Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br />4.Consistency with State Law – New State legislation often necessitates Zoning Code amendments <br />to ensure local regulations remain consistent with State law. The following amendments are <br />proposed in order to maintain consistency with State law: <br />a.Two Units Developments and Urban Lot Splits (SB 9) – Since SB 9 went into effect in <br />2022, the State has passed multiple follow-up bills (i.e. SB 450, SB 477, and AB 1061) with <br />minor updates to clarify various aspects of the original legislation. The following <br />amendments to Article 5.10 are proposed to comply with State law: <br />1. The Zoning Code currently contains additional height restrictions in the rear <br />yard for SB 9 developments. To be consistent with State law, the proposed <br />amendments would remove the rear yard height restrictions and apply the <br />underlying zoning height standard. <br />2. To be consistent with State law, the proposed amendments would allow the <br />demolition of more than 25% of exterior walls of an existing home in <br />conjunction with an SB 9 development. <br />3. The proposed amendments would update the Zoning Code to comply with <br />State law prohibiting SB 9 developments on certain sites with historic <br />protections. <br />4. State law requires jurisdictions to approve an SB 9 development application <br />that meets all State law requirements and City development standards unless <br />the proposed SB 9 development would have a specific, adverse impact upon <br />the physical environment or public health and safety for which there is no <br />feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. <br />A recent update to State law removed impacts to the “physical environment” <br />as a finding for denial. To be consistent with State law, the proposed <br />amendment would remove the “physical environment” as a finding for denial. <br />b.State Mandated Ministerial Review Process – In recent years, the State has passed <br />numerous laws mandating ministerial review of development permits, requiring <br />jurisdictions to review a development project under fixed objective standards with little <br />or no discretion. The State’s intent is to standardize the development review process, <br />shorten review timelines, and limit local obstruction of housing to address the severe <br />statewide housing shortage, with a particular emphasis on building affordable housing <br />and housing for special needs groups. The proposed amendments would create a new <br />code section, Article 41.E, to: <br />1. Clarify the City’s process for implementing State-mandated ministerial review. <br />2. Establish that the Zoning Administrator is the review authority and clarify that <br />no public hearing is required for ministerial review. <br />3. Clarify that the approvals are not subject to appeal. <br />4. Provide references to the various project types that are subject to ministerial <br />review under State-mandated streamlined review processes. <br />c.State Mandated Appeals of Completeness Determinations – The State’s “Permit <br />Streamlining Act” requires jurisdictions to review development applications within 30 <br />days and provide a written determination on whether an applicant has provided all of the <br />8.B. - Page 203 of 212 <br />518