CC 2022-03-22_11b Supplemental 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 11.b. – Study Session for City Council to Provide
Direction on a New Ordinance to Implement Senate Bill 9
DATE: March 22, 2022
Attached is correspondence received prior to 4:00 p.m. for the above referenced item.
cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Community Development Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website (or public review binder)
1
Jessica Matson
From:Kevin Buchanan <
Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 10:46 AM
To:public comment
Subject:Item 11.b - SB9 Implementation
Councilmembers and staff,
I'd first like to highlight what appears to be an inaccurate interpretation of SB9 and how it applies to Arroyo
Grande. The staff report states:
As proposed in the draft ordinance, SB 9 applies to parcels located in the Single-Family zoning district. The
Residential Estate, Residential Hillside, Residential Rural, Residential Suburban, Village Residential zones, and
the Planned Development districts all allow single-family residences as an allowed use, however, based on
staff’s interpretation and guidance from the City Attorney, the City is only required to allow the provisions of
SB 9 on Single Family zoned parcels
SB9 applies to parcels "located within a single-family residential zone." It seems naive to interpret this as only
applying to a particularly named zone in our city. The fact that we have a Single-Family zone (uppercase, mind
you), which happens to be zoned for single-family residential construction, is missing the point. Residential
Estate, Residential Hillside, Residential Rural, Residential Suburban, Village Residentia are all zoned for
single-family residential only. SB9 applies to any parcel where only a single family home would be currently
allowed. I would expect legislation already in progress to clean up some of this misinterpretation (or
malfeasance) in implementing SB9 to be adopted and implemented in the coming years. In which case, if we
adopt the plan as worded above, we will simply have to revisit this ordinance. I would also expect a successful
challenge to the city's prohibition on any SB9 project in the other single-family zones, should one occur.
Regarding ADUs, as a matter of clarification, according to SB9, the city must allow an ADU on any lot created
through an urban lot split when a single family home is built on the new lot. You may only prohibit the ADU on
the new lot when a duplex is built on the same lot. Though, I'd urge you to reconsider this prohibition. The city's
current housing goals are entirely dependent on new ADUs.
Also, I'd like to highlight a couple of issues with the proposed design standards:
1. A 16 foot height limit is lower than the 30 foot height limit in single family zones. This is blatantly
discriminatory against SB9 units and mult-family homes. There is no reason duplexes should be treated
differently than single family homes in these design standards.
2. A maximum unit size of 1,200 square feet makes 3 bedroom units infeasible. It also limits the potential
financial feasibility of SB9 units. Once again, it also treats multifamily housing differently than single family
housing in the development code, for no valid reason.
Kevin Buchanan
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission