HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC INPUT ITEM #5 CRLA 10 California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
360 Grand Ave, #323
Oakland,CA 94612
May 24, 2022
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re: SB 9 Ordinance - Minimum Lot Size and Unit Design Standards
Dear Tustin Planning Commission and City Attorney,
The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) submits
this letter to inform the Tustin Planning Commission that they have an obligation to
abide by all relevant state housing laws when amending the Tustin Municipal Code
pertaining to regulations for the subdivision and development of qualified Senate Bill
9 properties. The California HOME Act (SB 9) mandates local jurisdictions, such as the
City of Tustin, to ministerially approve "without discretionary review or a hearing"
two residential units within a single-family residential zone and the subdivision of
one lot into two in any single-unit dwelling zone that satisfies the applicability
requirements outlined in the statute (see, Gov. Code § 65852.21(a)(1)-(6),
66411.7(a)(1)-(3)). Tustin's proposed ordinance is in violation of SB 9.
The reasoning behind this level of state intervention in local development
policy is clear. To address our state's massive housing shortage, we must find every
way we can to create new homes. SB 9 is intended to support the increased supply of
homes by encouraging the building of smaller houses on existing or subdivided lots,
thereby contributing to the creation of more equitable and inclusive neighborhoods.
I. Minimum Lot Size Requirement
Tustin's proposed ordinance applies a minimum lot size requirement for
existing lots using a subdivision under SB 9. For properties pursuing an urban lot
split, SB 9 requires that "both newly created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square
feet" (Section 66411.7(a)(2)(B)). Under SB 9, local agencies may establish a smaller
minimum lot size for new lots resulting from subdivisions, but cannot require the new
lots to be larger (Section 66411.7(a)(B)).
The proposed ordinance states that "the existing lot shall be a minimum of
3,000 square feet" (Sec. 2-928o(K)(2)). Under state law, Tustin cannot enforce this
excessive requirement. In accordance with SB 9, Tustin can only require that each
resulting lot be at least 1,200 square feet. The existing lot size requirement will
preclude the development of SB 9 housing units on all properties smaller than 3,000
square feet that would otherwise be eligible. The result of the proposed ordinance
would be to prohibit lot splits where state law requires they must be allowed, on lots
between 2,40o and 3,000 square feet. The ordinance should be amended to simply
require lots created under an SB 9 lot split be 1,200 square feet, mirroring the state law
mandate.
II. Development Standards Applied to Ministerial Developments Must be
Objective
Tustin's proposed ordinance applies development standards specifically to
housing developments taking advantage of SB 9. State law does give this authority to
local governments, but the authority is subject to certain limitations. First, these
development standards cannot physically preclude the development of a duplex with
two 800 square foot homes. (Section 65852.21(b)(2)(A)). Second, all of the
development standards must qualify as objective standards as defined under the
statute. (Section 65852.21(b)(1), (i)(2)).
The proposed ordinance requires that SB 9 developments "shall be compatible
with the existing primary dwelling unit in exterior materials, color, and dominant
roof pitch" (Sec. 2-928o(J)(11)(a)). This is clearly not an objective standard. Both the
California Department of Housing and Community Development, and the California
courts have ruled against standards involving lesser degrees of personal, subjective
judgment than trying to judge architectural style. (See, e.g. (California Renters Legal
Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo, 68 Cal.APP.5th 820 (2021)). The
Planning Commission should remove this requirement from the proposed ordinance.
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide
crisis-level housing shortage, and new housing is a public benefit. By abiding by SB 9,
Tustin will bring increased tax revenue, new customers to local businesses,
decarbonization in the face of the climate crisis, but most importantly, it will reduce
the displacement of existing residents into homelessness or carbon-heavy car
commutes. Imposing an affordability requirement on SB 9 units will inhibit Tustin's
opportunity to construct badly needed housing. We ask that the Commission amend
the ordinance to bring the proposal into compliance with state law, as outlined in this
letter.
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - hi@carlaef.org
36o Grand Ave, #323,Oakland,California 94612
CaRLA is a 501(03 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating
for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including
low-income households.You may learn more about CaRLA at www.carlaef.or .
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
Executive Director
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - hi@carlaef.org
36o Grand Ave, #323,Oakland,California 94612