SB 9 Part Two - Urban Lot Splits and Subdivision Map Act Changes

My last post about SB 9 broke down the proposed changes to California’s Planning and Zoning Law. This post will dig into SB 9’s impacts on the Subdivision Map Act (“Map Act”).

In a nutshell: SB 9 would require cities and counties to ministerially approve the subdivision of an urban parcel zoned for residential use into two approximately equal parcels.

SB 9 would allow up to four homes on single family lots where currently only one home exists. It would do so by allowing existing single-family homes to be converted into duplexes; it would also allow single-family parcels to be subdivided into two lots, while allowing for a new two-unit building to be constructed on the newly formed lot. (See May 22, 2021 Senate Floor Analysis).

SB 9 would add Government Code section 66411.7 and amend 66452.6 in the Map Act. 

Map Act Goals – Consistency, Orderly Development, Adequate Public Infrastructure

Under the Map Act (Govt. Code 66410 et seq), local agencies have authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions. The Map Act and local ordinances passed under its authority provide for the creation of accurate maps showing the interior and exterior boundaries of subdivisions and the location of improvements.

The Map Act encourages orderly community development by providing for the regulation and control of the design and improvement of a subdivision, and ensuring consistency of design and improvement with applicable local standards for development type and density, public health, and other environmental concerns.  

By regulating and controlling the development of subdivisions, the Map Act also serves to protect the public and individual transferees from fraud and exploitation.

The Map Act allows local officials to require, as a condition of approving a proposed subdivision, the dedication of property within a subdivision for streets, alleys, drainage, utility easements, and other public easements and improvements. Once subdividers comply with those conditions, local officials must issue final maps. Conditions are imposed at the map level because it becomes much harder for a local government to implement rational development patterns and adequate public infrastructure once a parcel is broken up into smaller parcels with different owners.

Local subdivision ordinances also determine lot sizes, which can affect the feel of a neighborhood or preserve certain types of land uses.

The Map Act constrains the dedications and improvements that local cities and counties can require as a condition of a subdivision of four or fewer lots to only the dedication of rights-of-way, easements, and the construction of reasonable offsite and onsite improvements for the parcels being created.

Final Maps, Parcel Maps and Tentative Maps

Map Act lingo can be confusing. Generally, filing of a tentative map and a final map is mandatory for divisions of real property into five parcels or more, and the filing of a parcel map is required for divisions into four or fewer parcels. (See Gov. Code section 66428). 

A tentative map shows the design and improvement of a proposed subdivision and the existing conditions in and around it. A tentative map does not have to use an accurate or detailed final survey of the property. (Gov. Code section 66424.5(a)). A subdivider has the option of submitting a tentative map or a vesting tentative map when a parcel map is required. (Gov. Code section 66428(c)).

Subdividers generally prefer the less onerous requirements for parcel maps, rather than those for final maps. Parcel map procedures are simpler, and parcel maps can usually be processed more quickly than tentative and final maps. Dedications, improvements, and fees required as conditions to parcel map approval are usually less extensive than conditions required for approval of tentative and final maps.

SB 9 would make urban lot splits subject to the less onerous parcel map standards, and further constrain existing discretion local agencies have in approving parcel maps.

SB 9 Aims to Extend Tentative Map Time Limit

Generally, an experienced subdivider can comply with a tentative map’s conditions in a few years. However, factors like scarce financing, complex settings, and inexperience can drag out the time between a tentative map’s approval and the filing of a final map. If a tentative map expires, the subdivider must start over and the local agency can implement new requirements.

SB 9 would extend the limit on the additional period that may be provided by ordinance from 12 months to 24 months. (See proposed Gov. Code section 66452.6(a)(1)).

SB 9 Would Require Ministerial* Approval of Parcel Maps for Urban Lot Splits

To qualify for ministerial approval under SB 9, among other things, a parcel must be “located within a city, the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.” (See Proposed Gov. Code section 66411.7(a)(3)(B)). It is unclear whether this section refers to boundaries of a parcel or boundaries of a city. For example, if a city contains urbanized areas or clusters within its boundaries, it’s unclear whether a parcel in that city would qualify for an urban lot split if the parcel itself is not located in an urbanized area or cluster.

For unincorporated areas, the legal parcel must be wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. (See Proposed Gov. Code section 66411.7(a)(3)(B)). (Good luck making sense of Census Bureau maps and tools.)

SB 9 would require cities and counties to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to:

• that the lot split would not require the demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income; (Proposed Govt. Code section 66411.7(a)(3)(D)(i);

• that the parcel is located within a single family residential zone (Proposed Govt. Code section 66411.7(a)(3)(A); and

• that the parcel is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. (Proposed Govt. Code section 66411.7(a)(3)(E).

SB 9 Would Limit Dedications, Improvements and Objective Standards for Urban Lot Splits

SB would restrict what a local agency can require in approving an urban lot split, including, but not limited to:

• Local agencies cannot require a minimum lot size greater than 1,200 square feet (Proposed Gov. Code section 66411.7(a)(2)(A));

• Local agencies cannot impose any standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels or physically precluding either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area (Proposed Gov. Code section 66411.7(c)(2));

• Local agencies cannot impose any setback requirements under certain circumstances (Proposed Gov. Code section 66411.7(c)(3)(A));

• Local agencies cannot require dedications of rights of way or the construction of offsite improvements for parcels being created as a condition of issuing a parcel map (Proposed Gov. Code section 66411.7(b)(3));

• Until January 1, 2027, local agencies cannot impose an owner occupancy requirement on applicants unless specified conditions are met. (Proposed Gov. Code section 66411.7(f)).

In the next post, I will wrap up with an explanation of the interplay between SB 9, CEQA and the California Coastal Act, and what we are hearing from proponents and opponents of the legislation.

*For an explanation of ministerial v. discretionary approval, see this post.