Planning commission recommends code changes to align Tiburon with SB 450 (SB 9 amendments)

The Tiburon Town Planning Commission on Feb. 26, 2025 voted to recommend that the Town Council repeal and replace two sections of the Tiburon Municipal Code—Title 4, Chapter 14, Section 14-3.313 (urban lot splits) and Title 4, Chapter 16, Section 16-77.01 (two-unit housing developments)—to bring the town’s rules into alignment with state law changes enacted as Senate Bill 450, which amended SB 9.

The recommendation matters because the state changes accelerate and limit local review of certain housing conversions and subdivisions. Dana, planning staff, told commissioners that under the current state requirements “applications now must be approved or denied within 60 days. If the application has not been approved or denied within those 60 days, the project is deemed approved.” Dana said the town’s draft ordinance language implements that timeline and other statutory limits while adding objective development standards “to make it pretty clear, for people when they come in.”

Under the draft amendments presented to the commission, jurisdictions may no longer deny a proposed duplex using a finding of adverse impact; objective design standards may not be imposed unless they are applied uniformly across the underlying zone; and the local requirement that demolition of more than 25% of existing walls trigger discretionary review was removed, making such projects ministerial where state law so requires. Dana confirmed that the change follows state law, saying, “It’s what the state law is requiring us to do.”

Commissioners discussed specific provisions in the redlined ordinance. Questions and clarifications included how the code treats flag or corridor lots, the rules governing lot mergers after an urban lot split (the draft says lots resulting from an urban lot split shall not be merged unless that merger can be done without loss of housing units and without causing a nonconforming building or use), and whether parcels in historic districts remain a permissible basis for denial. Town counsel and staff acknowledged ambiguity in several redlined passages and agreed to correct formatting and typographical issues identified by commissioners.

Commissioners asked staff to restore language about historic properties to the extent allowed by state law. Several commissioners noted they preferred retaining the historic-parcel provision in the local code; staff said they would reinsert appropriate language and check state-law constraints. Staff also provided commissioners with a redline and a clean copy; staff noted an exhibit (the redline provided to the public at the meeting) was not included in the packet but was made available at the dais and in the back of the room.

The commission voted on a bundled motion to recommend both draft ordinances to the Town Council and to find the proposed amendments statutorily exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Commissioner Williams moved the motion and Commissioner Woodworth seconded. The roll-call vote recorded ayes from Commissioner Williams, Vice Chair Amiri, Commissioner Sy, Commissioner Woodworth, and Chair Dufeaver; the motion passed.

No members of the public offered oral testimony at the hearing (staff reported no Zoom comments and no in-room public speakers). Commissioners requested staff correct several typographical errors in the ordinance and resolution language (for example, instances of “tow unit” that should read “two-unit”) and to confirm the ordinance’s numbering and subsection formatting in the redline. Staff said those edits would be made before materials go to the Town Council.

The commission’s action forwards the recommended code changes to the Town Council for consideration. The council will receive the commission’s recommendation and the corrected ordinance drafts at a future council meeting; staff did not provide a date for the council hearing at the Planning Commission meeting.