Commission hears overview of recent state housing laws and local implications

City Planner Carl Steele and Deputy Department Services Director Jared Romaya gave a workshop-length briefing to the Murrieta City Planning Commission on recent and pending state laws that affect local housing approvals, permitting and development standards.

Steele summarized a set of state-level changes the commission should expect to encounter when projects return to the dais. The presentation covered the Housing Accountability Act, SB 330 (often described as accelerating timelines under the Housing Crisis Act), fair-housing requirements for unit distribution and type, ministerial lot-split rules under SB 9, and evolving accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules clarified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Steele told commissioners the state has constrained several local tools once available to cities: downzoning, selective placement of affordable units within a project, and many parking and coverage controls for ADUs.

Steele said SB 9 allows ministerial lot splits in single-family zones and that state ADU guidance now allows multiple ADU types per lot in many circumstances. He told the commission that the state has shortened ministerial review windows for some SB 9 actions and that failure to meet review timelines can result in automatic approvals.

The briefing also covered developments in fee and entitlement law. Steele and Romaya described a new state rule pushing collection of certain development-impact fees to issuance of final occupancy (or a phased occupancy/first-occupancy approach), a change that can shift local fee timing and cash flow. Steele noted that the bill that moved fee timing allows some flexibility — for example, collection at first certificate of occupancy or on a pro rata basis — but said cities and school districts have raised questions about how the change will be implemented in practice.

Romaya reviewed procedural implications: conflict-of-interest checks (500–1,000 feet), the Brown Act’s open-meeting and 72-hour posting requirements, and the need to follow objective standards to the extent allowed by state law. He said the city maintains a planning Web page summarizing state laws and that staff will update that page with the new statutes and memos discussed in the session.

Commissioners asked questions about enforcement, parking and design implications. Commissioner Tom Beamish criticized the statewide direction in stronger terms, saying the state has “overreached” and urging the commission and staff to be creative in responding. “The state has really overreached with regards to these housing initiatives,” Beamish said. "They’re driving high density. They’re pushing drivers out of cars. They want mass transit." Beamish also raised concerns about parking impacts at local events and recreational sites.

Steele and Romaya outlined next steps: update the planning Web page, consider targeted updates to objective design standards (the city’s multifamily objective standards apply to developments of 10 units or more) and, as part of the next budget cycle, pursue consultant assistance to refresh objective standards where appropriate. Steele said the housing element work program will return in coming years and that the state’s removal of some planning tools increases the importance of timely housing-element work and local code updates.

Several commissioners suggested staff explore local code and policy options that remain available — including design standards, parking and site-safety measures such as gated entry where appropriate — and to convey those options to the City Council when policy-level action is required.

Staff recommended follow-up reports and an objective-standards work program as priorities for the coming year. The briefing concluded without formal action; staff will return as appropriate with proposed code updates or workshops for council consideration.