HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/8/2021 Item 6a, Rowley
Christian, Kevin
From:RQN of SLO <rqn.board@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, December 1, 2021 10:27 PM
To:Corey, Tyler
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:Fw: Item 6b, SB9 Presentation - History Repeats
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Tyler, please transmit this to the Planning Commissioners. Thank you!
Dear Planning Commission Members,
If the City Council does not act on our below recommendation, request that you send a strong
recommendation to them that they agendize this issue as soon as possible BEFORE January 1st. Special
meetings will need to be scheduled, but with staff's assistance this can be done.
We were wrong not to address the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) mandates of SB1069 in 2016 until after
the fact. Do we want to approach SB9 mandates regarding, with lot split, up to four units plus two ADU's
on single-family properties similarly and make the same mistake twice or can we learn from our mistakes?
SB1069 included the sentence, "An application received after January 1st shall be considered ministerially
without discretionary review or a hearing if a local jurisdiction has not passed their own ordinance
between the time the bill was approved and January 1, 2017." It nullified the parts of our Muni Code
pertaining to ADU's - even though many of those provisions were in the bill, and this was not corrected
until our new ordinance became effective on July 6, 2017.
SB9 also includes the sentence, "An application received after January 1st shall be considered ministerially
without discretionary review or a hearing if a local jurisdiction has not passed their own ordinance
between the time the bill was approved and January 1, 2022." Should we now think that the sentence
means something different this time - that high fire areas will be exempt, that historical districts and
properties will be exempt, that design criteria and height/size restrictions like those contained in SB9 will
be in effect, etc., etc.? That wasn't how it worked before.
If I am wrong, a number of people will have worked overtime to produce an ordinance - first an
emergency ordinance before January 1st (which will provide another 45 days to finalize an ordinance)
followed by those 45 days of more work. If I am correct, we will be forced to live with outcomes that
never would have been approved.
Other cities are working diligently on this. What do they know that we don't?
Sincerely,
1
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: RQN of SLO <rqn.board@yahoo.com>
To: Erica Stewart <estewart@slocity.org>; Carlyn Christianson <cchristi@slocity.org>; Andy Pease
<apease@slocity.org>; jmarx@slocity.org <jmarx@slocity.org>; mshoresman@slocity.org <mshoresman@slocity.org>;
City Council <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Cc: CityClerk <cityclerk@slocity.org>; djohnson@slocity.org <djohnson@slocity.org>; mcodron@slocity.org
<mcodron@slocity.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021, 3:04:10 PM PST
Subject: Public Comment - History Repeats
Dear Mayor Stewart and Members of the Council,
We implore you to direct staff to begin work immediately on an emergency ordinance to carry
implementing rules for SB9 across the new year and to schedule special meetings for yourselves and the
Planning Commission to do so.
Senate Bill 9 states: An application received after January 1st shall be considered ministerially without
discretionary review or a hearing if a local jurisdiction has not passed their own ordinance between the
time the bill was approved and January 1, 2022.
The same stipulation was included in Senate Bill 1069 in 2016. Senate Bill 1069 regarding accessory
dwelling units (ADU’s) was approved on September 27, 2016, and became effective on January 1,
2017. Unlike in other cities, our staff was not directed by Council to work on an ordinance until about
Spring 2017; our ordinance became effective on July 5, 2017.
The result of this lapse was that 77 applications for ADU construction were received during the period
January 1 to July 5, 2017. These plans had to be approved ministerially, i.e., they did not have to adhere
to any of the policies we had in place because we did not reiterate these policies before January 1st.
History is repeating itself. Senate Bill 9 allows up to four units plus ADU’s with the ability to split the lot,
on what is now a single-family parcel. It was approved on September 16, 2021 and will become effective
on January 1, 2022. This bill contains the same stipulation: Local jurisdictions shall pass their own (new)
ordinance or applications shall be approved ministerially.
Shouldn’t we at a minimum look at what other jurisdictions are doing and consider:
– Protections for Very-high and High fire hazard areas
– Protections for Historical districts and properties
– That applicants for a lot split must live in one of the homes for the next three years
– Elimination of lots that have already been split
– Interim design criteria and height/size restrictions like those contained in SB9
– Restrictions on demolishing current rental units like those contained in SB9
– Provision that any new unit would be rented for 30 consecutive days
– Protections for wildlife habitat
– Restriction of rent in one of the primary units as affordable to moderate income households
– Additional protections, provisions and restrictions
2
We are supposed to learn from our mistakes. Not doing anything for several months in 2016-17 was a
mistake! Please... let’s learn from that and develop an emergency ordinance. Doing so will give the
Council, staff and City residents time to review and examine SB9 and our local codes, and develop a well-
thought-out ordinance that considers our unique local conditions.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
3