City planner Jeff O’Neil told the Parlier City Council that a proposed project at 479 Merced Street meets the state’s SB 9 and accessory-dwelling-unit (ADU) laws and therefore must be processed ministerially without discretionary hearing.

O’Neil said the 50-by-150-foot lot, vacant since 2018, is shown on the approved plot plan as two buildings (each containing two roughly 1,000-square-foot dwellings) with two paved off-street parking spaces and a rear alley. He said SB 9 (identified in staff materials as a provision in the California Government Code) allows development of up to two residential units on single-family lots and that ADU law permits detached ADUs in these circumstances. O’Neil described how the state’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidance treats a two-building plan as potentially qualifying as SB 9 and advised the council that staff has directed the applicant to revise the plot plan to identify the project explicitly as an SB 9 application with ADUs.

Residents urged the council to reconsider or slow implementation. Lionel Lopez and other neighbors described early-morning concrete pours at the construction site that woke neighbors and raised concerns about worker conduct and noise. Multiple speakers said their blocks already host newly added units and that on-street parking and pedestrian safety — especially near Cesar Chavez Elementary School — are worsening. One resident asked whether the city has done a water and sewer-capacity study; public works staff said a treatment-plant expansion project is in a funding round but that a comprehensive master sewer study would be needed to analyze ADU impacts citywide.

Several commenters and a representative who reviewed the site plans said the plans do not clearly label the project as SB 9, and they argued that HCD guidance can affect whether ministerial review applies. O’Neil acknowledged that the site plan did not initially indicate SB 9 and said he had directed the applicant to revise the approved plot plan to reflect that the front building is an SB 9 duplex and that the rear building includes two detached ADUs. He also said staff has filed a case with HCD’s housing accountability unit and is awaiting a response.

On parking, O’Neil noted two separate statutory provisions: the SB 9 provision that exempts local parking requirements only if a major-transit stop is within a half-mile, and ADU law, which exempts parking if the ADU is within a half-mile of "public transit" more broadly. He reported measuring 2,571 feet to the nearest Fresno County Rural Transit Agency stop and said the ADU component therefore qualifies for the ADU parking exemption; the front SB 9 duplex may still be subject to SB 9’s different major-transit-stop standard.

The presentation concluded with staff saying it would require an updated plot plan from the applicant showing SB 9 and ADU labeling and will continue processing the application ministerially. The council did not take formal action on the project; no discretionary approval was requested or granted.

What happens next: staff will require the applicant to submit a revised plot plan noting SB 9/ADU status and to document any field-versus-plan discrepancies; the HCD Housing Accountability Unit case remains open and staff said they will follow up if HCD responds.