicant that is a “community
land trust,” as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11)
of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or
is a “qualified nonprofit corporation” as described in Section 214.15 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code.
(3) A local agency shall not impose additional owner occupancy
standards, other than provided for in this subdivision, on an urban lot split
pursuant to this section.
(h) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created pursuant
to this section be for a term longer than 30 days.
(i) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval
of a parcel map application for the creation of an urban lot split, the
correction of nonconforming zoning conditions.
(j) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 65852.2, 65852.21,
65852.22, 65915, or this section, a local agency shall not be required to
permit more than two units on a parcel created through the exercise of the
authority contained within this section.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “unit” means any dwelling unit,
including, but not limited to, a unit or units created pursuant to Section
65852.21, a primary dwelling, an accessory dwelling unit as defined in
Section 65852.2, or a junior accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section
65852.22.
(k) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), an application shall
not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures
provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are
sufficient to allow separate conveyance.
(l) Local agencies shall include the number of applications for parcel
maps for urban lot splits pursuant to this section in the annual housing
element report as required by subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 65400.
(m) For purposes of this section, both of the following shall apply:
(1) “Objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and
“objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal
or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by
reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and
knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public
official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative
objective land use specifications adopted by a local agency, and may include,
but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary
zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances.
(2) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether
general law or chartered.
(n) A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions
of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this section shall not be
94
— 8 — Ch. 162 4.A.b
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Attachment B - Full Text SB9 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)
of the Public Resources Code.
(o) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way
alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976
(Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources
Code), except that the local agency shall not be required to hold public
hearings for coastal development permit applications for urban lot splits
pursuant to this section.
SEC. 3. Section 66452.6 of the Government Code is amended to read:
66452.6. (a) (1) An approved or conditionally approved tentative map
shall expire 24 months after its approval or conditional approval, or after
any additional period of time as may be prescribed by local ordinance, not
to exceed an additional 24 months. However, if the subdivider is required
to expend two hundred thirty-six thousand seven hundred ninety dollars
($236,790) or more to construct, improve, or finance the construction or
improvement of public improvements outside the property boundaries of
the tentative map, excluding improvements of public rights-of-way that abut
the boundary of the property to be subdivided and that are reasonably related
to the development of that property, each filing of a final map authorized
by Section 66456.1 shall extend the expiration of the approved or
conditionally approved tentative map by 48 months from the date of its
expiration, as provided in this section, or the date of the previously filed
final map, whichever is later. The extensions shall not extend the tentative
map more than 10 years from its approval or conditional approval. However,
a tentative map on property subject to a development agreement authorized
by Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4 of Division
1 may be extended for the period of time provided for in the agreement, but
not beyond the duration of the agreement. The number of phased final maps
that may be filed shall be determined by the advisory agency at the time of
the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map.
(2) Commencing January 1, 2012, and each calendar year thereafter, the
amount of two hundred thirty-six thousand seven hundred ninety dollars
($236,790) shall be annually increased by operation of law according to the
adjustment for inflation set forth in the statewide cost index for class B
construction, as determined by the State Allocation Board at its January
meeting. The effective date of each annual adjustment shall be March 1.
The adjusted amount shall apply to tentative and vesting tentative maps
whose applications were received after the effective date of the adjustment.
(3) “Public improvements,” as used in this subdivision, include traffic
controls, streets, roads, highways, freeways, bridges, overcrossings, street
interchanges, flood control or storm drain facilities, sewer facilities, water
facilities, and lighting facilities.
(b) (1) The period of time specified in subdivision (a), including any
extension thereof granted pursuant to subdivision (e), shall not include any
period of time during which a development moratorium, imposed after
approval of the tentative map, is in existence. However, the length of the
moratorium shall not exceed five years.
94
Ch. 162 — 9 — 4.A.b
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Attachment B - Full Text SB9 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
(2) The length of time specified in paragraph (1) shall be extended for
up to three years, but in no event beyond January 1, 1992, during the
pendency of any lawsuit in which the subdivider asserts, and the local agency
that approved or conditionally approved the tentative map denies, the
existence or application of a development moratorium to the tentative map.
(3) Once a development moratorium is terminated, the map shall be valid
for the same period of time as was left to run on the map at the time that
the moratorium was imposed. However, if the remaining time is less than
120 days, the map shall be valid for 120 days following the termination of
the moratorium.
(c) The period of time specified in subdivision (a), including any
extension thereof granted pursuant to subdivision (e), shall not include the
period of time during which a lawsuit involving the approval or conditional
approval of the tentative map is or was pending in a court of competent
jurisdiction, if the stay of the time period is approved by the local agency
pursuant to this section. After service of the initial petition or complaint in
the lawsuit upon the local agency, the subdivider may apply to the local
agency for a stay pursuant to the local agency’s adopted procedures. Within
40 days after receiving the application, the local agency shall either stay the
time period for up to five years or deny the requested stay. The local agency
may, by ordinance, establish procedures for reviewing the requests,
including, but not limited to, notice and hearing requirements, appeal
procedures, and other administrative requirements.
(d) The expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative
map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map or parcel map of all
or any portion of the real property included within the tentative map shall
be filed with the legislative body without first processing a new tentative
map. Once a timely filing is made, subsequent actions of the local agency,
including, but not limited to, processing, approving, and recording, may
lawfully occur after the date of expiration of the tentative map. Delivery to
the county surveyor or city engineer shall be deemed a timely filing for
purposes of this section.
(e) Upon application of the subdivider filed before the expiration of the
approved or conditionally approved tentative map, the time at which the
map expires pursuant to subdivision (a) may be extended by the legislative
body or by an advisory agency authorized to approve or conditionally
approve tentative maps for a period or periods not exceeding a total of six
years. The period of extension specified in this subdivision shall be in
addition to the period of time provided by subdivision (a). Before the
expiration of an approved or conditionally approved tentative map, upon
an application by the subdivider to extend that map, the map shall
automatically be extended for 60 days or until the application for the
extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs
first. If the advisory agency denies a subdivider’s application for an
extension, the subdivider may appeal to the legislative body within 15 days
after the advisory agency has denied the extension.
94
— 10 — Ch. 162 4.A.b
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Attachment B - Full Text SB9 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
(f) For purposes of this section, a development moratorium includes a
water or sewer moratorium, or a water and sewer moratorium, as well as
other actions of public agencies that regulate land use, development, or the
provision of services to the land, including the public agency with the
authority to approve or conditionally approve the tentative map, which
thereafter prevents, prohibits, or delays the approval of a final or parcel
map. A development moratorium shall also be deemed to exist for purposes
of this section for any period of time during which a condition imposed by
the city or county could not be satisfied because of either of the following:
(1) The condition was one that, by its nature, necessitated action by the
city or county, and the city or county either did not take the necessary action
or by its own action or inaction was prevented or delayed in taking the
necessary action before expiration of the tentative map.
(2) The condition necessitates acquisition of real property or any interest
in real property from a public agency, other than the city or county that
approved or conditionally approved the tentative map, and that other public
agency fails or refuses to convey the property interest necessary to satisfy
the condition. However, nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to
require any public agency to convey any interest in real property owned by
it. A development moratorium specified in this paragraph shall be deemed
to have been imposed either on the date of approval or conditional approval
of the tentative map, if evidence was included in the public record that the
public agency that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein
may refuse to convey that property or interest, or on the date that the public
agency that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein receives
an offer by the subdivider to purchase that property or interest for fair market
value, whichever is later. A development moratorium specified in this
paragraph shall extend the tentative map up to the maximum period as set
forth in subdivision (b), but not later than January 1, 1992, so long as the
public agency that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein
fails or refuses to convey the necessary property interest, regardless of the
reason for the failure or refusal, except that the development moratorium
shall be deemed to terminate 60 days after the public agency has officially
made, and communicated to the subdivider, a written offer or commitment
binding on the agency to convey the necessary property interest for a fair
market value, paid in a reasonable time and manner.
SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access to
affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal
affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California
Constitution. Therefore, Sections 1 and 2 of this act adding Sections
65852.21 and 66411.7 to the Government Code and Section 3 of this act
amending Section 66452.6 of the Government Code apply to all cities,
including charter cities.
SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6
of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or
school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments
sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act or
94
Ch. 162 — 11 — 4.A.b
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Attachment B - Full Text SB9 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will
be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a
crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within
the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the
definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of
the California Constitution.
O
94
— 12 — Ch. 162 4.A.b
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Attachment B - Full Text SB9 (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Santa Monica AHPP 2021 Update | 1
R1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ANALYSIS
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION PROGRAM
2020-2021 UPDATE
JUNE 2021
4.A.c
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Attachment C - HR&A SaMoAHPP R1 Analysis (4928 : SB 9 Study Session
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Santa Monica AHPP 2021 Update | 2DRAFT RESULTS
ANALYTIC APPROACH
HR&A, with support from two design firms, tested
the feasibility of 1) permitting multifamily units
within existing R1 development standards, and 2)
requiring an inclusionary unit with these
multifamily buildings.
Danielian Associates and John Kaliski Architects
developed general specifications for the physical
parameters of 2 through 6-unit prototypes,
aiming to respect existing R1 and/or R2
standards, but noting where flexibility would be
needed.
Prototype details, feasibility findings and key
considerations are included in the following slides.
N. of
Montana Sunset Park
Avg.
Underutilized
R1 Land Sale
Price
$2,900,000
($343/SF)
$1,715,000
($270/SF)
Avg. Condo/
Townhouse
Sale Price
$2,080,000
($1,190/SF)
$1,255,000
($955/SF)
Total
Development
Cost (excl.
Land)
$550/SF $455/SF
Average Unit
Size 1,775 SF 1,350 SF
4.A.c
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Attachment C - HR&A SaMoAHPP R1 Analysis (4928 : SB 9 Study Session
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Santa Monica AHPP 2021 Update | 3DRAFT RESULTS
FEASIBILITY IMPLICATIONS*
* Based on private developer Profit Margin (12.5%+ = Feasible)
MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING | 2 Units within R1 Standards
PROS
•Maintains existing standards
•No costly subterranean parking
CONS
•Not feasible, even for 100%
market rate
•Cannot support an inclusionary
unit
100% Market 1 MI Unit 1 LI Unit 1 VLI Unit 1 ELI Unit
N. of Montana -11%N/A (Market Rate not Feasible)
Sunset Park -26%N/A (Market Rate not Feasible)
HR&A | JKA | Danielian
4.A.c
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Attachment C - HR&A SaMoAHPP R1 Analysis (4928 : SB 9 Study Session
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Santa Monica AHPP 2021 Update | 4DRAFT RESULTS
FEASIBILITY IMPLICATIONS*
* Based on private developer Profit Margin (12.5%+ = Feasible)
MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING | 3 Units within R1 Standards
100% Market 1 MI Unit 1 LI Unit 1 VLI Unit 1 ELI Unit
N. of Montana -12%N/A (Market Rate not Feasible)
Sunset Park -26%N/A (Market Rate not Feasible)
PROS
•Maintains existing R1
zoning standards
•No costly subterranean parking
CONS
•Requires below-market unit
sizes
•Not feasible, even for 100%
market rate
•Cannot support an inclusionary
unit
HR&A | JKA | Danielian
4.A.c
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Attachment C - HR&A SaMoAHPP R1 Analysis (4928 : SB 9 Study Session
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Santa Monica AHPP 2021 Update | 5DRAFT RESULTS
MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING | 3 Units w/ flexibility to R1 Standards
100% Market 1 MI Unit 1 LI Unit 1 VLI Unit 1 ELI Unit
N. of Montana 11%-24.7%N/A (Mod Income not Feasible)
Sunset Park -3%N/A (Market Rate not Feasible)
PROS
•Larger units may support
feasibility North of Montana
•Maintains height limits R-1
standards, but not lot coverage
CONS
•Costly subterranean parking
•Cannot support an inclusionary
unit
•May not be feasible South of
the 10 Fwy. (e.g., Sunset Park)
HR&A | JKA | Danielian
FEASIBILITY IMPLICATIONS*
* Based on private developer Profit Margin (12.5%+ = Feasible)
4.A.c
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Attachment C - HR&A SaMoAHPP R1 Analysis (4928 : SB 9 Study Session
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Santa Monica AHPP 2021 Update | 6DRAFT RESULTS
MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING | 3 Units w/ flexibility to R1 Standards
100% Market 1 MI Unit 1 LI Unit 1 VLI Unit 1 ELI Unit
N. of Montana 15%-19.5%N/A (Mod Income not Feasible)
Sunset Park 2.1%N/A (Market Rate not Feasible)
PROS
•Larger units may support
feasibility North of Montana
•No costly subterranean parking
CONS
•Requires adjustments to R1
height limits for part of parcel
•Cannot support an inclusionary
unit
•May not be feasible South of
the 10 Fwy. (e.g., Sunset Park)
HR&A | JKA | Danielian
FEASIBILITY IMPLICATIONS*
* Based on private developer Profit Margin (12.5%+ = Feasible)
4.A.c
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Attachment C - HR&A SaMoAHPP R1 Analysis (4928 : SB 9 Study Session
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Santa Monica AHPP 2021 Update | 7DRAFT RESULTS
PROS
•Feasible for market rate units
across the City, as
demonstrated by R2
construction
CONS
•Would require major
modification to existing R1
standards
•Cannot support an inclusionary
unit
100% Market 1 MI Unit 1 LI Unit 1 VLI Unit 1 ELI Unit
N. of Montana 28%10%7%7%6%
Sunset Park 16%-4.2%N/A (Mod Income not Feasible)
HR&A | JKA | Danielian
FEASIBILITY IMPLICATIONS*
* Based on private developer Profit Margin (12.5%+ = Feasible)
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 4 Units w/ flexibility to R2 Standards
(7,500 SF Lot)
4.A.c
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Attachment C - HR&A SaMoAHPP R1 Analysis (4928 : SB 9 Study Session
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Santa Monica AHPP 2021 Update | 8DRAFT RESULTS
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 4 Units w/ flexibility to R2 Standards
(6,750 SF Lot)
100% Market 1 MI Unit 1 LI Unit 1 VLI Unit 1 ELI Unit
N. of Montana 28%10%7%7%6%
Sunset Park 16%-4.2%N/A (Mod Income not Feasible)
PROS
•Feasible for market rate units
across the City, as
demonstrated by R2
construction
CONS
•Would require major
modification to existing R1
standards
•Cannot support an inclusionary
unit
HR&A | JKA | Danielian
FEASIBILITY IMPLICATIONS*
* Based on private developer Profit Margin (12.5%+ = Feasible)
4.A.c
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Attachment C - HR&A SaMoAHPP R1 Analysis (4928 : SB 9 Study Session
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Santa Monica AHPP 2021 Update | 9DRAFT RESULTS
100% Market 1 MI Unit 1 LI Unit 1 VLI Unit 1 ELI Unit
N. of Montana 31%18%16%15%15%
Sunset Park 19%5%2%1%-1%
PROS
•Feasible for market rate units
across the City
•May support inclusionary unit in
stronger N. of Montana market
areas (or potentially Citywide
with smaller MI inclusionary
unit)
CONS
•Would require modification to
existing R2 standards
•Would require additional
height, at least for part of lot
•Cannot support an inclusionary
unit in most casesHR&A | JKA | Danielian
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 5 Units w/ flexibility to R2 Standards
(7,500 SF Lot)
FEASIBILITY IMPLICATIONS*
* Based on private developer Profit Margin (12.5%+ = Feasible)
4.A.c
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Attachment C - HR&A SaMoAHPP R1 Analysis (4928 : SB 9 Study Session
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Santa Monica AHPP 2021 Update | 10DRAFT RESULTS
100% Market 1 MI Unit 1 LI Unit 1 VLI Unit 1 ELI Unit
N. of Montana 36%28%26%26%25%
Sunset Park 25%17%14%13%11%
PROS
•Feasible for market rate units
across the City
•Would support an inclusionary
unit across the City
CONS
•Would require substantial
modification to existing R2
standards, including additional
height
HR&A | JKA | Danielian
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 6 Units w/ flexibility to R2 Standards
(7,500 SF Lot)
FEASIBILITY IMPLICATIONS*
* Based on private developer Profit Margin (12.5%+ = Feasible)
4.A.c
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Attachment C - HR&A SaMoAHPP R1 Analysis (4928 : SB 9 Study Session
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Santa Monica AHPP 2021 Update | 11DRAFT RESULTS
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 6 Units w/ flexibility to R2 Standards
(6,750 SF Lot)
HR&A | JKA | Danielian
PROS
•Feasible for market rate units
across the City
•Would support an inclusionary
unit across the City
CONS
•Would require substantial
modification to existing R2
standards, including additional
height100% Market 1 MI Unit 1 LI Unit 1 VLI Unit 1 ELI Unit
N. of Montana 36%28%26%26%25%
Sunset Park 25%17%14%13%11%
FEASIBILITY IMPLICATIONS*
* Based on private developer Profit Margin (12.5%+ = Feasible)
4.A.c
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Attachment C - HR&A SaMoAHPP R1 Analysis (4928 : SB 9 Study Session
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mario Fonda-Bonardi <mario@fbharchitects.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 15, 2022 1:33 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:4A SB9 Study session
EXTERNAL
Hi Council members
The discussion on S9 revolves around how much over densification should the City allow before the character of the R1
is completely lost and it becomes effectively an R2 or R3 district?
One of the hinge points is should each lot split by SB9 also be allowed to have an ADU (a single R1 lot could become 4
units: 2 single family homes plus 2 ADUs). SB9 does not REQUIRE a City to allow ADU’s in each of the split lots so it
becomes an opportunity for the CIty to exercise some discretion in protecting the character of our R‐1 neighborhoods
ADUs by themselves are over‐all beneficial, but when crammed into tiny lots already split from the normal R1‐ lot size,
they can become a plague. By state laws ADUs can already be just 4’ from side and rear setback lines and up to 24’ high,
so they can present quite an invasion of privacy for all the backyards they look into, not to mention shading and parking
overload.
Therefore I would ask that you not allow ADUs in lots already split using SB9.
However if you are forced to compromise I would argue for 3 criteria before an ADU can be allowed in a lot split by
SB9.
1.The remaining lot should be at least 5000 square feet
2.It should have at least two parking spaces (not tandem)
3.No tree with a diameter greater than 3” should be removed in building the ADU
Such conditions would substantially but not perfectly protect the character of the R‐1 neighborhood.
Needless to say there is a high probability that the State will next year try to water down the few protections (such as
this not mandating ADUs in lots split by SB9) against overdensification that SB9 provides. There is no reason to do this
damage to ourselves now.
Your favorable consideration of this request is greatly appreciated.
Mario Fonda‐Bonardi AIA
Mario@fbharchitects.com
310‐699‐0374
Item 4.A 03/15/2021
1 of 1 Item 4.A 03/15/2021
4.A.d
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Written Comments (4928 : SB 9 Study Session (120 mins))