Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planner outlines how SB 9 changes lot splits and two-unit approvals in Loomis
Summary
Town planner Christie gave a detailed briefing on California'level SB 9 and recent amendments, explaining ministerial review, 60'day completeness timelines, limits on local standards, owner-occupancy affidavits and short-term rental restrictions for lots created under SB 9.
Loomis planner Christie told the Town Council on Monday that SB 9, the state law that took effect Jan. 1, 2022, and subsequent amendments effective in 2025, requires ministerial (staff-level) approvals for certain urban lot splits and two-unit projects in single-family zones and significantly narrows local discretion.
Christie said the law allows an urban lot split or a two-unit project (including up to two primary dwellings or combinations with ADUs), and that applications found complete must be approved or denied within 60 days; failure to act can result in a deemed approval. "Staff has strict timelines, so we have 60 days to review and approve or deny the applications," she said.
The planner outlined limits on local regulation: objective zoning or subdivision standards may apply only so long as they do not preclude construction of two units of at least 800 square feet and must be generally applicable in the underlying zone. Christie said HCD (the state Department of Housing and Community Development) and recent state statutes have further reduced the scope of locally imposed standards.
She described other statutory conditions: a parcel eligible for SB 9 must generally be in a single-family residential zone, not previously split under SB 9, new lots must be at least 1,200 square feet, and projects cannot be used as short-term rentals on lots created by SB 9. "Any rental unit created on a lot that was created by an urban lot split must exceed 30 days," Christie said.
Christie also explained the limited grounds for denial: a building official must make written findings that a proposed split or two-unit project would cause a "specific adverse impact on public health and safety" that cannot be mitigated. She gave a septic-system example where mitigation is not feasible.
Council members asked about HOA conflicts and what private covenants mean for owners. Christie and a BBK attorney on the line said that HOAs retain private enforcement rights, but the town cannot refuse an SB 9 application based solely on CC&Rs; private disputes may follow a municipal approval.
Why it matters: the briefing emphasized that SB 9 narrows the town'level review process and limits public input opportunities for qualifying projects. Christie said staff currently has several SB 9 applications under review and will include SB 9 status in monthly reports.
What comes next: council members asked staff to return with any recommended local code adjustments that remain allowable under state law and to continue tracking applications and HCD guidance.
