San Carlos officials adopted temporary development guidelines for construction on subdivisions in a stated effort to preserve local control after controversial state legislation permitting up to four developments on one lot took effect early this year.
“I do think this is a threat and it’s a threat to local governance. It’s another example of Sacramento knows best versus working with us as a partner,” Vice Mayor Adam Rak said during a meeting Monday. “By enacting this urgency ordinance it allows us to do our job locally and to put in an ordinance that better reflects what our community views and visions are.”
Effective Jan. 1, Senate Bill 9 requires jurisdictions to permit a single split of lots zoned single-family residential with up to two units per lot, leaving it up to the city to decide whether to permit accessory dwelling units on the lots. Up to four units, including two primary units, an ADU and a junior accessory dwelling unit, are permitted on an unsubdivided lot. Units built on SB 9 subdivisions are permitted by the state to be at least 800 square feet but cities have the discretion to permit additional footage.
Under the urgency, the city will limit two primary units on each subdivided lot, prohibiting ADUs or JADUs, and up to four units will be permitted on subdivided lots with ADUs and JADUs. A maximum of 800 square feet will be allowed per new SB 9 unit.
Of the city’s 8,100 single-family zoned parcels, about 6,400 would qualify for an SB 9 subdivision, said Senior Management Analyst Sajuti Haque, citing a study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley.
“It can really alter the long-standing character of single zoned neighborhoods throughout California including San Carlos by allowing the subdivision of single-family parcels,” Haque said. “Without an urgency ordinance, SB 9 projects could be developed in an unorderly fashion or may even lead to multiple interpretations of the state law both between applicants and staff.”
Recommended for you
The urgency ordinance has a 45-day expiration period but staff intends on requesting an extension on Feb. 10, which could add an additional 10 months and 15 days to staff’s schedule. In that time, they plan on conducting public outreach and meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council to draft a more permanent policy.
Responding to some public criticism that the urgency ordinance is anti-housing, councilmembers restated their commitment to growing the city’s housing inventory with an emphasis on affordable housing. Councilmembers also cited concerns for potential unintentional consequences of the legislation which Councilmember John Dugan called “vague,” adding that action is necessary to clarify standards for all stakeholders.
“I do not consider this the first draft of the permanent ordinance,” Dugan said. “I think we have a lot of work to do. I think we have a lot of people to hear from and a lot of things to think through before we do craft what will be a permanent ordinance.”
“I do think this is a threat and it’s a threat to local governance” — Vice Mayor Adam Rak.
No, Adam, it’s a result of many cities, San Carlos among them, ignoring the housing crisis for years while simultaneously enriching themselves by grabbing every commercial development opportunity in sight. If local councils had bothered to have even a shred of awareness that the people they represent are part of larger communities Sacramento would not have had to take action, even the limited action they actually did.
Councilmembers represent the people in their communities. But they need to also care about people in general, particularly the people they profit from.
While you were on council was it only others who "ignor[ed] the housing crisis for years while simultaneously enriching themselves by grabbing every commercial development opportunity in sight:?
The draft of the urgency ordinance was posted only 4 days before the meeting, which made it difficult to provide input. I am concerned about the 800 square foot max, which is also the minimum according to state law. There is clearly more room than that on even a typical 5000 square foot lot, never mind some of our larger lots. I think people forget that these “subdivisions” will be primarily generated by resident owners as the law is written. And I agree with Mark’s comment.
It is concerning that the elected members of San Carlos view the creation of some duplexes as an "immediate threat to the public peace, health, welfare, and safety of the City’s single-family neighborhoods" I don't think the use of an urgency ordinance was to protect "neighborhoods" they aren't people, they don't vote. Very sad perspective.
"(1) The continued approval of the development of multifamily housing projects would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the ordinance is adopted by the legislative body."
Congrats to San Carlos officials for proving that SB 9 is not in the interests of a community. Let’s hope more city officials do the same and relegate SB 9 to the special interest dustbin. If anything, cities should keep delaying implementation until other communities experience SB 9 changes - and see what happens to those communities.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(6) comments
“I do think this is a threat and it’s a threat to local governance” — Vice Mayor Adam Rak.
No, Adam, it’s a result of many cities, San Carlos among them, ignoring the housing crisis for years while simultaneously enriching themselves by grabbing every commercial development opportunity in sight. If local councils had bothered to have even a shred of awareness that the people they represent are part of larger communities Sacramento would not have had to take action, even the limited action they actually did.
Councilmembers represent the people in their communities. But they need to also care about people in general, particularly the people they profit from.
While you were on council was it only others who "ignor[ed] the housing crisis for years while simultaneously enriching themselves by grabbing every commercial development opportunity in sight:?
But I do agree with what you are saying.
The draft of the urgency ordinance was posted only 4 days before the meeting, which made it difficult to provide input. I am concerned about the 800 square foot max, which is also the minimum according to state law. There is clearly more room than that on even a typical 5000 square foot lot, never mind some of our larger lots. I think people forget that these “subdivisions” will be primarily generated by resident owners as the law is written. And I agree with Mark’s comment.
It is concerning that the elected members of San Carlos view the creation of some duplexes as an "immediate threat to the public peace, health, welfare, and safety of the City’s single-family neighborhoods" I don't think the use of an urgency ordinance was to protect "neighborhoods" they aren't people, they don't vote. Very sad perspective.
"(1) The continued approval of the development of multifamily housing projects would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the ordinance is adopted by the legislative body."
Congrats to San Carlos officials for proving that SB 9 is not in the interests of a community. Let’s hope more city officials do the same and relegate SB 9 to the special interest dustbin. If anything, cities should keep delaying implementation until other communities experience SB 9 changes - and see what happens to those communities.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.