HomeMy WebLinkAbout3A - Public CommentMani Bailey
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
AC
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
Begin forwarded message:
Anthony Mejia
Thursday, January 13, 2022 2:50 PM
Tiffani Bailey
Fwd: Public Comment - Item
CityOrd.pdf
From: Steven Randel <srandeiaia@mac.com>
Date: January 13, 2022 at 2:41:01 PM PST
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment - Item
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Please contribute the attached letter regarding zoning ordinance changes for SB 9 that the City Council
will address this evening.
Thank you,
Steven Randel
`P1Jb1� c. C.o
M,MNO. 5Pc-
Steven C. Randel
Randel Architecture, Inc.
777 E Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 200.209
Palm Springs, CA 92262
13 January 2022
Palm Springs Planning Department
Regarding Ordinance Compliance for Senate Bill 9 for Lot Splits
As a design professional, I wish to contribute to how the Planning Department will address some of the
parameters of SB9 into the Palm Springs Ordinances.
1. Lot Square Footage - For urban lot splits, the proposed threshold is 2400 square feet. Very few
lots in the area are less than 8000 square feet. With required setbacks, any lot less than 5000
square feet would be difficult to meet setbacks depending on the zone. I suggest raising the lot to
be split to at least 5000 square feet. Make the minimum size 2500 square feet, but don't place a
60/40 split because that further complicates the equation. Just let the minimum of 2500 square
feet be the determining factor. That way, you could have a 10000 square foot lot have a small
parcel of not less than 2500 feet, which could hold a small home.
2. There will have to be more leeway in setbacks so that buildings can comply but allow at least
five feet. Any building closer than five feet needs specific eave construction for fire codes. Six
feet is even better for a side setback.
3. Keep a one-story maximum in all cases, as most current single-family lots restrict to a single
level. This maintains neighboring privacy. Lower the height maximum to 12 feet. A 16-foot
height limit is too much for a single -level dwelling. An 8 to 9-foot ceiling is adequate in a small
dwelling, a lower height also keeps the pitch of roofs lower, so they don't block views.
4. The maximum square footage of 800 is too restrictive. That amount is only suitable for a
comfortable one -bedroom apartment. No one will build a one -bedroom dwelling. The expense
for the return is too low. Allow at least 1000 square feet and up to 1200 square feet for another
house. That amount allows two bedrooms at least and contributes to the housing supply more
practically.
5. The minimum of 500 square feet is also too little to add to the housing supply. Make it 750
square feet minimum so that the dwelling is enough to have lasting value.
6. Don't put restrictions on the square footage of existing dwellings where you would otherwise be
able to add to that house. A restriction like that further limits dwelling space, which is needed to
add to the housings supply.
7. Do not require street frontage for secondary lots. Allow easements to serve that purpose instead,
which technically allows larger parcels.
Since the goal is to build more housing within established infrastructure in California, that housing
should be just as desirable as all other dwellings. The proposed square footage could inhibit production
since an investment must make a return. Please consider spatial practicality in your decision to update
the Palm Springs ordinances.
Thank you,
Steven C. Randel