Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 13880 City of Palo Alto (ID # 13880) City Council Staff Report Meeting Date: 3/21/2022 Report Type: Action Items City of Palo Alto Page 1 Title: Adoption of an Interim Ordinance Establishing Objective Urban Lot Split Standards and Further Refinements to SB 9 Development Standards; Authorizing the Public Works Director to Publish Objective Standards Regarding Adjacent Improvements Related to SB 9 Projects; and Direction Regarding Listing Properties Eligible for Historic Status. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council consider the following motion: 1. Review and adopt proposed objective standards for urban lot splits; these standards will only apply to qualifying SB 9 projects within Palo Alto (Attachment A). 2. Adopt Interim Ordinance Refining SB 9 Regulations and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Publish Objective Standards Regarding Adjacent Public Improvements Related to SB 9 Projects (Attachment B). 3. Direct staff to implement Comprehensive Plan Program L7.1.1 to update the City’s historic inventory with properties previously determined eligible for State and National Register. Executive Summary This report continues work to adapt Palo Alto’s municipal code and associated development review processes to accommodate Senate Bill 9 (SB 9). Council has already adopted an interim ordinance to address some areas of concern while a permanent ordinance is drafted later this year. In advance of the permanent ordinance, staff have drafted objective subdivision standards for urban lot splits (Attachment A). The development of these standards and their adoption by the City Council is contemplated and referenced in the existing ordinance adopted last December. Local implementation of SB 9 to date has revealed some additional gaps and the need to identify and document objective standards related to adjacent public improvements. Adjacent public improvements include curb cuts, roadways, and other improvements necessitated by and related to private development that typically occur within or directly intersect public property (roads, curb lawn, sidewalk, etc.). Staff recommend amending the ordinance so that City of Palo Alto Page 2 the Director of Public Works can promulgate such objective standards and so they can be incorporated into the code by reference (Attachment B). Also included are some minor clarifying amendments to better align with state law. This report also discusses in greater detail efforts the City may undertake to offer further protection for historic resources, preventing the application of SB 9 to these projects; thereby limiting the risk of demolition or significant alteration of historic resources. The report discusses the strategy to enhance protection as well as the resources required to undertake and complete this work. Background On December 6, 2021, City Council adopted an urgency ordinance and continued its consideration of an interim ordinance to January. On January 10, 2022, Council approved the interim ordinance. Both the urgency and interim ordiannces seek to adapt Palo Alto’s municipal code and processes to receive and process applications under SB 9 as prescribed in state law. Attachment C contains the languge of SB 9. The remainder of the background section contains information regarding SB 9 as it pertains to urban lot splits and historic resources. The discussion section details how staff propose to create local programs that align with SB 9 and Palo Alto’s development interests. Portions of the Background section serve as a refresher, and are duplicative of previous reports. They are provided for the convenience of the Council and public. Ministerial Urban Lot Splits (Government Code Section 66411.7) Under SB 9, local agencies must ministerially approve, without discretionary review or hearing, certain urban lot splits. To qualify for ministerial approval under SB 9, the parcel to be split must be in a single-family residential zone, which in Palo Alto are the R1 and RE zones. The parcel map for the urban lot split must meet the following requirements: • Location. The project must be in an urbanized area or urban cluster, or within a city with boundaries in an urbanized area or urban cluster, as those terms are defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. The project cannot be on the site of a designated local or state historic landmark or within a local or state historic district. The project may not be on prime agricultural land, wetlands, or protected species habitat, but may be in a high or very high fire severity hazard zone, earthquake fault zone, floodplain, floodway, and site with hazardous materials so long as certain mitigation measures (as outlined in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)) have been implemented on those sites. • Parcel Size. The parcel map must subdivide an existing parcel to create no more than two parcels of approximately equal lot area, with neither resulting parcel exceeding 60 percent of the lot area of the original parcel. Additionally, both newly created parcels must be at least 1,200 square feet (unless the local agency adopts a smaller lot size). • No Prior SB 9 Lot Split. The parcel to be split may not have been established through a prior SB 9 lot split. Neither the owner nor anyone acting in concert with the owner may have previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an SB 9 lot split. City of Palo Alto Page 3 • Subdivision Map Requirements. The urban lot split must conform to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, except those that conflict with SB 9 requirements. • Protected Units. The urban lot split may not result in the demolition or alteration of affordable housing, rent-controlled housing, housing that was withdrawn from the rental market in the last 15 years, or housing occupied by a tenant in the past 3 years. • Owner-Occupancy Affidavit. The applicant must indicate, by affidavit, the applicant’s intention to reside in one of the units built on either parcel for at least three years. This requirement does not apply if the applicant is a qualified non-profit or community land trust. The City cannot impose any additional requirement related to owner occupancy. • Residential Uses. Any parcel created via SB 9 must be used for residential purposes and cannot be used for short-term rentals of less than 30 days. A parcel map application for an urban lot split that meets these criteria and otherwise qualifies for the SB 9's ministerial process is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, as is an ordinance implementing these provisions. The provisions of the California Coastal Act of 1976 are applicable to SB 9 urban lot splits; Palo Alto does not have any land located within the State defined coastal zone. A local agency may impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards to an SB 9 urban lot split, so long as those standards do not conflict with the limitations imposed by SB 9 and would not physically preclude the construction of up to two units of at least 800 square feet each. Other urban lot split limitations in SB 9 include: • Setbacks. A local agency may not require rear and side yard setbacks of more than four feet. No setback may be required for a unit constructed (1) within an existing living area, or (2) in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. • Adjacent or Connected Structures. A local agency may not deny an application for an urban lot split solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures, as long as the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. This is an exception to a local agency’s ability to require four foot setbacks, which was not reflected in the prior interim ordinance. The attached ordinance corrects this oversight. • Parking Requirements. A local agency may only require one off-street parking space per unit. No parking requirements may be imposed if the parcel is located within (1) one- half mile walking distance of either a statutorily defined high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop, or (2) one block of a car share vehicle. In Palo Alto, a block equals 600 feet. • Easements, Access, and Dedications. A local agency may require an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split to include easements necessary for the provision of public services and facilities. The local agency may also require that the resulting parcels have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way. The local agency City of Palo Alto Page 4 may not require dedications of rights-of-way or construction of new offsite improvements. • Number of Units; ADUs and JADUs. Notwithstanding the provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.1, 65852.21, 65852.22, and 65915, a local agency is not required to permit more than two units on any parcel created through the authority in SB 9, inclusive of any accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units. The standard for denying an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split is the same as for denying an SB 9 two-unit development: The local building official must make a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety, or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method by which to satisfactorily mitigate the adverse impact. Government Code Section 66452.6 – Subdivision Map Act Amendment Currently, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map expires either 24 months after its approval, or after any additional period permitted by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 12 months. SB 9 extends the limit on the additional period that may be provided by local ordinance from 12 to 24 months. Where local agencies adopt this change by ordinance, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map would expire up to 48 months after its approval if it received a 24-month extension of approval. Further Protecting Historic Resources Properties with listed historic resources are not eligible for SB 9. This helps provide protection for historic resources throughout the state, including those in Palo Alto. As noted in the prior staff report, however, there are a number of resources eligible for listing on local, state, or national historic registers that are not listed. This vulnerability and possible path forward were described in the December 2021 staff report and Council discussed the topic. In Council’s motion, part B asked that staff “assess and return with…information necessary to update the historic registry.” The Discussion section complies with the request for further information. For reference, the Inventory Update Process proposed is the “Local Inventory Nominations Process” outlined in PAMC Section 18.49.040. This section describes that owners would contact staff, submit Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) completed forms, photos, owner signature page, pay required fees, receive a recommendation from the Historic Resources Board for nomination, followed by Council action on the Consent Calendar. Note that the 165 completed DPR forms for properties determined as National Register Eligible during the 1998-2000 survey are on file with the City and with the State Office of Historic Preservation. However, these properties are not actually listed on the National Register, and 11 of these properties have since been demolished. Staff continues to send, on a yearly basis, completed DPR forms for California Register Eligible properties determined eligible since the City of Palo Alto Page 5 Comprehensive Plan update end of 2017. These properties are not actually listed on the California Register. None of the properties found eligible are protected under the City’s existing historic preservation ordinance, unless they are within a listed historic district. Discussion Proposed Objective Standards for Urban Lot Splits Council’s adopted ordinance anticipated the adoption of objective standards for lot splits. Section 21.10.040 (e)1 states: “Each parcel shall comply with any objective lot design standards for Urban Lot Splits adopted by the City Council.” If adopted, the objective lot split standards will be combined with the objective design standards and be applicable to SB 9 projects—and only to SB 9 projects. State law gives cities some latitude in designing lot split standards. Among the allowances, local jurisdictions may require “that the parcels [resulting from a lot split] have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way.” With this in mind, staff have evaluated three types of lot splits. When subdividing a lot, the street frontage requirement can largely dictate the way subdivision is designed. There are two standard ways to subdivide a typical singly family lot into two roughly proportional lots: A side-by-side split and a flag lot as shown in Figure 1 below. In addition to these two, SB 9 allows subdivision into a rear and front and connection to the public right of way via an easement. The following describes these three scenarios along with their pros and cons. 1 Section 21.10.040 (e) “Each parcel shall comply with any objective lot design standards for Urban Lot Splits adopted by the City Council.” City of Palo Alto Page 6 Side-by-Side - Example one shows a new lot line near the center of the lot where each lot has roughly the same frontage on the street. Under SB 9 the resulting lots can either be of equal size (50/50) or split 60/40, with one lot being smaller than the other. Under this configuration, resulting primary homes would face the street, mimicking the current typical development pattern in Palo Alto neighborhoods. In addition, the side-by-side allows the continuation of a rear yard pattern; though a detached ADU could be constructed in the rear yards. Nevertheless, it could have less privacy impacts on neighboring properties than the flag lot options. The center split, though, can also be challenging to realize because, in many cases, there may be an existing home on the lot. The new lot line cannot not go through the existing home. The home must be demolished before the subdivision can be approved, as it would violate Building and Fire Codes for a property line to go through an existing home. In addition, this configuration could give rise to long, narrow lots, which can give the appearance of a denser development pattern from the right of way. This gives way to the second and third options, flag lots—with and without easements. Flag Lots – Flag lot subdivisions are currently out of step with local development standards. Prior to SB 9, new flag lots were not allowed in the R-1 zone districts, except in cases where the flag lot protects an historic resource. Now, the City must approve flag lots in the R-1 zone districts if proposed for development under SB 9. While generally disfavored in Palo Alto in the R-1 zones but allowed in other zone districts, flag lot subdivisions do facilitate preservation of some or all of an existing home, which would help City of Palo Alto Page 7 preserve existing housing stock and allow an applicant to pursue a subdivision that wouldn’t by definition require demolition of the existing home. One drawback of the flag lot configurations is that the small sizes of the resulting lots combined with the four-foot rear setbacks mean that new SB 9 homes may be in closer proximity to the rear yards of neighboring properties. In addition, if the rear home is two stories and the front home is one (which may happen if an existing one-story home is preserved); this would be unusual in Palo Alto generally and may create privacy impacts. For applicants, the flag lot—without easement—may reduce the floor area available for development. This is because the “flagpole” reduces the dimensions of the front lot and thereby reduces the developable area. Flag Lot with Easement – The draft lot split standards propose to allow (and require) flag lots created through easements only if the initial lot has a frontage less than 50 feet. This promotes the side-by-side and flag lot options as superior. In addition, under the easement option, the width of the flag is reduced to the minimum required for vehicular access to the rear property; this is 10 feet. This process also has additional steps in the recordation process to ensure that the easement is appropriately memorialized. In summary, the lot split standards propose to allow all subdivision types, though certain conditions are required: • Side-by-side split – Allowed in all situations • Flag lot – Allowed in all situations • Flag lot with easement – Allowed (and required) only on lots less than 50’ wide. Preferred Development Pattern SB 9 is a very new law and much remains untested. At this time, Council may wish to adopt the proposed standards, have the recommending bodies and staff collaborate on permenent policies, and take information regarding actual applications into consideration when the permanent ordinance is reviewed later this year. Or, Council may prefer to communicate a preferred lot development pattern at this time. Council may wish to discourage the side-by-side split option in order to preserve wider lots as the predominant development pattern in Palo Alto. To preserve wider lots, the City could require a minimum frontage of 30’ under SB 9 for the side-by-side split option to be available. Any lot split that would result in a lot with less than 30’ of street frontage would need to avail itself of the flag lot option. Establishing a minimum lot width of 30’ (as opposed to the current standard 60’) would mean that, in cases where space was insufficient to split near the center, the applicant would pursue either of the flag lot options. The greatest downside to this minimum frontage is that it may City of Palo Alto Page 8 lead to more flag lots, which may lead to more homes built in the rear, and thus with greater adjacencies to neighboring yards. Lots that can choose the side-by-side option would result in longer and narrower lots than typically allowed by today’s lot standards. While longer and narrower, it is easier for an applicant to leave a back yard because both lots have buildable area closer to the street. Conversely, Council may wish to discourage flat lots. In this context, flag lots would only be permitted on narrow lots. For example, lots that are less than 50’ wide (or another width). This would encourage use of the side-by-side choice. If Council has no preference between the lot split options, no change is needed to the staff recommendation. If Council prefers to require a minimum of 30’ of lot street frontage, that can be added to the lot split standards. Further Shaping of Lots A number of other standards are proposed to shape the resulting lots and homes on the lots. These are available for Council consideration in Attachment A. Historic Preservation Unless historic resources are listed on the local inventory or the state and national registers, including listed historic districts, they are not protected from demolition under SB 9. In order to protect more resources already deemed eligible for State or national registers, the City could act to ensure that eligible properties become listed on the local Inventory of historic resources. Council will need to (1) direct staff and the Historic Resources Board to undertake this work in the upcoming or future work plan and (2) appropriate resources for consultant support to carry out the requisite research and project management. This would serve to implement Comprehensive Plan program L7.1.1. The program states that the City shall: “Update and maintain the City’s Historic Resources Inventory to include historic resources that are eligible for local, State, or federal listing. Historic resources may consist of a single building or structure or a district.” Without qualified historic preservation professionals on staff, PDS would need to contract for this work. In addition, given the constraints on staffing and this project being non-revenue backed (not paid for by permit fees), the City will need contract project management as well. The consultant resources would perform necessary analysis, outreach to property owners, and prepare materials for the HRB and Council to place the properties on the City’s local inventory. This process is described in the background section. Staff estimate the cost of the consultant services to be approximately $50,000; though this estimate must be finalized. Public Works Objective Standards Since the adoption of the interim ordinances, staff have recognized a need to thoroughly address adjacent public improvements. Adjacent public improvements include curb cuts, City of Palo Alto Page 9 roadways, and other improvements related to private development that typically occur within or directly intersect public property (roads, curb lawn, sidewalk, etc.) that the builder of a new home must provide. Staff recommend amending the ordinance so that the Director of Public Works can promulgate such standards and so they can be incorporated into the code by reference (Attachment B). While there are typical standards for adjacent public improvements applied by the Public Works Department to a range of development projects, they are not documented and applied in such a way to be considered objective standards. Therefore, it is not possible to impose the standards on SB 9 projects and keep the projects ministerial. Similar to the development of lot split standards, staff recommend adding language to the regular ordinance allowing the Director of Public Works to promulgate objective adjacent public improvement standards. Examples of standards include allowable curb cuts, distances between curb cuts for driveways, reconstruction of sidewalk and/or curb lawns. Specifying these in objective ways will ensure that SB 9 projects are better connected into the neighborhood fabric. Policy Implications & Resource Impact The primary policy implications for these recommendations are described in the discussion section. Overall, further refinement of the lot split standards will occur through the Planning and Transportation Commission’s deliberation and ultimate recommendation. This discussion, coupled with a few months of experience processing applications, will ensure that the revised permanent ordanince addresses policy implications that have been identified as well as those that have yet to be identified. The historic reosurce protection strategy will require additional resources. While the consultant resources will amplify the City’s ability to pursue the project oversight of the consultant, communication with property owners, and work with the HRC and Council will require significant staff time. This will detract from other already identified Council proirities. If Council asks staff to move forward with this work item, Council will identify other assignments that will be delayed. In this way, the resource impact has policy implications, primarily that other policy work will not occur as quickly. The development of the adjacent public improvement standards will require staff time, but will not require consultant dollars. Public Works staff remain under similar staff challenges as PDS, with a number of vacancies in key roles supporting the development of these standards and processing of permit applications. Nevertheless, since standards already exist—they are simply not objective—the process to reframe and adjust these standards may not add a significant workload to staff. Timeline Adoption of the lot split standards will take affect immediately, as they are already referenced City of Palo Alto Page 10 in the ordinace. Until adopted, the standards cannot be applied to projects. The historic resource protection work can be undertaken after allocation of budget and successful execution of a contract with a qualified historic resource firm with appropriate project management resources. The adjacent public improvement standards can be developed and become active upon their approvel by the Director of the Department of Public Works. Stakeholder Engagement The lot split and adjacent public improvement standards, similar to the prior ordinances, did not have the benefit of public engagement because the City is rapidly responding to newly adopted and effective state laws. The more robust development of the permanent ordinance will include outreach with a variety of local stakeholders, including residents and design professionals. To ensure the City’s preferences are protected in the immediate future, staff recommend adoption of standards and amendment of the ordinance to allow creation of adjacent public improvement standards. The historic preservation component benefited from the input of the Historic Resources Board as well as any public comments that occurred during the public hearing. In addition to the members of the public, two council members attended the HRB retreat as well. If approved for the work plan, the item will also be considered again by Council as will the funding of the appropriation. Each of these decision points provides additional opportunities for public comments. Environmental Review The proposals are not projects as defined by the California Environmental Resources Act. Resource Impact Funding for work related to updating the historic resources inventory in FY 22 is within budgeted levels adopted by the City Council; no additional funding is requested at this time. However, if there are any additional costs in FY 23, staff may return with a funding request to complete this work. The total cost is not expected to exceed $50,000. Attachments: • Attachment A: Urban Lot Split Objective Standards • Attachment B Ordinance Modifying Ch 18.42 and Ch 21.10 to Further Implement SB9 • Attachment C: SB 9 Summary ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED OBJECTIVE LOT DESIGN STANDARDS Proposed Objective Lot Design Standards: a. Lot Typologies (1) Side-by-side. One lot line shall divide the property from front to rear, with street frontages for both lots. (2) Flag Lot. Two property lines shall divide the property to create a new flag lot. The “flagpole” shall be at least 15 feet wide. (3) Flag Lot with Easement. Substandard lots less than 50 feet in width shall create a 10-foot access easement to create access to the rear lot. (b) Development Standards Side-by-Side Lots Flag Lot Lot Split on lot less than 50 feet in width Configuration All lots shall meet one of the three typologies as described in (a) Flag lot configuration required on lots deeper than 200 ft Typology (a) (3) only Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 1,200 Maximum Lot Size None Maximum Lot Split Ratio 60%/40% Minimum Street Frontage (ft) 25 15 Easement Maximum Number of New Lot Lines 2 (1) Shared Driveway Required (2) (3) (1) One property line may be used to divide an existing lot into two side-by-side lots. Two property lines may be used to create a flag lot. No more than two new lot lines may be added. The new lot lines, as far as practicable, shall be parallel or at right angles to straight streets or radial to curved streets. (2) A shared driveway shall be comprised of a single curb cut that extends for at least 10 ft before branching to two or more parking spaces. A recorded access easement is required. (3) The two lots shall share a single driveway, unless sharing a driveway would require demolition of existing structures proposed to be retained. If sharing a driveway would require such demolition, no more than 2 curb cuts, one per each lot, will be permitted. The curb cuts must be at least 20’ apart per 12.08.060 (a) (9) (A); drive aisle dimensions per 18.54.070 table 6. NOT YET ADOPTED 1 0160067_20220309_ay16 Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Modifying Chapters 18.42 (Standard for Special Uses) and 21.10 (Parcel Maps for Urban Lot Splits) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Further Implement Senate Bill 9 The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which requires, among other things, that local agencies ministerially approve both two-unit construction and urban lot splits on single-family zoned lots. B. SB 9 authorizes the creation of lots as small as 1,200 square feet and requires approval of two residential units of at least 800 square feet (for a total of 1,600 square feet) each on such lots. This represents a significant departure from existing minimum lot sizes and development standards in Palo Alto’s single-family zones. C. SB 9 authorizes local jurisdictions to apply objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, subject to certain limitations in statute. D. On January 24, 2022, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5542. E. The City Council now desires to modify Interim Ordinance No. 5542 to clarify its terms and to adopt additional standards for lot splits. F. There is insufficient time for consideration of and recommendation on objective standards related to SB 9 by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) prior to action by the City Council. The Council therefore declares that an interim ordinance, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.80.090 is an appropriate measure to adopt standards, pending consideration of a permanent ordinance by the PTC. SECTION 2. Section 18.42.180 (Interim Standards for Two Units on Single Family Zoned Lots Pursuant to Senate Bill 9) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 18.42.180 Interim Standards for Two Units on Single Family Zoned Lots Pursuant to Senate Bill 9. [. . .] NOT YET ADOPTED 2 0160067_20220309_ay16 (e) Development Standards. (1) A project proposing two dwelling units on a parcel in the R-1 or RE districts shall be subject to the development standards set forth in Chapters 18.12 and 18.10, respectively except as provided herein. (2) All construction pursuant to this section shall comply with objective design standards adopted by the City Council. However, an applicant seeking to deviate from the objective design standards (except to the extent necessary to construct a unit of 800 square feet) may elect to submit an application under the base requirements of Chapters 18.10, or 18.12, including, if applicable, Single Family Individual Review. (3) If the application of any development standard or design standard would necessarily require that one or more proposed units be less than 800 square feet, such standard shall be relaxed to the minimum extent necessary to allow construction of a unit or units of at least 800 square feet. The Director may publish regulations governing the order in which objective standards shall be waived or relaxed in such circumstances. (4) Setbacks from side and rear property lines, including street-side property lines, shall be no less than four feet, except in the case of existing non-complying structures or structures reconstructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure, in which case existing setbacks less than four feet may be maintained. No setback is required from an internal lot line newly created pursuant to Chapter 21.10, for adjacent or connected structures separated by the new lot line, provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. (5) Off-street parking shall be provided pursuant to Chapters 18.52 and 18.54. (6) In the event that a project is proposed on a site that has been subject to an Urban Lot Split under Chapter 21.10, and the project would result in three or more detached units across the two parcels created by the urban lot split, any new units shall not exceed 800 square feet. (7) Accessory structures, such as garages and shed are permitted consistent with the provisions of the zoning district; however, no accessory structure shall have a floor area exceeding 500 square feet. [. . .] SECTION 3. Sections 21.10.030 (Applicability), 21.10.040 (General Requirements), and 21.10.050 (Application and Review of an Urban Lot Split) of Chapter 21.10 (Urban Lot Splits) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of land) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are amended to read as follows: 21.10.030 Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply only to lots in the R-1 district (and R-1 subdistricts) or R-E zone district. Except as modified by this Chapter, all provisions of Title 21 shall apply to an NOT YET ADOPTED 3 0160067_20220309_ay16 application for urban lot split. An urban lot split is not available in any of the following circumstances: [. . .] Section 21.10.040 General Requirements (a) The minimum size for a parcel created by an Urban Lot Split is 1,200 square feet. (b) The lots created by an Urban Lot Split must be of approximately equal area, such that no resulting parcel shall be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision. (c) Each parcel created by an Urban Lot Split shall adjoin the public right of way by means of a minimum fifteen foot street frontage. (c) (d) Where existing dwelling units on the property are to remain, no lot line may be created under this Chapter in a manner that would bisect any structure or that would result in more than two dwelling units on any resulting parcel. (d) (e) Newly created lot lines shall not render an existing structure noncomplying in any respect (e.g. floor area ratio, lot coverage, parking), nor increase the degree of noncompliance of an existing noncompliant structure. (e) (f) Each parcel shall comply with any objective lot design standards for Urban Lot Splits adopted by the City Council. (f) The Director of Public Works may promulgate standards for adjacent public improvements, such as curb cuts and sidewalks, in relation to an urban lot split. (g) Utility easements shall be shown on the parcel map, and recorded prior to, or concurrent with final parcel map recordation. (h) A covenant necessary for maintenance of stormwater treatment facilities shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with final map recordation. (i) Existing driveways to be demolished shall follow the procedure(s) in 12.08.090 Elimination of abandoned driveway. (j) A maintenance agreement shall be recorded to ensure shared maintenance of any shared access easements, stormwater treatment, landscaping and private utilities, prior to final parcel map recordation. The Director of Planning shall determine the appropriate fee required for an application for parcel map for an Urban Lot Split, which may be the fee currently established for a Preliminary Parcel Map or Parcel Map. Section 21.10.050 Application and Review of an Urban Lot Split (a) The director of planning is authorized to promulgate regulations, forms, and/or checklists setting forth application requirements for a parcel map for an Urban Lot Split under this Chapter. An application shall include an affidavit from the property owner, signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of California, that: (1) The proposed urban lot split would not require or authorize demolition or alteration of any of the housing described in Section 21.10.030, subdivision (e). (2) The proposed urban lot split is not on a parcel described in Section 21.10.030. NOT YET ADOPTED 4 0160067_20220309_ay16 (3) The owner intends to occupy one of the housing units located on a lot created by the parcel map as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the recording of the parcel map. (4) The rental of any unit on the property shall be for a term longer than 30 consecutive days. (5) The resulting lots will be for residential uses only. (b) A parcel map for an Urban Lot Split must be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in accordance with Government Code sections 66444 – 66450 and this Chapter. Unless more specific regulations are adopted by the director of planning, the parcel map shall be in the form and include all of the information required of a Preliminary Parcel Map by Chapter 21.12, as well as any additional information required of a Parcel Map by Chapter 21.16. In addition, the face of the Parcel Map shall contain a declaration that: (1) Each lot created by the parcel map shall be used solely for residential dwellings. (2) That no more than two dwelling units may be permitted on each lot. (3) That rental of any dwelling unit on a lot created by the parcel map shall be for a term longer than 30 consecutive days. (4) A lot created by a parcel map under this Chapter shall not be further subdivided. (c) Upon receipt of a parcel map for an Urban Lot Split, the director of planning shall transmit copies to the city engineer, chief building official, director of utilities, chief of police, fire chief, director of transportation, and such other departments of the city, and any other agencies, as may be required by law or deemed appropriate. (d) The director of planning shall cause a notice of the pending application to be posted at the site of the proposed Urban Lot Split and for notice to be mailed to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the property. (e) The director of planning shall ministerially review and approve a parcel map for Urban Lot Split if they determine that the parcel map application meets all requirements of this Chapter. The director of planning shall deny a parcel map application that does not meet any requirement of this Chapter. (f) The Director of Planning shall determine the appropriate fee required for an application for parcel map for an Urban Lot Split, which may be the fee currently established for a Preliminary Parcel Map or Parcel Map. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 5. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the following reasons. Under Government Code Sections 66411.7(n) and 65852.21(j), an ordinance adopted to implement the requirements of SB 9 shall not be considered a project under CEQA. NOT YET ADOPTED 5 0160067_20220309_ay16 SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services SB 9 Summary SB 9 (Atkins) Housing Development This bill: 1) Requires a city to ministerially approve either or both of the following, as specified: a. A housing development of no more than two units (Two-Family as defined in Palo Alto Zoning Code but commonly referred to as “duplex”) in a single-family zone. b. The subdivision of a parcel zoned for residential use, into two approximately equal parcels (lot split), as specified. 2) Requires that a development or parcel to be subdivided must be located within an urbanized area or urban cluster and prohibits it from being located on any of the following: a. Prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance; b. Wetlands; c. Land within the very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the development complies with state mitigation requirements; d. A hazardous waste site; e. An earthquake fault zone; f. Land within the 100-year floodplain or a floodway; g. Land identified for conservation under a natural community conservation plan, or lands under conservation easement; h. Habitat for protected species; or i. A site located within a historic or landmark district, or a site that has a historic property or landmark under state or local law, as specified. 3) Prohibits demolition or alteration of an existing unit of rent-restricted housing, housing that has been the subject of an Ellis Act eviction within the past 15 years, or that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. 4) Prohibits demolition of more than 25% of the exterior walls of an existing structure unless the local ordinance allows greater demolition or if the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. 5) Authorizes a city to impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design review standards that do not conflict with this bill, except: a. A city shall not impose objective standards that would physically preclude 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. A city may, however, require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines. SB 9 Summary b. A city shall not require a setback for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as the existing structure. 6) Prohibits a city from requiring more than one parking space per unit for either a proposed duplex or a proposed lot split. Prohibits a city from imposing any parking requirements if the parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, or if there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. 7) Authorizes a local agency to deny a housing project otherwise authorized by this bill if the building official makes a written finding based upon the preponderance of the evidence that the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon health and safety or the physical environment and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. 8) Requires a city to prohibit rentals of less than 30 days. 9) Prohibits a city from rejecting an application solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures, provided the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. 10) Provides that a city shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) in addition to units approved under this bill. 11) Requires a city to include the number of units constructed and the number of applications for lot splits under this bill, in its annual progress report (APR). 12) Requires a city to ministerially approve a parcel map for a lot split only if the local agency determines that the parcel map for the urban lot split meets the following requirements, in addition to the requirements for eligible parcels that apply to both duplex and lot splits: a. The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than two new parcels of approximately equal size, provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40% of the lot area of the original parcel. b. Both newly created parcels are at least 1,200 square feet, unless the city adopts a small minimum lot size by ordinance. c. The parcel does not contain rent-restricted housing, housing where an owner has exercised their rights under the Ellis Act within the past 15 years or has been occupied by tenants in the past three years. d. The parcel has not been established through prior exercise of an urban lot split. e. Neither the owner of the parcel, or any person acting in concert with the owner, has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split. SB 9 Summary 13) Requires a city to approve a lot split if it conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act not except as otherwise expressly provided in this bill. Prohibits a city from imposing regulations that require dedicated rights-of-way or the construction of offsite improvements for the parcels being created, as a condition of approval. 14) Authorizes a city to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that do not conflict with this bill. A city may, however, require easements or that the parcel have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way. 15) Provides that a local government shall not be required to permit more than two units on a parcel. 16) Prohibits a city from requiring, as a condition for ministerial approval of a lot split, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions. 17) Requires a local government to require an applicant for an urban lot split to 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 the approval of lot split, unless the applicant is a community land trust, as defined, or a qualified nonprofit corporation, as defined. 18) Provides that no additional owner occupancy standards may be imposed other than those contained within 17) above, and that requirement expires after five years. 19) Allows a city to adopt an ordinance to implement the urban lot split requirements and duplex provisions and provides that those ordinances are not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 20) Allows a city to extend the life of subdivision maps by one year, up to a total of four years.