Conditions for Urban Lot Split SB9

[kwilson]

We are working on a lot split (one lot into two) on a site on the west side of the San Jose valley. The city has created umpteen requests for the tentative map including a creek cross section, offer of dedication for additional right of way, delineation of existing and proposed utilities.

One of the parcels has a secondary dwelling unit on it that will now become the primary dwelling for that parcel. It has no garage. It is the only structure on this parcel. The other parcel has a single family residence and a detached garage.

Now they have approved the tentative map and one condition of approval is to actually build a new garage for the parcel that has the secondary dwelling unit. This must be done before final approval of the map.

Am I crazy or is this a gross abuse of the intent of SB9?

[Warren Smith]

That sounds like a condition of approval for "after the map is approved and filed". That is, a disclosure to a buyer that the new parcel is not fully developed, and will require this condition to be met. This has an impact on the negotiated sales price.

I don't see it as a gross abuse, but an indication of a prudent step that might be taken by the landowner in advance of finalizing the map. That is, its cost is likely to be borne by him now or later. And not the hill to defend at all costs.

[PLS7393]

I have recently seen the Planning Departments (who make up the Conditions of Approval) to expand their wants "as they please", not necessarily "Needs". Planning feels they can do whatever they want, and not following what they should be doing.

An example on a regular PM (Not SB9); I just got an Approval Letter for a Tent. PM after five (5) rounds. Yes the owner wanted to submit site development plans associated with the Tent. PM, but that's another story only wasting addition time.

The letter states "Congratulations! Your Tentative Parcel Map and Site Plan Review application . . . was approved by the City of ***** Planning Manager on March 11, 2025". "Notification of this approval has been mailed to owners and occupants" (maybe renters?) "within 300' of the project site" If no appeal is received within 15 days of the date of the mailing (by 5:00 PM, March 26), this approval will become effective on March 27, and you may proceed with the applications for a Parcel Map."

Does this mean if one appeal comes in, there will be additional delays, lol. Just more facts of craziness (like Ken said) that yes planning departments may be using their powers that they don't really understand how the process (or requirements) works.

[Warren Smith]

If this City has an ordinance which somehow bypasses the public hearing on a tentative map, that does not sound right. Notices are typically mailed out in advance of the public hearing (usually by the Planning Commission, but sometimes delegated to an officer such as the County Surveyor). There is an appeal period after the hearing, after which the approval is binding.

The request for improvement plans is standard for a vesting tentative map.

[PLS7393]

The request for improvement plans is standard for a vesting tentative map.

Warren, to my understanding a property owner can subdivide land to sell off a lot for a custom build to the likings of the new owner, yes?

Be it a SB9 or regular PM, like Ken said, it's crazy the cities think they can put Conditional Statements on a PM, which are all part of the Site Development Process, period.

Since Ken and I both work in the Bay Area and our examples are two different cities, is this a regional issue, or are others seeing planning do similar things in your town?

[Warren Smith]

The irony is that the impetus behind SB9 was to increase home building. Local ordinances have been crafted to enact the "streamlined" process, but have - as you point out - differing outcomes. If the spirit of the statute is followed, less onerous procedures are intended to be the result.

[Mike Mueller]

Its my experience that the implementation of SB9 by a jurisdiction is a reflection on that jurisdiction's views of development. The exact same legal mandate will be made into a tortured process by City A, and a 3 step easy peasy by City B, all dependent on how the person actually responsible for the development and implementation of policy wants.

The average approach is to make it the same as the typical subdivision process, just do all the things upfront that you would normally do in the Conditions of Approval process. So various studies are done to prove the site does not have one of the exclusions like archeology or special frogs before we actually submit the application. The only real positive I have found from the SB9 process is the ability to ignore most minimum lot size/density requirements, and save some money on the public notice.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076