Scotts Valley introduces ADU and SB 9 ordinance changes after HCD review; council votes to notice ministerial hearings

The Scotts Valley City Council unanimously introduced Ordinance No. 16.143 as a first reading to amend municipal code titles 16 and 17 to clarify rules for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), junior ADUs, urban lot splits and SB 9 residential development, and to tidy ministerial design review procedures. Staff said the amendments respond to a review from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and to recently changed state requirements.

Ben Noble, the city planning consultant, told the council the changes are largely clarifying and intended to bring the local code into compliance with state law and HCD guidance. Key points include adjusting how multifamily ADUs are counted, removing a local definition for car‑share vehicles, clarifying which ADUs qualify for the 'statewide exemption' (and confirming HCD's interpretation that those ADUs cannot be required to provide on‑site parking), modifying detached ADU height and floor‑area approaches to be based on zoning district rather than lot size, and a minor SB 9 cleanup so that the maximum height for SB 9 projects matches the single‑family standard unless state law requires otherwise.

City Attorney explained that failing to adopt HCD‑recommended clarifications could prompt HCD to refer the matter to the Attorney General and potentially lead to litigation requiring the city to make changes; council members cited that as a factor in moving forward. The planning staff recommended that most of the amendments be found exempt from CEQA as statutorily or categorically exempt.

Council debated whether ministerial design review approvals decided at the planning director/staff level should be subject to mailed neighbor notice. Planning staff explained that staff‑level ministerial decisions are limited to objective standards and that notice requirements still apply when such cases go to the Planning Commission for review. Council directed staff to implement notification for ADU and SB 9 ministerial hearings using the city's standard practice (e.g., approximately 300‑foot notice or adjacent property owners for very small cases) while the city tracks experience and returns with a possible broader policy.

Next steps: the amendment was introduced for first reading (not adopted); staff will prepare second‑reading/adoption materials, continue outreach/education (including suggested newsletter explanation of state changes) and implement the courtesy notice approach for ministerial ADU and SB 9 cases.