[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6551217,"mediaKeyId","5348104-91e4ecdc775ed3fdf3eb527a33645931","parentId",5348104,"title","Victorville staff previews state housing mandates (SB 9, SB 684, SB 11-23) in planning-commission workshop","audioSeconds",1132,"startMs",1016000,"endMs",2148000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5348104-91e4ecdc775ed3fdf3eb527a33645931&start=1016&end=2148","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5348104-91e4ecdc775ed3fdf3eb527a33645931/thumbnail_1016000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6551217/Victorville-City/San-Bernardino-County/California/Victorville-staff-previews-state-housing-mandates-SB-9-SB-684-SB-11-23-in-planning-commission-workshop","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6551217-7364437c3b5f29147f438c86cb738be2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445315&Signature=glrjacZ6usRjyq9BmbzimG7n7mOZlxhfzmBgbIgRwu6a6c9PliZ8~1~bvsFghP8MZgdxtRAKCNss7y3eX-bSYhovioU3lvDPQr7HHR9pjklBNCH0GjFagJzLvAmbk6fjomRfqj3mTbfO8cIfHIFOCOL~cR49EtXEr7B8qpXTyIx6FL1hcJ8jz6xNeIczO5y57Vs1XgJBxKZLVdoMYnF2lKLL8q2~4YRbma4aqzmbKFudvBEWCvBJi2wVCYLhVHUjWNmVQUMVY~mxlsp~dDK~KDcW0v3za~MGMMpBh8Pu2i51CzY1IefTw0ufgy~~PaXTkpgwpeHnkHV8TI-YkaM3kw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Victorville, CA","date","2025-07-10T01:21:58.287Z","article","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.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Regular Meeting of July 09, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","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.","taxTitle","Victorville City, San Bernardino County, California","taxId",3826,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6551221,"Planning commission continues site-plan review after Joshua tree found at proposed auto-parts site",249,742000,991000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5348104-91e4ecdc775ed3fdf3eb527a33645931&start=742&end=991","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5348104-91e4ecdc775ed3fdf3eb527a33645931/thumbnail_742000.jpg","/articles/6551221/Victorville-City/San-Bernardino-County/California/Planning-commission-continues-site-plan-review-after-Joshua-tree-found-at-proposed-auto-parts-site","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6551221-ee873f6c174a430db864d1cb90ada159/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445315&Signature=OzY4xd~sz4hXgJfBtaRwd-WLZ8sgc20zK5G~DZfoR5nLCObd~okpyNgu4aiEEJIwpFlR1DwEvfw8Z2~9Z-wUpD1BbeexBEx5hl7iIWt5PD-U5WHSyh-KY7MXvMQMvvhZIMdpXoEC9tCvkIiTDkPJAG8Wm2Ts2VQFU9KgNRkO1Kgr3dsPFjAsckT-oiy-ROiSWGesvNDYBaPBC5PM7oeIh7JgD6eq65qQ9EDmodAewZqPYs7kE-AMXQpAIxKgBrE7PSgBvkq4D1STcDqp-QfHJFRBulC1w89Xc1etXOYP7HisL-FOgVGT-jpvqGWcHHkxJ5nx9zHMi2sWHi3bzSkKIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On July 9, 2025, the Victorville City Planning Commission voted to continue a public hearing on a site-plan modification for case PLN24-00021 after staff reported that a Joshua tree was discovered within the project footprint, requiring an incidental take permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and additional CEQA review. The commission continued the item to its Aug. 13, 2025 meeting.

The item covers a proposed site-plan modification and an initial study with a proposed mitigated negative declaration for a previously approved retail auto-parts store on a commercially zoned parcel about 350 feet west of the northwest corner of Mojave Drive and Elavado Drive. The parcel was originally approved under site-plan case PLN21-00012 on Sept. 8, 2021, which allowed development of an approximately 7,300-square-foot AutoZone retail store.

Staff told the commission that the Joshua tree was not identified on the original biological survey that supported a categorical CEQA exemption under CEQA section 15332 (infill development). \"The tree was actually missed on the initial biological survey,\" a city staff member said, and the later survey identified a special-status Joshua tree in the building footprint. Because of that finding, staff said the project is no longer eligible for the prior categorical exemption and requires an initial study and CEQA compliance before the commission can act.

Commissioners asked whether the discovery related to adjacent properties and whether any physical changes to the project were proposed. Staff said no project changes have been requested; rather, the newly required CEQA review and the timing of the public-review period prompted the request for a continuance. Staff recommended the commission receive testimony and continue the public hearing to the Aug. 13, 2025 meeting so the environmental review and public comment period can be completed.

There were no public speakers on the item. Chair Kurth made the motion to continue the hearing to Aug. 13, 2025; Commissioner Thomas seconded. The roll-call vote was: Commissioner Marsh — yes; Commissioner Thomas — yes; Chair Kurth — yes. Commissioner Marshall and Vice Chair Menson were absent. The motion passed and the public hearing remains open pending the supplemental CEQA work and any required permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Staff noted that, while no design changes are proposed at this time, the discovery means the city must evaluate impacts and any required mitigation before final discretionary approvals can be granted. The matter will return to the commission after completion of the CEQA review and the public-review period.","Victorville Planning Commission continued a public hearing on a site-plan modification for a previously approved 7,300-square-foot auto-parts store after a Joshua tree was discovered in the project footprint, triggering California Department of Fish and Wildlife review and CEQA compliance. The hearing was continued to Aug. 13, 2025.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Victorville staff previews state housing mandates (SB 9, SB 684, SB 11-23) in planning-commission workshop

Planning commission continues site-plan review after Joshua tree found at proposed auto-parts site