Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy State Mandates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Victorville staff previews state housing mandates (SB 9, SB 684, SB 11-23) in planning-commission workshop
Summary
At a July 9, 2025 workshop, Victorville planning staff reviewed state laws (SB 9, SB 684 and the SB 11-23 update) that expand ministerial approvals for lot splits, two-unit developments and small-lot subdivisions. No formal action was taken; staff will prepare municipal-code amendments for future hearings.
On July 9, 2025, Victorville City planning staff presented a workshop to the Planning Commission on recent state housing laws — primarily Senate Bill 9, Senate Bill 684 and the 2024 update known as SB 11-23 — and outlined a forthcoming municipal-code amendment to implement those mandates locally. Commissioners asked questions about fire and infrastructure constraints, parking, fees and exclusion zones; staff said a formal code amendment will return to the commission and then go to the City Council.
"Over the past few years, California lawmakers have enacted legislation intended to accelerate the production of more affordable housing types as means of addressing the state's ongoing housing shortage," Senior Planner Daisy Kawasaki said as she opened the presentation.
Staff summarized the main allowances and limits of the laws discussed. SB 9 (the California Home Act) applies to single-family residential zones and allows ministerial approvals for either (1) two-unit developments on a single lot or (2) urban lot splits that divide a single-family parcel into two lots; each split lot can then use the two-unit allowance (potentially yielding up to four units on the original parcel). SB 9 limits side and rear-yard setbacks to a maximum of four feet, requires one off-street parking space per unit (with exemptions within a half-mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor), and requires compliance with objective standards while preventing cities from imposing standards that would physically preclude two 800-square-foot units or a qualifying lot split. Staff also noted SB 450, a later cleanup bill that added a 60-day timeline for approval or denial (applications deemed approved if the city takes no action) and gave the Department of Housing and Community Development oversight authority for SB 9 compliance.
SB 684 (effective July 1, 2024) allows ministerial approval of small-lot subdivisions of up to 10 units in multifamily zones (minimum parcel sizes as small as 600 square feet under SB 684), limits discretionary barriers such as excessive setbacks or parking rules, and permits flexible ownership models intended to promote modest ownership-oriented homes. SB 11-23 (the 2024 update) extended similar ministerial allowances to certain single-family-zoned vacant lots (up to 10 units on qualifying parcels up to 1.5 acres) and added a requirement that projects meet at least 66% of the maximum allowable residential density under local zoning; it also preserved limited ability for local agencies to impose reasonable height limits and other objective controls that do not physically preclude the minimum unit count.
Staff emphasized exclusions and eligibility limits: properties on prime farmland, wetlands, under conservation easement, habitat for sensitive or fully protected species (including the western Joshua tree and Mojave ground squirrel), within very high fire hazard severity zones, floodways or fault zones, historic parcels or sites containing tribal cultural resources, or properties where demolition of deed-restricted affordable housing would be required are ineligible for the ministerial pathways and would require discretionary review and CEQA clearance.
Commissioners raised infrastructure and public-safety questions. Commissioner Thomas asked whether fire-access and cul-de-sac length requirements could be used to deny ministerial projects; staff said denials are limited to objective standards tied to public health or safety, and that fire and street-access requirements would need to be expressed as objective standards. Commissioners also asked about sewer capacity and fees; staff said development-impact fees and sewer connection charges remain applicable and that the city can require final maps or permit sequencing if needed to ensure infrastructure capacity.
No vote or formal action was taken; staff said it will analyze municipal-code sections that must be updated, prepare a formal code amendment for the Planning Commission's recommendation, and then forward the amendment to the City Council for adoption.
