This bill, until January 1, 2025, would reduce the time period in which a lead agency under these provisions is required to approve or disapprove a project from 120 days to 90 days, for a development project generally described above, and from 90 days to 60 days, for a development project that meets the above-described affordability conditions. The bill would recast the definition of “development project” for these purposes to mean a housing development project, as defined in the Housing Accountability Act.
(4) The Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city and of any land outside its boundaries that relates to its planning. That law authorizes the legislative body, if it deems it to be in the public interest, to amend all or part of an adopted general plan, as provided. That law also authorizes the legislative body of any county or city, pursuant to specified procedures, to adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, open space, and other purposes.
This bill, until January 1, 2025, with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, except as specified, would prohibit a county or city, including the electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, in which specified conditions exist, determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development as provided, from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition, as defined, that would have the effect of (A) changing the land use designation or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the general plan or specific plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the county or city as in effect on January 1, 2018; (B) imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development within all or a portion of the jurisdiction of the county or city, except as provided; (C) imposing or enforcing new design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are not objective design standards, as defined; or (D) establishing or implementing certain limits on the number of permits issued by, or the population of, the county or city, unless the limit was approved prior to January 1, 2005, in a predominantly agricultural county, as defined. The bill would, notwithstanding these prohibitions, allow a city or county to prohibit the commercial use of land zoned for residential use consistent with the authority of the city or county conferred by other law. The bill would state that these prohibitions would apply to any zoning ordinance adopted or amended on or after the effective date of these provisions, and that any development policy, standard, or condition on or after that date that does not comply would be deemed void.
This bill would also require a project that requires the demolition of housing to comply with specified requirements, including the provision of relocation assistance and a right of first refusal in the new housing to displaced occupants, as provided. The bill would provide that these provisions do not supersede any provision of a locally adopted ordinance 88 Ch. 654 — 4 —
that places greater restrictions on the demolition of residential dwelling units or that requires greater relocation assistance to displaced households.
The bill would require a county or city subject to these provisions to include information necessary to determine compliance with these provisions in the list or lists that specify the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project under the Permit Streamlining Act.
The bill would state that these prohibitions would prevail over any conflicting provision of the Planning and Zoning Law or other law regulating housing development in this state, except as specifically provided. The bill would also require that any exception to these provisions, including an exception for the health and safety of occupants of a housing development project, be construed narrowly.
(5) This bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (6) By imposing various new requirements and duties on local planning officials with respect to housing development, and by changing the scope of a crime under the State Housing Law, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(7) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.
SEC. 2. (a) The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(1) California is experiencing a housing supply crisis, with housing demand far outstripping supply. In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita.
(2) Consequently, existing housing in this state, especially in its largest cities, has become very expensive. Seven of the 10 most expensive real estate markets in the United States are in California. In San Francisco, the median home price is $1.6 million.
(3) California is also experiencing rapid year-over-year rent growth with three cities in the state having had overall rent growth of 10 percent or more year-over-year, and of the 50 United States cities with the highest United States rents, 33 are cities in California.
88 — 5 — Ch. 654
(4) California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over the next 7 years.
(5) The housing crisis has particularly exacerbated the need for affordable homes at prices below market rates.
(6) The housing crisis harms families across California and has resulted in all of the following:
(A) Increased poverty and homelessness, especially first-time homelessness.
(B) Forced lower income residents into crowded and unsafe housing in urban areas.
(C) Forced families into lower cost new housing in greenfields at the urban-rural interface with longer commute times and a higher exposure to fire hazard.
(D) Forced public employees, health care providers, teachers, and others, including critical safety personnel, into more affordable housing farther from the communities they serve, which will exacerbate future disaster response challenges in high-cost, high-congestion areas and increase risk to life.
(E) Driven families out of the state or into communities away from good schools and services, making the ZIP Code where one grew up the largest determinate of later access to opportunities and social mobility, disrupting family life, and increasing health problems due to long commutes that may exceed three hours per day.
(7) The housing crisis has been exacerbated by the additional loss of units due to wildfires in 2017 and 2018, which impacts all regions of the state. The Carr Fire in 2017 alone burned over 1,000 homes, and over 50,000 people have been displaced by the Camp Fire and the Woolsey Fire in 2018.
This temporary and permanent displacement has placed additional demand on the housing market and has resulted in fewer housing units available for rent by low-income individuals.
(8) Individuals who lose their housing due to fire or the sale of the property cannot find affordable homes or rental units and are pushed into cars and tents.
(9) Costs for construction of new housing continue to increase. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley, the cost of building a 100-unit affordable housing project in the state was almost $425,000 per unit in 2016, up from $265,000 per unit in 2000.
(10) Lengthy permitting processes and approval times, fees and costs for parking, and other requirements further exacerbate cost of residential construction.
(11) The housing crisis is severely impacting the state’s economy as follows:
(A) Employers face increasing difficulty in securing and retaining a workforce.
88 Ch. 654 — 6 —
(B) Schools, universities, nonprofits, and governments have difficulty attracting and retaining teachers, students, and employees, and our schools and critical services are suffering.
(C) According to analysts at McKinsey and Company, the housing crisis is costing California $140 billion a year in lost economic output. (12) The housing crisis also harms the environment by doing both of the following:
(A) Increasing pressure to develop the state’s farmlands, open space, and rural interface areas to build affordable housing, and increasing fire hazards that generate massive greenhouse gas emissions.
(B) Increasing greenhouse gas emissions from longer commutes to affordable homes far from growing job centers.
(13) Homes, lots, and structures near good jobs, schools, and transportation remain underutilized throughout the state and could be rapidly remodeled or developed to add affordable homes without subsidy where they are needed with state assistance.
(14) Reusing existing infrastructure and developed properties, and building more smaller homes with good access to schools, parks, and services, will provide the most immediate help with the lowest greenhouse gas footprint to state residents.
(b) In light of the foregoing, the Legislature hereby declares a statewide housing emergency, to be in effect until January 1, 2025. (c) It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, to do both of the following:
(1) Suspend certain restrictions on the development of new housing during the period of the statewide emergency described in subdivisions (a) and (b).
(2) Work with local governments to expedite the permitting of housing in regions suffering the worst housing shortages and highest rates of displacement.
SEC. 3. Section 65589.5 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65589.5. (a) (1) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(A) The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.
(B) California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.
(C) Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.
(D) Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in 88 — 7 — Ch. 654
disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects. (2) In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following:
(A) California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.
(B) While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor.
(C) The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability. (D) According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025. (E) California’s overall homeownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions. (F) Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians. (G) The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
(H) When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees.
(I) An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households.
California’s cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.
(J) California’s housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section. 88 Ch. 654 — 8 —
(K) The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L) It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.
(3) It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently.
(b) It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d).
(c) The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas. (d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project.
The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be 88 — 9 — Ch. 654
calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
(2) The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to lowand moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
(3) The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. (4) The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.
(5) The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(A) This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though it is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.
88 Ch. 654 — 10 —
(B) If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of land in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for residential uses or designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate the local agency’s share of the regional housing need for the very low, low-, and moderate-income categories.
(C) If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(f) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development. 88 — 11 — Ch. 654
(2) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project.
(3) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(4) For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. (g) This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem.
(h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(1) “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2) “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A) Residential units only.
(B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
(C) Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(3) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. Housing units targeted for lower income households shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income shall be made available at a 88 Ch. 654 — 12 —
monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based.
(4) “Area median income” means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.
(5) Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2025, “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1.
(6) “Disapprove the housing development project” includes any instance in which a local agency does either of the following:
(A) Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. (B) Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph.
(7) “Lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing. (8) Until January 1, 2025, “objective” means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.
(9) Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2025, “determined to be complete” means that the applicant has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943.
(i) If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the housing development project’s application is deemed complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d), and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, and with the requirements of subdivision (o). (j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and 88 — 13 — Ch. 654
criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density.
As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (2) (A) If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i) Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units. (ii) Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. (3) For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision. (4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed 88 Ch. 654 — 14 —
housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project.
(k) (1) (A) (i) The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that any of the following are met, the court shall issue an order pursuant to clause (ii):
(I) The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (II) The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
(III) (ia) Subject to sub-subclause (ib), the local agency, in violation of subdivision (o), required or attempted to require a housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. (ib) This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2025. (ii) If the court finds that one of the conditions in clause (i) is met, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter.
The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section.
(B) (i) Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 2017–18 Regular 88 — 15 — Ch. 654
Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund.
The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 2017–18 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(ii) If any money derived from a fine imposed pursuant to this subparagraph is deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, then, notwithstanding Section 50661 of the Health and Safety Code, that money shall be available only upon appropriation by the Legislature. (C) If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, “housing organization” means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project.
A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section. 88 Ch. 654 — 16 —
(l) If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section and (2) failed to carry out the court’s order or judgment within 60 days as described in subdivision (k), the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. For purposes of this section, “bad faith” includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit.
(m) Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial court’s order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant.
(n) In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioner’s points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent’s points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
(o) (1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the 88 — 17 — Ch. 654
preliminary application was submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances:
(A) In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction.
(B) A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.
(C) Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(D) The housing development project has not commenced construction within two and one-half years following the date that the project received final approval. For purposes of this subparagraph, “final approval” means that the housing development project has received all necessary approvals to be eligible to apply for, and obtain, a building permit or permits and either of the following is met:
(i) The expiration of all applicable appeal periods, petition periods, reconsideration periods, or statute of limitations for challenging that final approval without an appeal, petition, request for reconsideration, or legal challenge having been filed.
(ii) If a challenge is filed, that challenge is fully resolved or settled in favor of the housing development project.
(E) The housing development project is revised following submittal of a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision. For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).
(3) This subdivision does not prevent a local agency from subjecting the additional units or square footage of construction that result from project revisions occurring after a preliminary application is submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted.
(4) For purposes of this subdivision, “ordinances, policies, and standards” includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other 88 Ch. 654 — 18 —
rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions.
(5) This subdivision shall not be construed in a manner that would lessen the restrictions imposed on a local agency, or lessen the protections afforded to a housing development project, that are established by any other law, including any other part of this section.
(6) This subdivision shall not restrict the authority of a public agency or local agency to require mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of a housing development project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(7) With respect to completed residential units for which the project approval process is complete and a certificate of occupancy has been issued, nothing in this subdivision shall limit the application of later enacted ordinances, policies, and standards that regulate the use and occupancy of those residential units, such as ordinances relating to rental housing inspection, rent stabilization, restrictions on short-term renting, and business licensing requirements for owners of rental housing.
(8) This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2025. (p) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.
SEC. 4. Section 65905.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65905.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, if a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, after the application is deemed complete, a city, county, or city and county shall not conduct more than five hearings pursuant to Section 65905, or any other law, ordinance, or regulation requiring a public hearing in connection with the approval of that housing development project. If the city, county, or city and county continues a hearing subject to this section to another date, the continued hearing shall count as one of the five hearings allowed under this section. The city, county, or city and county shall consider and either approve or disapprove the application at any of the five hearings allowed under this section consistent with the applicable timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920)). (b) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Deemed complete” means that the application has met all of the requirements specified in the relevant list compiled pursuant to Section 65940 that was available at the time when the application was submitted. (2) “Hearing” includes any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting conducted by the city or county with respect to the housing development project, whether by the legislative body of the city or county, the planning agency established pursuant to Section 65100, or any other agency, department, board, commission, or any other designated hearing officer or body of the city or county, or any committee or subcommittee thereof. 88 — 19 — Ch. 654
“Hearing” does not include a hearing to review a legislative approval required for a proposed housing development project, including, but not limited to, a general plan amendment, a specific plan adoption or amendment, or a zoning amendment, or any hearing arising from a timely appeal of the approval or disapproval of a legislative approval.
(3) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5.
(c) (1) For purposes of this section, a housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
(2) A proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria, but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency complies with the written documentation requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (j) of Section 65589.5, the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning that is consistent with the general plan; however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project.
(d) Nothing in this section supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of, or the standards of review pursuant to, Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 5. Section 65913.10 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65913.10. (a) For purposes of any state or local law, ordinance, or regulation that requires the city or county to determine whether the site of a proposed housing development project is a historic site, the city or county shall make that determination at the time the application for the housing development project is deemed complete. A determination as to whether a parcel of property is a historic site shall remain valid during the pendency of the housing development project for which the application was made unless any archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources are encountered during any grading, site disturbance, or building alteration activities.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Deemed complete” means that the application has met all of the requirements specified in the relevant list compiled pursuant to Section 65940 that was available at the time when the application was submitted. (2) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5.
88 Ch. 654 — 20 —
(c) (1) Nothing in this section supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of, or the standards of review pursuant to, Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (2) Nothing in this section supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). (d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 6. Section 65940 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65940. (a) (1) Each public agency shall compile one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. Each public agency shall revise the list of information required from an applicant to include a certification of compliance with Section 65962.5, and the statement of application required by Section 65943. Copies of the information, including the statement of application required by Section 65943, shall be made available to all applicants for development projects and to any person who requests the information.
(2) An affected city or affected county, as defined in Section 66300, shall include the information necessary to determine compliance with the requirements of subdivision (d) of Section 66300 in the list compiled pursuant to paragraph (1).
(b) The list of information required from any applicant shall include, where applicable, identification of whether the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation, beneath a low-level flight path or within special use airspace as defined in Section 21098 of the Public Resources Code, and within an urbanized area as defined in Section 65944. (c) (1) A public agency that is not beneath a low-level flight path or not within special use airspace and does not contain a military installation is not required to change its list of information required from applicants to comply with subdivision (b).
(2) A public agency that is entirely urbanized, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 65944, with the exception of a jurisdiction that contains a military installation, is not required to change its list of information required from applicants to comply with subdivision (b).
(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 7. Section 65940 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65940. (a) Each public agency shall compile one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. Each public agency shall revise the list of information required from an applicant to include a certification of compliance with Section 65962.5, and the statement of application required by Section 65943. Copies of the information, including the statement of application required by Section 65943, shall be made available to all applicants for development projects and to any person who requests the information.
88 — 21 — Ch. 654
(b) The list of information required from any applicant shall include, where applicable, identification of whether the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation, beneath a low-level flight path or within special use airspace as defined in Section 21098 of the Public Resources Code, and within an urbanized area as defined in Section 65944. (c) (1) A public agency that is not beneath a low-level flight path or not within special use airspace and does not contain a military installation is not required to change its list of information required from applicants to comply with subdivision (b).
(2) A public agency that is entirely urbanized, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 65944, with the exception of a jurisdiction that contains a military installation, is not required to change its list of information required from applicants to comply with subdivision (b).
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2025.
SEC. 8. Section 65941.1 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65941.1. (a) An applicant for a housing development project, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5, shall be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application upon providing all of the following information about the proposed project to the city, county, or city and county from which approval for the project is being sought and upon payment of the permit processing fee:
(1) The specific location, including parcel numbers, a legal description, and site address, if applicable.
(2) The existing uses on the project site and identification of major physical alterations to the property on which the project is to be located. (3) A site plan showing the location on the property, elevations showing design, color, and material, and the massing, height, and approximate square footage, of each building that is to be occupied.
(4) The proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residential and nonresidential development using the categories in the applicable zoning ordinance.
(5) The proposed number of parking spaces.
(6) Any proposed point sources of air or water pollutants. (7) Any species of special concern known to occur on the property. (8) Whether a portion of the property is located within any of the following:
(A) A very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178. (B) Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
(C) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code. (D) A special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
88 Ch. 654 — 22 —
(E) A delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2.
(F) A stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreement pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code.
(9) Any historic or cultural resources known to exist on the property. (10) The number of proposed below market rate units and their affordability levels.
(11) The number of bonus units and any incentives, concessions, waivers, or parking reductions requested pursuant to Section 65915. (12) Whether any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act, including, but not limited to, a parcel map, a tentative map, or a condominium map, are being requested.
(13) The applicant’s contact information and, if the applicant does not own the property, consent from the property owner to submit the application. (14) For a housing development project proposed to be located within the coastal zone, whether any portion of the property contains any of the following:
(A) Wetlands, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 13577 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
(B) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section 30240 of the Public Resources Code.
(C) A tsunami run-up zone.
(D) Use of the site for public access to or along the coast. (15) The number of existing residential units on the project site that will be demolished and whether each existing unit is occupied or unoccupied. (16) A site map showing a stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreement pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code and an aerial site photograph showing existing site conditions of environmental site features that would be subject to regulations by a public agency, including creeks and wetlands.
(17) The location of any recorded public easement, such as easements for storm drains, water lines, and other public rights of way. (b) (1) Each local agency shall compile a checklist and application form that applicants for housing development projects may use for the purpose of satisfying the requirements for submittal of a preliminary application. (2) The Department of Housing and Community Development shall adopt a standardized form that applicants for housing development projects may use for the purpose of satisfying the requirements for submittal of a preliminary application if a local agency has not developed its own 88 — 23 — Ch. 654
application form pursuant to paragraph (1). Adoption of the standardized form shall not be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. (3) A checklist or form shall not require or request any information beyond that expressly identified in subdivision (a).
(c) After submittal of all of the information required by subdivision (a), if the development proponent revises the project such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, the housing development project shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application that satisfies this section until the development proponent resubmits the information required by subdivision (a) so that it reflects the revisions. For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).
(d) (1) Within 180 calendar days after submitting a preliminary application with all of the information required by subdivision (a) to a city, county, or city and county, the development proponent shall submit an application for a development project that includes all of the information required to process the development application consistent with Sections 65940, 65941, and 65941.5.
(2) If the public agency determines that the application for the development project is not complete pursuant to Section 65943, the development proponent shall submit the specific information needed to complete the application within 90 days of receiving the agency’s written identification of the necessary information. If the development proponent does not submit this information within the 90-day period, then the preliminary application shall expire and have no further force or effect. (3) This section shall not require an affirmative determination by a city, county, or city and county regarding the completeness of a preliminary application or a development application for purposes of compliance with this section.
(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 9. Section 65943 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65943. (a) Not later than 30 calendar days after any public agency has received an application for a development project, the agency shall determine in writing whether the application is complete and shall immediately transmit the determination to the applicant for the development project. If the application is determined to be incomplete, the lead agency shall provide the applicant with an exhaustive list of items that were not complete. That list shall be limited to those items actually required on the lead agency’s submittal requirement checklist. In any subsequent review of the application determined to be incomplete, the local agency shall not request the applicant to provide any new information that was not stated in the initial list of items that were not complete. If the written determination is not made within 30 88 Ch. 654 — 24 —
days after receipt of the application, and the application includes a statement that it is an application for a development permit, the application shall be deemed complete for purposes of this chapter. Upon receipt of any resubmittal of the application, a new 30-day period shall begin, during which the public agency shall determine the completeness of the application. If the application is determined not to be complete, the agency’s determination shall specify those parts of the application which are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in which they can be made complete, including a list and thorough description of the specific information needed to complete the application. The applicant shall submit materials to the public agency in response to the list and description.
(b) Not later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the submitted materials described in subdivision (a), the public agency shall determine in writing whether the application as supplemented or amended by the submitted materials is complete and shall immediately transmit that determination to the applicant. In making this determination, the public agency is limited to determining whether the application as supplemented or amended includes the information required by the list and a thorough description of the specific information needed to complete the application required by subdivision (a).
If the written determination is not made within that 30-day period, the application together with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete for purposes of this chapter.
(c) If the application together with the submitted materials are determined not to be complete pursuant to subdivision (b), the public agency shall provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. A city or county shall provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both.
There shall be a final written determination by the agency on the appeal not later than 60 calendar days after receipt of the applicant’s written appeal.
The fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the 60-day period. Notwithstanding a decision pursuant to subdivision (b) that the application and submitted materials are not complete, if the final written determination on the appeal is not made within that 60-day period, the application with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete for the purposes of this chapter. (d) Nothing in this section precludes an applicant and a public agency from mutually agreeing to an extension of any time limit provided by this section.
(e) A public agency may charge applicants a fee not to exceed the amount reasonably necessary to provide the service required by this section. If a fee is charged pursuant to this section, the fee shall be collected as part of the application fee charged for the development permit.
(f) Each city and each county shall make copies of any list compiled pursuant to Section 65940 with respect to information required from an applicant for a housing development project, as that term is defined in 88 — 25 — Ch. 654
paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5, available both (1) in writing to those persons to whom the agency is required to make information available under subdivision (a) of that section, and (2) publicly available on the internet website of the city or county.
(g) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 10. Section 65943 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65943. (a) Not later than 30 calendar days after any public agency has received an application for a development project, the agency shall determine in writing whether the application is complete and shall immediately transmit the determination to the applicant for the development project. If the written determination is not made within 30 days after receipt of the application, and the application includes a statement that it is an application for a development permit, the application shall be deemed complete for purposes of this chapter. Upon receipt of any resubmittal of the application, a new 30-day period shall begin, during which the public agency shall determine the completeness of the application. If the application is determined not to be complete, the agency’s determination shall specify those parts of the application which are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in which they can be made complete, including a list and thorough description of the specific information needed to complete the application. The applicant shall submit materials to the public agency in response to the list and description. (b) Not later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the submitted materials, the public agency shall determine in writing whether they are complete and shall immediately transmit that determination to the applicant. If the written determination is not made within that 30-day period, the application together with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete for purposes of this chapter.
(c) If the application together with the submitted materials are determined not to be complete pursuant to subdivision (b), the public agency shall provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. A city or county shall provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both.
There shall be a final written determination by the agency on the appeal not later than 60 calendar days after receipt of the applicant’s written appeal.
The fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the 60-day period. Notwithstanding a decision pursuant to subdivision (b) that the application and submitted materials are not complete, if the final written determination on the appeal is not made within that 60-day period, the application with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete for the purposes of this chapter. (d) Nothing in this section precludes an applicant and a public agency from mutually agreeing to an extension of any time limit provided by this section.
88 Ch. 654 — 26 —
(e) A public agency may charge applicants a fee not to exceed the amount reasonably necessary to provide the service required by this section. If a fee is charged pursuant to this section, the fee shall be collected as part of the application fee charged for the development permit.
(f) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2025.
SEC. 11. Section 65950 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65950. (a) A public agency that is the lead agency for a development project shall approve or disapprove the project within whichever of the following periods is applicable:
(1) One hundred eighty days from the date of certification by the lead agency of the environmental impact report, if an environmental impact report is prepared pursuant to Section 21100 or 21151 of the Public Resources Code for the development project.
(2) Ninety days from the date of certification by the lead agency of the environmental impact report, if an environmental impact report is prepared pursuant to Section 21100 or 21151 of the Public Resources Code for a development project defined in subdivision (c).
(3) Sixty days from the date of certification by the lead agency of the environmental impact report, if an environmental impact report is prepared pursuant to Section 21100 or 21151 of the Public Resources Code for a development project defined in subdivision (c) and all of the following conditions are met:
(A) At least 49 percent of the units in the development project are affordable to very low or low-income households, as defined by Sections 50105 and 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, respectively. Rents for the lower income units shall be set at an affordable rent, as that term is defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for at least 30 years. Owner-occupied units shall be available at an affordable housing cost, as that term is defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) Prior to the application being deemed complete for the development project pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 65940), the lead agency received written notice from the project applicant that an application has been made or will be made for an allocation or commitment of financing, tax credits, bond authority, or other financial assistance from a public agency or federal agency, and the notice specifies the financial assistance that has been applied for or will be applied for and the deadline for application for that assistance, the requirement that one of the approvals of the development project by the lead agency is a prerequisite to the application for or approval of the application for financial assistance, and that the financial assistance is necessary for the project to be affordable as required pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(C) There is confirmation that the application has been made to the public agency or federal agency prior to certification of the environmental impact report.
88 — 27 — Ch. 654
(4) Sixty days from the date of adoption by the lead agency of the negative declaration, if a negative declaration is completed and adopted for the development project.
(5) Sixty days from the determination by the lead agency that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), if the project is exempt from that act.
(b) This section does not preclude a project applicant and a public agency from mutually agreeing in writing to an extension of any time limit provided by this section pursuant to Section 65957.
(c) For purposes of paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a) and Section 65952, “development project” means a housing development project, as that term is defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5. (d) For purposes of this section, “lead agency” and “negative declaration” have the same meaning as defined in Sections 21067 and 21064 of the Public Resources Code, respectively.
(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 12. Section 65950 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65950. (a) A public agency that is the lead agency for a development project shall approve or disapprove the project within whichever of the following periods is applicable:
(1) One hundred eighty days from the date of certification by the lead agency of the environmental impact report, if an environmental impact report is prepared pursuant to Section 21100 or 21151 of the Public Resources Code for the development project.
(2) One hundred twenty days from the date of certification by the lead agency of the environmental impact report, if an environmental impact report is prepared pursuant to Section 21100 or 21151 of the Public Resources Code for a development project defined in subdivision (c). (3) Ninety days from the date of certification by the lead agency of the environmental impact report, if an environmental impact report is prepared pursuant to Section 21100 or 21151 of the Public Resources Code for a development project defined in subdivision (c) and all of the following conditions are met:
(A) At least 49 percent of the units in the development project are affordable to very low or low-income households, as defined by Sections 50105 and 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, respectively. Rents for the lower income units shall be set at an affordable rent, as that term is defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for at least 30 years. Owner-occupied units shall be available at an affordable housing cost, as that term is defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) Prior to the application being deemed complete for the development project pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 65940), the lead agency received written notice from the project applicant that an application has been made or will be made for an allocation or commitment of financing, 88 Ch. 654 — 28 —
tax credits, bond authority, or other financial assistance from a public agency or federal agency, and the notice specifies the financial assistance that has been applied for or will be applied for and the deadline for application for that assistance, the requirement that one of the approvals of the development project by the lead agency is a prerequisite to the application for or approval of the application for financial assistance, and that the financial assistance is necessary for the project to be affordable as required pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(C) There is confirmation that the application has been made to the public agency or federal agency prior to certification of the environmental impact report.
(4) Sixty days from the date of adoption by the lead agency of the negative declaration, if a negative declaration is completed and adopted for the development project.
(5) Sixty days from the determination by the lead agency that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), if the project is exempt from that act.
(b) This section does not preclude a project applicant and a public agency from mutually agreeing in writing to an extension of any time limit provided by this section pursuant to Section 65957.
(c) For purposes of paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a) and Section 65952, “development project” means a use consisting of either of the following:
(1) Residential units only.
(2) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which the nonresidential uses are less than 50 percent of the total square footage of the development and are limited to neighborhood commercial uses and to the first floor of buildings that are two or more stories. As used in this paragraph, “neighborhood commercial” means small-scale general or specialty stores that furnish goods and services primarily to residents of the neighborhood.
(d) For purposes of this section, “lead agency” and “negative declaration” have the same meaning as defined in Sections 21067 and 21064 of the Public Resources Code, respectively.
(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2025.
SEC. 13. Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 66300) is added to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, to read:
Chapter 12. Housing Crisis Act of 2019
66300. (a) As used in this section:
(1) (A) Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B), “affected city” means a city, including a charter city, that the Department of Housing and Community Development determines, pursuant to subdivision (e), is 88 — 29 — Ch. 654
in an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), “affected city” does not include any city that has a population of 5,000 or less and is not located within an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. (2) “Affected county” means a census designated place, based on the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, that is wholly located within the boundaries of an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
(3) Notwithstanding any other law, “affected county” and “affected city” includes the electorate of an affected county or city exercising its local initiative or referendum power, whether that power is derived from the California Constitution, statute, or the charter or ordinances of the affected county or city.
(4) “Department” means the Department of Housing and Community Development.
(5) “Development policy, standard, or condition” means any of the following:
(A) A provision of, or amendment to, a general plan.
(B) A provision of, or amendment to, a specific plan.
(C) A provision of, or amendment to, a zoning ordinance. (D) A subdivision standard or criterion.
(6) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5.
(7) “Objective design standard” means a design standard that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application. (b) (1) Notwithstanding any other law except as provided in subdivision (i), with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not enact a development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following effects:
(A) Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district below what was allowed under the land use designation and zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B).
For purposes of this subparagraph, “less intensive use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, or new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing. (B) (i) Imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development, including mixed-use development, within all or a 88 Ch. 654 — 30 —
portion of the jurisdiction of the affected county or city, other than to specifically protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium or for projects specifically identified as existing restricted affordable housing.
(ii) The affected county or affected city, as applicable, shall not enforce a zoning ordinance imposing a moratorium or other similar restriction on or limitation of housing development until it has submitted the ordinance to, and received approval from, the department. The department shall approve a zoning ordinance submitted to it pursuant to this subparagraph only if it determines that the zoning ordinance satisfies the requirements of this subparagraph. If the department denies approval of a zoning ordinance imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development as inconsistent with this subparagraph, that ordinance shall be deemed void.
(C) Imposing or enforcing design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are not objective design standards.
(D) Except as provided in subparagraph (E), establishing or implementing any provision that:
(i) Limits the number of land use approvals or permits necessary for the approval and construction of housing that will be issued or allocated within all or a portion of the affected county or affected city, as applicable. (ii) Acts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed either annually or for some other time period. (iii) Limits the population of the affected county or affected city, as applicable.
(E) Notwithstanding subparagraph (D), an affected county or affected city may enforce a limit on the number of approvals or permits or a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed if the provision of law imposing the limit was approved by voters prior to January 1, 2005, and the affected county or affected city is located in a predominantly agricultural county. For the purposes of this subparagraph, “predominantly agricultural county” means a county that meets both of the following, as determined by the most recent California Farmland Conversion Report produced by the Department of Conservation:
(i) Has more than 550,000 acres of agricultural land.
(ii) At least one-half of the county area is agricultural land. (2) Any development policy, standard, or condition enacted on or after the effective date of this section that does not comply with this section shall be deemed void.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (b) and (f), an affected county or affected city may enact a development policy, standard, or condition to prohibit the commercial use of land that is designated for residential use, including, but not limited to, short-term occupancy of a residence, consistent with the authority conferred on the county or city by other law. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, both of the following shall apply:
88 — 31 — Ch. 654
(1) An affected city or an affected county shall not approve a housing development project that will require the demolition of residential dwelling units unless the project will create at least as many residential dwelling units as will be demolished.
(2) An affected city or an affected county shall not approve a housing development project that will require the demolition of occupied or vacant protected units, unless all of the following apply:
(A) (i) The project will replace all existing or demolished protected units.
(ii) Any protected units replaced pursuant to this subparagraph shall be considered in determining whether the housing development project satisfies the requirements of Section 65915 or a locally adopted requirement that requires, as a condition of the development of residential rental units, that the project provide a certain percentage of residential rental units affordable to, and occupied by, households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households, as specified in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(iii) Notwithstanding clause (i), in the case of a protected unit that is or was, within the five-year period preceding the application, subject to a form of rent or price control through a local government’s valid exercise of its police power, and that is or was occupied by persons or families above lower income, the affected city or affected county may do either of the following:
(I) Require that the replacement units be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, low-income persons or families. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. (II) Require that the units be replaced in compliance with the jurisdiction’s rent or price control ordinance, provided that each unit is replaced. Unless otherwise required by the affected city or affected county’s rent or price control ordinance, these units shall not be subject to a recorded affordability restriction.
(B) The housing development project will include at least as many residential dwelling units as the greatest number of residential dwelling units that existed on the project site within the last five years. (C) Any existing residents will be allowed to occupy their units until six months before the start of construction activities with proper notice, subject to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 7260) of Division 7 of Title 1. (D) The developer agrees to provide both of the following to the occupants of any protected units:
(i) Relocation benefits to the occupants of those affordable residential rental units, subject to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 7260) of Division 7 of Title 1.
(ii) A right of first refusal for a comparable unit available in the new housing development affordable to the household at an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable housing cost, as defined in 50052.5.
88 Ch. 654 — 32 —
(E) For purposes of this paragraph:
(i) “Equivalent size” means that the replacement units contain at least the same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced. (ii) “Protected units” means any of the following:
(I) Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past five years. (II) Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power within the past five years.
(III) Residential dwelling units that are or were occupied by lower or very low income households within the past five years.
(IV) Residential dwelling units that were withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 within the past 10 years.
(iii) “Replace” shall have the same meaning as provided in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915. (3) This subdivision shall not supersede any objective provision of a locally adopted ordinance that places restrictions on the demolition of residential dwelling units or the subdivision of residential rental units that are more protective of lower income households, requires the provision of a greater number of units affordable to lower income households, or that requires greater relocation assistance to displaced households. (4) This subdivision shall only apply to a housing development project that submits a complete application pursuant to Section 65943 on or after January 1, 2020.
(e) The Department of Housing and Community Development shall determine those cities and counties in this state that are affected cities and affected counties, in accordance with subdivision (a) by June 30, 2020. The department may update the list of affected cities and affected counties once on or after January 1, 2021, to account for changes in urbanized areas or urban clusters due to new data obtained from the 2020 census. The department’s determination shall remain valid until January 1, 2025. (f) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) and subdivisions (h) and (i), this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision of this title or other law regulating housing development in this state to the extent that this section more fully advances the intent specified in paragraph (2). (2) It is the intent of the Legislature that this section be broadly construed so as to maximize the development of housing within this state. Any exception to the requirements of this section, including an exception for the health and safety of occupants of a housing development project, shall be construed narrowly.
(3) This section shall not be construed as prohibiting the adoption or amendment of a development policy, standard, or condition in a manner that:
(A) Allows greater density.
(B) Facilitates the development of housing.
88 — 33 — Ch. 654
(C) Reduces the costs to a housing development project. (D) Imposes or implements mitigation measures as necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(4) This section shall not apply to a housing development project located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. For purposes of this paragraph, “very high fire hazard severity zone” has the same meaning as provided in Section 51177.
(g) This section shall not be construed to void a height limit, urban growth boundary, or urban limit established by the electorate of an affected county or an affected city, provided that the height limit, urban growth boundary, or urban limit complies with subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b).
(h) (1) Nothing in this section supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of, or the standards of review pursuant to, Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (2) Nothing in this section supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). For a housing development project proposed within the coastal zone, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an affected county or an affected city from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition necessary to implement or amend a certified local coastal program consistent with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(i) (1) This section does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity. (2) This section does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use on a site that is a mobilehome park, as defined in Section 18214 of the Health and Safety Code, as of the effective date of this section, and the no net loss requirement in paragraph (1) shall not apply.
(j) Notwithstanding subdivisions (b) and (f), this section does not prohibit an affected city or an affected county from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that is intended to preserve or facilitate the production of housing for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or housing types that traditionally serve lower income households, including mobilehome parks, single-room occupancy units, or units subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
66301. This chapter shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 14. The Legislature finds and declares that the provision of adequate housing, in light of the severe shortage of housing at all income 88 Ch. 654 — 34 —
levels in this state, is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, the provisions of this act apply to all cities, including charter cities.
SEC. 15. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because, in that regard, this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 16. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
O
88 — 35 — Ch. 654
Senate Bill No. 35
CHAPTER 366
An act to amend Sections 65400 and 65582.1 of, and to add and repeal Section 65913.4 of, the Government Code, relating to housing. [Approved by Governor September 29, 2017. Filed with
Secretary of State September 29, 2017.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 35, Wiener. Planning and zoning: affordable housing: streamlined approval process.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a planning agency, after a legislative body has adopted all or part of a general plan, to provide an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development on the status of the general plan and progress in meeting the community’s share of regional housing needs. Existing law requires the housing element portion of the annual report to be prepared through the use of forms and definitions adopted by the department pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.
This bill would require the housing element portion of the annual report to be prepared through the use of standards, forms, and definitions adopted by the department. The bill would eliminate the requirement that the forms and definitions be adopted by the department pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and would instead authorize the department to review, adopt, amend, and repeal the standards, forms, or definitions, as provided. The bill would also require the planning agency to include in its annual report specified information regarding units of net new housing, including rental housing and for-sale housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, building permit, or certificate of occupancy. The bill would also require the Department of Housing and Community Development to post an annual report submitted pursuant to the requirement described above on its Internet Web site, as provided.
(2) Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law 87 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AUTHENTICATED
ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
ATTACHMENT 3
provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing.
This bill would authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development, which satisfies specified planning objective standards, that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit.
The bill would require a local government to notify the development proponent in writing if the local government determines that the development conflicts with any of those objective standards by a specified time; otherwise, the development is deemed to comply with those standards. The bill would limit the authority of a local government to impose parking standards or requirements on a streamlined development approved pursuant to these provisions, as provided. The bill would provide that if a local government approves a project pursuant to that process, that approval will not expire if that project includes investment in housing affordability, and would otherwise provide that the approval of a project expire automatically after 3 years, unless that project qualifies for a one-time, one-year extension of that approval. The bill would provide that approval pursuant to its provisions would remain valid for three years and remain valid thereafter so long as vertical construction of the development has begun and is in progress, and would authorize a discretionary one-year extension, as provided. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting any requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project receives ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2026.
(3) The bill would make findings that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and declare that its provisions would apply to all cities and counties, including a charter city, a charter county, or a charter city and county.
(4) By imposing new duties upon local agencies with respect to the streamlined approval process and reporting requirement described above, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65400 of the Government Code proposed by AB 879 to be operative only if this bill and AB 879 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65582.1 of the Government Code proposed by AB 73 to be operative only if this bill and AB 73 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
87 Ch. 366 — 2 —
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 65400 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65400. (a) After the legislative body has adopted all or part of a general plan, the planning agency shall do both of the following:
(1) Investigate and make recommendations to the legislative body regarding reasonable and practical means for implementing the general plan or element of the general plan, so that it will serve as an effective guide for orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open-space land and natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the general plan. (2) Provide by April 1 of each year an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development that includes all of the following:
(A) The status of the plan and progress in its implementation. (B) The progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs determined pursuant to Section 65584 and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.
The housing element portion of the annual report, as required by this paragraph, shall be prepared through the use of standards, forms, and definitions adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development. The department may review, adopt, amend, and repeal the standards, forms, or definitions, to implement this article. Any standards, forms, or definitions adopted to implement this article shall not be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) or Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2. Before and after adoption of the forms, the housing element portion of the annual report shall include a section that describes the actions taken by the local government towards completion of the programs and status of the local government’s compliance with the deadlines in its housing element.
That report shall be considered at an annual public meeting before the legislative body where members of the public shall be allowed to provide oral testimony and written comments.
The report may include the number of units that have been substantially rehabilitated, converted from nonaffordable to affordable by acquisition, and preserved consistent with the standards set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.1. The report shall document how the units meet the standards set forth in that subdivision.
(C) The degree to which its approved general plan complies with the guidelines developed and adopted pursuant to Section 65040.2 and the date of the last revision to the general plan.
(D) The number of net new units of housing, including both rental housing and for-sale housing, that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy, thus far in the housing element cycle, and the income category, by area median income category, that each unit of housing, including both rental housing and housing designated for 87 — 3 — Ch. 366
home ownership, satisfies. That production report shall, for each income category described in this subparagraph, distinguish between the number of rental housing units and the number of for-sale housing units that satisfy each income category. The production report shall include, for each entitlement, building permit, or certificate of occupancy, a unique site identifier, which must include an assessor’s parcel number, but may also include street address or other identifiers.
(E) The number of applications submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4, the location and the total number of developments approved pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65913.4, the total number of building permits issued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65913.4, the total number of units including both rental housing and for-sale housing by area median income category constructed using the process provided for in subdivision (b) of Section 65913.4.
(F) The Department of Housing and Community Development shall post a report submitted pursuant to this paragraph on its Internet Web site within a reasonable time of receiving the report.
(b) If a court finds, upon a motion to that effect, that a city, county, or city and county failed to submit, within 60 days of the deadline established in this section, the housing element portion of the report required pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) that substantially complies with the requirements of this section, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days. If the city, county, or city and county fails to comply with the court’s order within 60 days, the plaintiff or petitioner may move for sanctions, and the court may, upon that motion, grant appropriate sanctions. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out. If the court determines that its order or judgment is not carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled. This subdivision applies to proceedings initiated on or after the first day of October following the adoption of forms and definitions by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), but no sooner than six months following that adoption.
SEC. 1.5. Section 65400 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65400. (a) After the legislative body has adopted all or part of a general plan, the planning agency shall do both of the following:
(1) Investigate and make recommendations to the legislative body regarding reasonable and practical means for implementing the general plan or element of the general plan, so that it will serve as an effective guide for orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open-space land and natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the general plan. (2) Provide by April 1 of each year an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development that includes all of the following:
(A) The status of the plan and progress in its implementation. 87 Ch. 366 — 4 —
(B) The progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs determined pursuant to Section 65584 and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.
The housing element portion of the annual report, as required by this paragraph, shall be prepared through the use of standards, forms, and definitions adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development. The department may review, adopt, amend, and repeal the standards, forms, or definitions, to implement this article. Any standards, forms, or definitions adopted to implement this article shall not be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2. Before and after adoption of the forms, the housing element portion of the annual report shall include a section that describes the actions taken by the local government towards completion of the programs and status of the local government’s compliance with the deadlines in its housing element.
That report shall be considered at an annual public meeting before the legislative body where members of the public shall be allowed to provide oral testimony and written comments.
The report may include the number of units that have been substantially rehabilitated, converted from nonaffordable to affordable by acquisition, and preserved consistent with the standards set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.1. The report shall document how the units meet the standards set forth in that subdivision.
(C) The number of housing development applications received in the prior year.
(D) The number of units included in all development applications in the prior year.
(E) The number of units approved and disapproved in the prior year. (F) The degree to which its approved general plan complies with the guidelines developed and adopted pursuant to Section 65040.2 and the date of the last revision to the general plan.
(G) A listing of sites rezoned to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Sections 65583 and 65584.09. The listing of sites shall also include any additional sites that may have been required to be identified by Section 65863.
(H) The number of net new units of housing, including both rental housing and for-sale housing, that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy, thus far in the housing element cycle, and the income category, by area median income category, that each unit of housing satisfies. That production report shall, for each income category described in this subparagraph, distinguish between the number of rental housing units and the number of for-sale units that satisfy each income category. The production report shall include, for each entitlement, building permit, or certificate of occupancy, a unique site identifier which 87 — 5 — Ch. 366
must include the assessor’s parcel number, but may include street address, or other identifiers.
(I) The number of applications submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4, the location and the total number of developments approved pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65913.4, the total number of building permits issued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65913.4, the total number of units including both rental housing and for-sale housing by area median income category constructed using the process provided for in subdivision (b) of Section 65913.4.
(J) The Department of Housing and Community Development shall post a report submitted pursuant to this paragraph on its Internet Web site within a reasonable time of receiving the report.
(b) If a court finds, upon a motion to that effect, that a city, county, or city and county failed to submit, within 60 days of the deadline established in this section, the housing element portion of the report required pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) that substantially complies with the requirements of this section, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days. If the city, county, or city and county fails to comply with the court’s order within 60 days, the plaintiff or petitioner may move for sanctions, and the court may, upon that motion, grant appropriate sanctions. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out. If the court determines that its order or judgment is not carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled. This subdivision applies to proceedings initiated on or after the first day of October following the adoption of forms and definitions by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), but no sooner than six months following that adoption.
SEC. 2. Section 65582.1 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65582.1. The Legislature finds and declares that it has provided reforms and incentives to facilitate and expedite the approval and construction of affordable housing. Those reforms and incentives can be found in the following provisions:
(a) Housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3).
(b) Extension of statute of limitations in actions challenging the housing element and brought in support of affordable housing (subdivision (d) of Section 65009).
(c) Restrictions on disapproval of housing developments (Section 65589.5).
(d) Priority for affordable housing in the allocation of water and sewer hookups (Section 65589.7).
(e) Least cost zoning law (Section 65913.1).
(f) Density bonus law (Section 65915).
(g) Accessory dwelling units (Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2). 87 Ch. 366 — 6 —
(h) By-right housing, in which certain multifamily housing are designated a permitted use (Section 65589.4).
(i) No-net-loss-in zoning density law limiting downzonings and density reductions (Section 65863).
(j) Requiring persons who sue to halt affordable housing to pay attorney fees (Section 65914) or post a bond (Section 529.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
(k) Reduced time for action on affordable housing applications under the approval of development permits process (Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) of Chapter 4.5).
(l) Limiting moratoriums on multifamily housing (Section 65858). (m) Prohibiting discrimination against affordable housing (Section 65008).
(n) California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3).
(o) Community redevelopment law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, and in particular Sections 33334.2 and 33413).
(p) Streamlining housing approvals during a housing shortage (Section 65913.4).
SEC. 2.5. Section 65582.1 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65582.1. The Legislature finds and declares that it has provided reforms and incentives to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. Those reforms and incentives can be found in the following provisions:
(a) Housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3).
(b) Extension of statute of limitations in actions challenging the housing element and brought in support of affordable housing (subdivision (d) of Section 65009).
(c) Restrictions on disapproval of housing developments (Section 65589.5).
(d) Priority for affordable housing in the allocation of water and sewer hookups (Section 65589.7).
(e) Least cost zoning law (Section 65913.1).
(f) Density bonus law (Section 65915).
(g) Accessory dwelling units (Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2). (h) By-right housing, in which certain multifamily housing are designated a permitted use (Section 65589.4).
(i) No-net-loss-in zoning density law limiting downzonings and density reductions (Section 65863).
(j) Requiring persons who sue to halt affordable housing to pay attorney fees (Section 65914) or post a bond (Section 529.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
(k) Reduced time for action on affordable housing applications under the approval of development permits process (Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) of Chapter 4.5).
87 — 7 — Ch. 366
(l) Limiting moratoriums on multifamily housing (Section 65858). (m) Prohibiting discrimination against affordable housing (Section 65008).
(n) California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3).
(o) Community redevelopment law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, and in particular Sections 33334.2 and 33413).
(p) Streamlining housing approvals during a housing shortage (Section 65913.4).
(q) Housing sustainability districts (Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 66200)).
SEC. 3. Section 65913.4 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65913.4. (a) A development proponent may submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (b) and not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies all of the following objective planning standards:
(1) The development is a multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units.
(2) The development is located on a site that satisfies all of the following:
(A) A site that is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if, and only if, the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel or parcels wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
(B) A site in which at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. For the purposes of this section, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined.
(C) A site that is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development designated for residential use. (3) If the development contains units that are subsidized, the development proponent already has recorded, or is required by law to record, a land use restriction for the following applicable minimum durations:
(A) Fifty-five years for units that are rented.
(B) Forty-five years for units that are owned.
(4) The development satisfies both of the following:
(A) Is located in a locality that the department has determined is subject to this subparagraph on the basis that the number of units that have been issued building permits is less than the locality’s share of the regional housing needs, by income category, for that reporting period. A locality shall remain eligible under this subparagraph until the department’s determination for the next reporting period. A locality shall be subject to this subparagraph if it has not submitted an annual housing element report 87 Ch. 366 — 8 —
to the department pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400 for at least two consecutive years before the development submitted an application for approval under this section.
(B) The development is subject to a requirement mandating a minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on one of the following:
(i) The locality did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or that production report reflects that there were fewer units of above moderate-income housing approved than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period. In addition, if the project contains more than 10 units of housing, the project seeking approval dedicates a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income. If the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires that greater than 10 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income, that zoning ordinance applies. (ii) The locality did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or that production report reflects that there were fewer units of housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income that were issued building permits than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period, and the project seeking approval dedicates 50 percent of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income, unless the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires that greater than 50 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income, in which case that ordinance applies.
(iii) The locality did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or if the production report reflects that there were fewer units of housing affordable to any income level described in clause (i) or (ii) that were issued building permits than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period, the project seeking approval may choose between utilizing clause (i) or (ii).
(5) The development, excluding any additional density or any other concessions, incentives, or waivers of development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law in Section 65915, is consistent with objective zoning standards and objective design review standards in effect at the time that the development is submitted to the local government pursuant to this section. For purposes of this paragraph, “objective zoning standards” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a 87 — 9 — Ch. 366
city or county, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances, subject to the following:
(A) A development shall be deemed consistent with the objective zoning standards related to housing density, as applicable, if the density proposed is compliant with the maximum density allowed within that land use designation, notwithstanding any specified maximum unit allocation that may result in fewer units of housing being permitted.
(B) In the event that objective zoning, general plan, or design review standards are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the objective zoning standards pursuant to this subdivision if the development is consistent with the standards set forth in the general plan.
(6) The development is not located on a site that is any of the following:
(A) A coastal zone, as defined in Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code.
(B) Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction.
(C) Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
(D) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. (E) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses.
(F) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2.
87 Ch. 366 — 10 —
(G) Within a flood plain as determined by maps promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has been issued a flood plain development permit pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (H) Within a floodway as determined by maps promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has received a no-rise certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(I) Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural resource protection plan.
(J) Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter
1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code). (K) Lands under conservation easement.
(7) The development is not located on a site where any of the following apply:
(A) The development would require the demolition of the following types of housing:
(i) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
(ii) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
(iii) Housing that has been occupied by tenants within the past 10 years. (B) The site was previously used for housing that was occupied by tenants that was demolished within 10 years before the development proponent submits an application under this section.
(C) The development would require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register. (D) The property contains housing units that are occupied by tenants, and units at the property are, or were, subsequently offered for sale to the general public by the subdivider or subsequent owner of the property. (8) The development proponent has done both of the following, as applicable:
(A) Certified to the locality that either of the following is true, as applicable:
87 — 11 — Ch. 366
(i) The entirety of the development is a public work for purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.
(ii) If the development is not in its entirety a public work, that all construction workers employed in the execution of the development will be paid at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the Labor Code, except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. If the development is subject to this subparagraph, then for those portions of the development that are not a public work all of the following shall apply:
(I) The development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance of the work. (II) All contractors and subcontractors shall pay to all construction workers employed in the execution of the work at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. (III) Except as provided in subclause (V), all contractors and subcontractors shall maintain and verify payroll records pursuant to Section 1776 of the Labor Code and make those records available for inspection and copying as provided in therein.
(IV) Except as provided in subclause (V), the obligation of the contractors and subcontractors to pay prevailing wages may be enforced by the Labor Commissioner through the issuance of a civil wage and penalty assessment pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor Code, which may be reviewed pursuant to Section 1742 of the Labor Code, within 18 months after the completion of the development, by an underpaid worker through an administrative complaint or civil action, or by a joint labor-management committee though a civil action under Section 1771.2 of the Labor Code.
If a civil wage and penalty assessment is issued, the contractor, subcontractor, and surety on a bond or bonds issued to secure the payment of wages covered by the assessment shall be liable for liquidated damages pursuant to Section 1742.1 of the Labor Code.
(V) Subclauses (III) and (IV) shall not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of the development and provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure.
For purposes of this clause, “project labor agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract Code.
(VI) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 1773.1 of the Labor Code, the requirement that employer payments not reduce the obligation to pay the hourly straight time or overtime wages found to be prevailing shall 87 Ch. 366 — 12 —
not apply if otherwise provided in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement covering the worker. The requirement to pay at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages does not preclude use of an alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to Section 511 or 514 of the Labor Code.
(B) (i) For developments for which any of the following conditions apply, certified that a skilled and trained workforce shall be used to complete the development if the application is approved:
(I) On and after January 1, 2018, until December 31, 2021, the development consists of 75 or more units that are not 100 percent subsidized affordable housing and will be located within a jurisdiction located in a coastal or bay county with a population of 225,000 or more. (II) On and after January 1, 2022, until December 31, 2025, the development consists of 50 or more units that are not 100 percent subsidized affordable housing and will be located within a jurisdiction located in a coastal or bay county with a population of 225,000 or more. (III) On and after January 1, 2018, until December 31, 2019, the development consists of 75 or more units that are not 100 percent subsidized affordable housing and will be located within a jurisdiction with a population of fewer than 550,000 and that is not located in a coastal or bay county. (IV) On and after January 1, 2020, until December 31, 2021, the development consists of more than 50 units and will be located within a jurisdiction with a population of fewer than 550,000 and that is not located in a coastal or bay county.
(V) On and after January 1, 2022, until December 31, 2025, the development consists of more than 25 units and will be located within a jurisdiction with a population of fewer than 550,000 and that is not located in a coastal bay county.
(ii) For purposes of this section, “skilled and trained workforce” has the same meaning as provided in Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code.
(iii) If the development proponent has certified that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to complete the development and the application is approved, the following shall apply:
(I) The applicant shall require in all contracts for the performance of work that every contractor and subcontractor at every tier will individually use a skilled and trained workforce to complete the development. (II) Every contractor and subcontractor shall use a skilled and trained workforce to complete the development.
(III) Except as provided in subclause (IV), the applicant shall provide to the locality, on a monthly basis while the development or contract is being performed, a report demonstrating compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code. A monthly report provided to the locality pursuant to this subclause shall be a public record under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) and shall be open to public inspection. An applicant that fails to provide a 87 — 13 — Ch. 366
monthly report demonstrating compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per month for each month for which the report has not been provided. Any contractor or subcontractor that fails to use a skilled and trained workforce shall be subject to a civil penalty of two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each worker employed in contravention of the skilled and trained workforce requirement.
Penalties may be assessed by the Labor Commissioner within 18 months of completion of the development using the same procedures for issuance of civil wage and penalty assessments pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor Code, and may be reviewed pursuant to the same procedures in Section 1742 of the Labor Code. Penalties shall be paid to the State Public Works Enforcement Fund.
(IV) Subclause (III) shall not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement that requires compliance with the skilled and trained workforce requirement and provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure. For purposes of this subparagraph, “project labor agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract Code.
(C) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), a development that is subject to approval pursuant to this section is exempt from any requirement to pay prevailing wages or use a skilled and trained workforce if it meets both of the following:
(i) The project includes 10 or fewer units.
(ii) The project is not a public work for purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code. (9) The development did not or does not involve a subdivision of a parcel that is, or, notwithstanding this section, would otherwise be, subject to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land, unless either of the following apply:
(A) The development has received or will receive financing or funding by means of a low-income housing tax credit and is subject to the requirement that prevailing wages be paid pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8).
(B) The development is subject to the requirement that prevailing wages be paid, and a skilled and trained workforce used, pursuant to paragraph (8).
(10) The development shall not be upon an existing parcel of land or site that is governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 798) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law (Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 799.20) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Mobilehome Parks Act (Part 2.1 (commencing with Section 18200) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), or the Special 87 Ch. 366 — 14 —
Occupancy Parks Act (Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 18860) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code).
(b) (1) If a local government determines that a development submitted pursuant to this section is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a), it shall provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards, as follows:
(A) Within 60 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(B) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains more than 150 housing units.
(2) If the local government fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to paragraph (1), the development shall be deemed to satisfy the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a). (c) Any design review or public oversight of the development may be conducted by the local government’s planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for review and approval of development projects, or the city council or board of supervisors, as appropriate. That design review or public oversight shall be objective and be strictly focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects, as well as any reasonable objective design standards published and adopted by ordinance or resolution by a local jurisdiction before submission of a development application, and shall be broadly applicable to development within the jurisdiction. That design review or public oversight shall be completed as follows and shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the ministerial approval provided by this section or its effect, as applicable:
(1) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(2) Within 180 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains more than 150 housing units.
(d) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, a local government, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing parking requirements in multifamily developments, shall not impose parking standards for a streamlined development that was approved pursuant to this section in any of the following instances:
(A) The development is located within one-half mile of public transit. (B) The development is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
(C) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupants of the development.
(D) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the development.
87 — 15 — Ch. 366
(2) If the development does not fall within any of the categories described in paragraph (1), the local government shall not impose parking requirements for streamlined developments approved pursuant to this section that exceed one parking space per unit.
(e) (1) If a local government approves a development pursuant to this section, then, notwithstanding any other law, that approval shall not expire if the project includes public investment in housing affordability, beyond tax credits, where 50 percent of the units are affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income.
(2) If a local government approves a development pursuant to this section and the project does not include 50 percent of the units affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income, that approval shall automatically expire after three years except that a project may receive a one-time, one-year extension if the project proponent can provide documentation that there has been significant progress toward getting the development construction ready, such as filing a building permit application.
(3) If a local government approves a development pursuant to this section, that approval shall remain valid for three years from the date of the final action establishing that approval and shall remain valid thereafter for a project so long as vertical construction of the development has begun and is in progress. Additionally, the development proponent may request, and the local government shall have discretion to grant, an additional one-year extension to the original three-year period. The local government’s action and discretion in determining whether to grant the foregoing extension shall be limited to considerations and process set forth in this section. (f) A local government shall not adopt any requirement, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is eligible to receive ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section. (g) This section shall not affect a development proponent’s ability to use any alternative streamlined by right permit processing adopted by a local government, including the provisions of subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2. (h) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Department” means the Department of Housing and Community Development.
(2) “Development proponent” means the developer who submits an application for streamlined approval pursuant to this section. (3) “Completed entitlements” means a housing development which has received all the required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of building permit.
(4) “Locality” or “local government” means a city, including a charter city, a county, including a charter county, or a city and county, including a charter city and county.
(5) “Production report” means the information reported pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400. 87 Ch. 366 — 16 —
(6) “Subsidized” means units that are price or rent restricted such that the units are permanently affordable to households meeting the definitions of very low and lower income, as defined in Sections 50079.5 and 50105 of the Health and Safety Code.
(7) “Reporting period” means either of the following:
(A) The first half of the regional housing needs assessment cycle. (B) The last half of the regional housing needs assessment cycle. (8) “Urban uses” means any current or former residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.
(i) The department may review, adopt, amend, and repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in this section. Any guidelines or terms adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall not be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern, and not a municipal affair. Therefore, the changes made by this act are applicable to a charter city, a charter county, and a charter city and county.
SEC. 5. Each provision of this measure is a material and integral part of this measure, and the provisions of this measure are not severable. If any provision of this measure or its application is held invalid, this entire measure shall be null and void.
SEC. 6. (a) Section 1.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 65400 of the Government Code proposed by both this bill and Assembly Bill 879. That section shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2018, (2) each bill amends Section 65400 of the Government Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 879, in which case Section 1 of this bill shall not become operative.
(b) Section 2.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 65582.1 of the Government Code proposed by both this bill and Assembly Bill 73.
That section shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2019, (2) each bill amends Section 65582.1 of the Government Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 73, in which case Section 2 of this bill shall not become operative.
SEC. 7. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
O
87 — 17 — Ch. 366
Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of December 10, 2024
From: Brad McKinney, City Manager
Prepared by: Anne Moore, Senior Planner
Subject: Approve a Request of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436 to Subdivide Two Adjoining Parcels into Five Parcels within the Single-family Agriculture Zone, which are Addressed as 720 N. Oakway Avenue (APN: 8392- 020-034) and an Unaddressed Parcel (APN: 8392-015-041). ________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
On April 2, 2024, the Applicant, Dean Hakkak on behalf of HMZ Holdings LLC, submitted an application to subdivide two (2) adjoining parcels; 720 N. Oakway Avenue (APN: 8392-020- 034) and APN: 8392-015-041, into five (5) parcels within the SF-A16000 Zone. The parcels are currently vacant; however, the property located at 720 N. Oakway Avenue was previously developed with one single-family one-story residence, a barn, and a storage shed that were located on the northwest portion of the site.
No residences are being proposed as part of this request. However, the Development Plan Review Board previously approved a request to construct a new 4,050 square-foot, two-story single-family residence with an attached 788 square-foot, three car-garage under DPRB Case No. 21.16 and the removal of eight (8) mature trees under Tree Permit No. 21-45 on August 25, 2022, for proposed Parcel No. 1. A demolition permit and grading permit were issued for proposed Parcel No. 1 in preparation for the construction of the new residence and attached three-car garage.
On November 21, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC-1687 recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) to the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:
• Approve Resolution 2024-90 approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) a request to subdivide two (2) adjoining parcels into five (5) parcels located at
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) Page 2
For the Meeting of December 10, 2024
720 N. Oakway Avenue (APN: 8392-020-034) and an unaddressed parcel (APN: 8392- 015-041) within the Single-Family Agriculture 16000 Zone.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the recommended action. The new private driveway that will be developed to access the new lots will be required to be maintained by the individual property owners through the recordation of a maintenance agreement and not the City. The maintenance agreement is to guarantee maintenance of the private driveway and drainage improvements in perpetuity. Additionally, there is no residential development being proposed as part of this request; however, when the single-family residences are developed on the proposed parcels, additional property tax revenue would be created for the City.
BACKGROUND
On April 2, 2024, the Applicant, Dean Hakkak on behalf of HMZ Holdings LLC, submitted an application to subdivide two adjoining parcels into five (5) parcels, ranging from 18,900 sq. ft. to 33,075 sq. ft. in lot size within the SF-A16000 Zone. The first parcel to be subdivided is located at 720 N. Oakway Avenue, and the second parcel is unaddressed (APN8392-015-041). The subject site is currently 2.65 acres in size and is located east of Oakway Avenue and north of Gladstone Street (see Figure 1). The site is currently accessed by a paved road from Ghent Street.
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
The two parcels are currently vacant; however, the property located at 720 N. Oakway Avenue was previously developed with one single-family one-story residence, a barn, and a storage shed Parcel 1
Parcel 2
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) Page 3
For the Meeting of December 10, 2024
that were located on the northwest portion of the site. On August 25, 2022, the Development Plan Review Board (DPRB) approved the request to construct a new single-family residence under DPRB Case No. 21-16 and the removal of eight (8) mature trees under Tree Permit No. 21-45. A demolition and grading permit have been issued but construction has not commenced.
The subdivision request was considered by the Planning Commission at their November 21, 2024, meeting. During the discussion, the Commission inquired how the private driveway will be maintained, and what recourse does the City have if it’s not maintained. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant will be required to record a Maintenance Agreement to guarantee maintenance of the driveway and drainage improvements as a condition of approval. Staff also recommended that the condition be modified to add that failure to maintain the driveway may lead to Code Compliance action. In addition, during the public hearing, concerns were raised by a neighbor related to existing traffic safety hazards at the intersection of Ghent Street and Oakway Avenue (See Attachment 4). The concerns were due to the existing private driveway for the subject property and the southern property (716 N. Oakway Avenue), which is a shared private driveway but appears and functions more like a public street. As a result, vehicles exiting the subject site and the southern property are often speeding or not yielding as they go westbound on Ghent or northbound on Amelia. The neighbor stated that these concerns have been brought up to the Traffic Safety Committee, but no solution has been proposed. Staff discussed this with the Public Works Department and were informed that solutions are currently being explored by the Public Works Staff. In addition, the neighbor raised concerns with no traffic study being completed for the subdivision that would allow for the future development of the five (5) homes.
Staff informed the resident and the Commission that per the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines, which are consistent with State law, the development of up to 11 single family homes is presumed to have a less than significant impact, and therefore, no traffic study is required. Lastly, the neighbor raised concerns regarding the existing fire hydrant on Oakway Avenue and questioned whether or not the existing fire hydrant would be able to sufficiently serve the new lots. Staff stated that the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) has provided the applicant their own set of conditions of approval for the VTTM, which includes the installation of a new private on-site fire hydrant that will be located within the southeast corner of Lot 3. Staff has incorporated the final map requirements provided by the LACFD (See Attachment 1). After further discussion, the Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval to the City Council of VTTM 24-01.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) would create five (5) parcels from two existing adjoining parcels (see Figure 1). The parcels are currently zoned Single-Family Agriculture 16,000 (SF-A16000) and the site is surrounded by developed single-family residences that are also zoned SF-A16000. The Applicant has submitted a VTTM, which locks in place the development standards and regulations that were in place when the application was deemed complete. As proposed, all of the lots meet the SF-A16000 development standards.
Vehicular access to the parcels is proposed via a new private driveway that is accessed from Ghent Street located to the west of the site. The new private driveway will have a minimum width of 20 feet and a new intermediate turnaround will be provided at the southeast corner of Lot 3 (See Attachment 2) as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for deadend roads in excess of 150 feet. There will not be any vehicular access provided from Cody Road located to the east of Lot 5. Vehicular access is solely from the private driveway off of Ghent Street. The Applicant will also be required to dedicate utility access rights to Gladstone Street from Lot 5. Additionally, the Applicant will be required to install full pavement improvements to provide access to the City’s manhole(s) located at the eastern end of the private driveway. In
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) Page 4
For the Meeting of December 10, 2024
addition, all new utilities and utility drops are required to be installed underground per Condition No. 16 (See Attachment 1). The location of the new utility drops will be determined by the utility company. All proposed lots will also be provided public sewer connection via a sewer lateral on each lot.
As previously stated, the proposed lots will meet the minimum lot size of 16,000 square feet as required within the SF-A16000 Zone (see Table 1). The minimum lot size is calculated based on the net usable area, which would exclude the square footage of the private driveway. Table 1 shows the proposed gross and net lot size, the required lot width based on the net lot size, and the provided lot width. The proposed net lot sizes range from 16,100 square feet to 28,225 square feet with an average net lot size of 19,297 square feet. Per the development standards for the SF-A16000 zone, lots of 15,000 to 20,000 square feet must have a minimum width of 100 feet and lots of 20,001 to 39,999 square feet must have a minimum width of 150 feet. Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 meet the required 100-foot minimum width, while Lot 3 meets the required 150-foot minimum width (See Attachment 2).
Table 1
Lot Number Gross Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Net Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Required Lot Width
per Net Lot Size
Provided Lot Width
Lot 1 23,250 16,500 100’-0” 100’-0”
Lot 2 18,900 16,500 100’-0” 100’-0”
Lot 3 33,075 28,225 150’-0” 175’-0”
Lot 4 19,481 16,100 100’-0” 161’-0”
Lot 5 20,800 19,162 100’-0” 131’-0” to 189’-21/2”
Per the standards of the SF-A zone, the keeping of two (2) horses and other animals is an allowed use on lots that meet a minimum size of 16,000 square feet, and an additional horse for each additional 7,500 square feet, up to five (5) horses, allowed by right. The keeping of horses, however, is subject to minimum distance requirements. These minimum distance requirements include a minimum 35-foot separation from horse enclosures/corrals and residential structures on the same parcel, and an 80-foot separation from any horse facilities and residential structures on adjacent parcels. In addition, the SF-A zone also requires that animals such as chickens, calves and goats be housed at a distance not less than 35 feet from any residence. Staff has worked with the applicant to locate the buildable pads for potential residences on the areas of each parcel in order to reduce any conflict with the minimum distance requirements for horse keeping on any of the adjacent lots that may already have equestrian use on their property. At this time, new single-family residences are not being proposed as part of this request; however, when the residences are proposed, they will require review and approval from the Development Plan Review Board at that time, and staff will work with the applicant to avoid any horse keeping conflicts with adjoining properties.
The two existing parcels have historically been uninhabited and unmaintained for an unknown time (See Attachment 3). There are a number of mature and non-mature trees located throughout the site that are not being proposed for removal at this time with the exception of the eight (8) mature trees that were approved for removal by the DPRB under Tree Permit 21-45. Any additional tree removals will be considered and reviewed when a development application is submitted for Parcel No’s 2 to 5 along with the required tree removal permit application and associated fees.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) Page 5
For the Meeting of December 10, 2024
Currently, a chain link fence borders the site on the east and south (See Attachment 3). A new six-foot high decorative block wall (tan split face with finished cap) will be required to be installed all along the property lines of each of the five lots with the exception of the west property line on Lot 1, and the north property line on lots 4 and 5, which will have a new six-foot high tan vinyl fencing due to existing utility obstructions. The perimeter walls for Lot 1 will be installed in conjunction with the development of the new single-family residence under DPRB Case No. 21-
16. However, the perimeter walls for the remaining Lots 2 through 5 will be constructed in the future as each of the lots are developed.
ALTERNATIVES
There are currently no alternatives proposed for this request; however, the City Council may recommend changes to or may recommend denial of VTTM 84436 if the Council finds that the findings for approval cannot be made.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA guidelines, Title 14, Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15332. In-Fill Development Projects, Class 32.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Moore
Senior Planner
Attachments:
1. Resolution 2024-90
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 84436
3. Photos of Subject Site
4. November 21, 2024, Planning Commission Staff Report, PC Resolution No. 1687 & Draft Minutes
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2024-90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24-01 (VTTM 84436), A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE TWO (2) ADJOINING PARCELS INTO FIVE (5) PARCELS LOCATED AT 720 N. OAKWAY AVENUE (APN: 8392-020-034 AND AN UNADDRESSED PARCEL (APN: 8392-015-041) WITHIN THE SINGLE-FAMILY AGRICULTURE 16000 ZONE.
WHEREAS, an application was duly filed for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) by:
Dean Hakkak on behalf of HMZ Holdings LLC
P.O. Box 4636
Covina, CA 91723
WHEREAS, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) is described as:
A request to subdivide two (2) adjoining parcels into five (5) parcels ranging from 18,900 square feet to 33,075 square feet in lot size at the properties located at 720 N. Oakway (APN:
8392-020-034) and APN: 8392-015-041 within the Single-Family Agriculture 16000 Zone; and WHEREAS, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) applies to the following described real property:
720 N. Oakway Avenue (APN: 8392-020-034) and APN: 8392-015-041; and WHEREAS, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) was submitted to all appropriate agencies as required under Section 17.12.030 of the San Dimas Municipal Code with a request for their report and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received the report and recommendation of such agencies as have submitted information including the written report and recommendation of Staff; and
WHEREAS, notice was duly given of the Planning Commission’s public hearing on the matter and that a public hearing was held on November 21, 2024 at the hour of 6:00 p.m., with all testimony received being made a part of the public record; and WHEREAS, notice was duly given of the City Council public hearing on the matter and that public hearing was held on December 10, 2024 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., with all testimony received being made part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under the Class 32 exemption under the State CEQA Guidelines Title 14, Section 6, Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15332 Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects.
In addition, there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission and City Council has reviewed the Planning Division’s determination of exemption, and based on their own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption.
Resolution 2024-90 Page 2
Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01
December 10, 2024
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the evidence received at the Planning Commission hearing; and or the reasons discussed by the Planning Commissioners at the November 21, 2024 hearing, and the evidence received at the City Council hearing; and or the reasons discussed by the City Council at the December 10, 2024 hearing, and subject to the Conditions attached as “Attachment 1”, the City Council now finds as follows:
A. That the proposed tract map is consistent with the General Plan and the applicable Land Use Zone.
The Vesting Tentative Tract Map creates five (5) new parcels from two adjoining parcels, which will be developed consistent with the General Plan and the Single-Family Agriculture 16000 zone. The five (5) new parcels will range in size from 18,900 gross square feet to 33,075 gross square feet. The newly created parcels meet all the development standards of the Single-Family Agriculture 16000 zone and the underlying General Plan designation of Single-Family Very Low.
B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the applicable Land Use Zone.
The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Policies, Goal L-1, Policy 1.1.2, “enhance the rural/equestrian image north of Gladstone Street. Retain large lot development and improve circulation.” The five (5) new lots, when developed, will meet the minimum lot size of 16,000 square feet, as required by the Single-Family Agriculture 16,000 zone. Maintaining the minimum lot size to be 16,000 square feet and creating a new private driveway access for the five (5) new lots is consistent with the underlying General Plan designation of Single-Family Very Low and the stated goal of “retain large lot development and improve circulation.” Although there are no residences being proposed at this time, any future residence will be required to meet all of the development requirements of the Single-Family Agriculture 16000 zone.
C. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
The subdivision creates five (5) new lots that range from 18,900 gross square feet to 33,075 gross square feet in size. Although there is not a proposed development at this time, the five (5) lots are large enough to accommodate residential development which will fit the scale and type of the surrounding neighborhood. Proposed Lot 1 has already been approved to be developed with one two-story single-family residence with an attached three-car garage by the Development Plan Review Board on August 25, 2022, per DPRB Case No. 21-16 and the removal of eight (8) mature trees under Tree Permit No. 21-45 on August 25, 2022.
D. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development.
The Vesting Tentative Tract map would create five (5) residential parcels within an existing residential neighborhood. All of the new parcels are large lots, which can easily accommodate a single-family residence, which will be consistent with the Single Family Very Low Land Use designation and Single-Family Agriculture 16000 zoning of the subject site.
Resolution 2024-90 Page 3
Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01
December 10, 2024
E. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat.
The proposed subdivision to create five (5) new parcels will comply with all applicable codes and regulations. There is no development proposed at this time; however, any future development will be required to comply with all applicable codes. While both the subdivision and future residential development are exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as Infill Development, they are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat.
F. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
The proposed tract map and required off-site improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project will create five (5) parcels for future residential development that will be required to comply with all applicable codes and regulations to prevent serious public health problems.
G. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at-large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision.
There exists a 30-foot access easement that runs east west through the subject property, which will be improved to meet the Los Angeles County Fire Department requirements for use as a private driveway and fire lane. Therefore, the new tract map will not conflict with any existing easements.
H. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Conditions are imposed to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and to implement the intent and purpose of the General Plan.
The proposed subdivision will create five (5) residential parcels; however, no development is proposed at this time. At the time of any future development, the Applicant will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. In addition, the Conditions of Approval for the project require compliance with BMP’s to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and the intent and purpose of the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, that the City Council of the City of San Dimas grants approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24-01 (VTTM 84436), subject to the Applicant’s compliance with the Conditions as set forth in Attachment 1.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, the 10th day of December, 2024. _____________________________
Emmett G. Badar, Mayor
Resolution 2024-90 Page 4
Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01
December 10, 2024
ATTEST:
______________________
Debra Black, City Clerk
I Debra Black, City Clerk, hereby certify that Resolution 2024-90 was adopted by the City Council of San Dimas at its regular meeting of December 10, 2024 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________
Debra Black, City Clerk
Resolution 2024-90 Page 5
Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01
December 10, 2024
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436)
ACCELA PROJ-24-13
A request to subdivide two (2) adjoining parcels into five (5) parcels (18,900 square feet to 33,075 square feet in size) located at 720 N. Okaway Avenue within the Single-Family Agriculture 16000 zone. No residences are proposed at this time (APN: 8392-020-034 and APN: 8392-015-041).
PLANNING DIVISION - (909) 394-6250
GENERAL
1. The Applicant/Developer shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers or employees because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers or employees for any Court costs and attorney’s fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action.
The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve Applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for any City Attorney costs incurred by the City for the project, including, but not limited to, consultations, and the preparation and/or review of legal documents. The Applicant shall deposit funds with the City to cover these costs in an amount to be determined by the City.
3. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all requirements of the Single-Family Agriculture 16000 (SF-A16000) Zone.
4. The Applicant/Developer shall sign an affidavit accepting all Conditions and all Standard Conditions prior to Final Map recordation.
5. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall expire twenty-four months following approval, unless an extension for a period or periods not to exceed a total of twenty-four months is granted by the City Council. A subdivider may request an extension by written application to the Director of Community Development. Such application shall be filed at least thirty days before the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is due to expire. Requests for all extensions shall be accompanied by a processing fee as prescribed by resolution of the City Council.
6. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map is subject to City Council approval. Should the City Council approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as approved by the City Council on a date to be determined.
7. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours.
8. The perimeter walls for Lot 1 shall be installed as required by DPRB 21-16 approved on August 25, 2022. The perimeter walls for Lots 2 through 5 shall be constructed in conjunction with the development of single family residences. The walls shall consist of a six-foot high decorative block wall consisting of tan split face block with a finished cap.
Resolution 2024-90 Page 6
Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01
December 10, 2024
ENGINEERING DIVISION – (909) 394-6240
9. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a signed copy of the City’s certification statement declaring that the contractor will comply with Minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) required by the MS4 permit for Los Angeles County as mandated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
10. A Final Vesting Tract Map prepared by or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor must be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder.
11. All easements existing at the time of the Final Vesting Tract Map approval must be accounted for on the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. This includes the location, owner, purpose, and recording reference for all existing easements. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the tentative map in lieu of its location.
12. A preliminary title report and guarantee is required and such document shall show all fee interest holders; all interest holders whose interest could ripen into a fee; all trust deeds, together with the name of the trustee; and all easement holders. The account for this title report should remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder.
13. The Applicant/Developer engineer or surveyor shall set durable monuments to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in conformance with Section 66495 of the Subdivision Map Act. The Applicant/Developer shall also provide a Monumentation Bond in an amount sufficient to guarantee the setting of monumentation specified in writing by a Registered Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor of Record.
14. A preliminary title report and guarantee is required and such document shall show all fee interest holders; all interest holders whose interest could ripen into a fee; all trust deeds, together with the name of the trustee; and all easement holders. The account for this title report should remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder.
15. The Applicant/Developer shall Contact the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for any required annexation, extension, or sewer trunk fee. Proof of payment/clearance is required before the City will issue any sewer permit.
16. The Applicant/Developer shall provide drainage improvements to carry runoff of storm waters in the area proposed to be developed, and for contributory drainage from adjoining properties to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant/Developer shall make a good faith effort to negotiate with the downstream property owner for all required downstream storm drain improvements. The proposed drainage improvements shall be based on a detailed Hydrology Study conforming to the current Los Angeles County methodology. The developed flows outletting into the existing downstream system(s) from this project cannot exceed the pre-existing storm flows.
17. Due to construction, the Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for any repairs within the limits of the development, including but not limited to streets and paving, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and street lights as determined by the City Engineer and Public Works Director.
Resolution 2024-90 Page 7
Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01
December 10, 2024
18. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain a Public Works permit for all work within or adjacent to the public right-of-way and shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Director and the work shall be in accordance with applicable standards of the City of San Dimas; i.e. Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), and further that the construction equipment ingress and egress be controlled by a plan approved by Public Works.
19. For all projects subject to Low Impact Development (LID) regulations, Applicant/Developer must submit a site-specific drainage concept and stormwater quality plan to implement LID design principles.
20. A fully executed “Maintenance Covenant for LID Requirements” shall be recorded with the L.A. County Registrar/Recorder and submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. Covenant documents shall be required to include an exhibit that details the installed treatment control devices as well as any site design or source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) for post construction. The information to be provided on this exhibit shall include, but not be limited to:
i. 8 ½” x 11” exhibits with record property owner information. ii. Types of BMPs (i.e., site design, source control and/or treatment control) to ensure modifications to the site are not conducted without the property owner being aware of the ramifications to BMP implementation.
iii. Clear depiction of location of BMPs, especially those located below ground. iv. A matrix depicting the types of BMPs, frequency of inspection, type of maintenance required, and if proprietary BMPs, the company information to perform the necessary maintenance.
v. Calculations to support the sizing of the BMPs employed on the project shall be included in the report. These calculations shall correlate directly with the minimum treatment requirements of the current MS4 permit. In the case of implementing infiltration BMPs, a percolation test of the affected soil shall be performed and submitted for review by the City Engineer.
vi. This document shall be reviewed by and concurred with Public Works to ensure the covenant complies with the MS4 Permit.
21. Improvement plans and necessary letters of credit, cash, and/or bonds to secure the construction of all streets, storm drains, water, sewer, grading, and multi-use trails shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer, and the subdivision agreement and other required agreements approved by the City Attorney, prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
22. The Applicant/Developer shall record a Maintenance Agreement to guarantee maintenance of the private driveway and drainage improvements in perpetuity and must be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. Failure to maintain driveway will lead to code compliance action.
23. The subject development is located within an area of Special Flood Hazard as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Applicant/Developer shall meet all conditions and requirements as set forth in Title 15, Chapter 15.60 of the San Dimas Municipal Code.
Resolution 2024-90 Page 8
Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01
December 10, 2024
24. The Applicant/Developer shall underground all new utilities and utility drops.
25. The Applicant/Developer shall provide mailboxes per City of San Dimas standards. Mailbox locations are subject to the approval of the local postmaster and the City Engineer.
26. The Applicant/Developer shall submit water plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
PARKS & RECREATION – (909) 394-6230
27. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with City regulations regarding payment of Park, Recreation and Open Space Development Fee per SDMC Chapter 3.26. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits.’;
28. The Subdivision Applicant/Developer shall comply with Chapter 17.36 of the San Dimas Municipal Code regarding Park Land Dedication (Quimby Act). The City may require fees in lieu of land or a combination thereof based on the market value of the land to be dedicated. Fees shall be paid prior to recordation.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT – (323) 890-4243
29. Access as noted on the Tentative and the Exhibit Maps shall comply with Title 21 (County of Los Angeles Subdivision Code) and Section 503 of the Title 32 (County of Los Angeles Fire Code), which requires an all-weather access surface to be clear to sky.
30. The Private Driveways proposed as private streets for access throughout the development shall be labeled as “Private Driveway” on the Final Map. The portion of the private driveway intended for fire apparatus access shall be identified as “Fire Lane” on the Final Map. All widths and dimensions shall be clearly delineated with a reciprocal access agreement is required for the private driveway. Compliance required prior to Final Map clearance.
31. The Final Map shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department Land Development Unit for review and approval prior to recordation.
32. A common access agreement shall be provided for the private driveway since multiple units are sharing the same access. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department Land Development Unit for review and approval prior to the Final Map clearance.
End of Conditions
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 3
Photos of Subject Site
Photos of the site and surrounding area are included in the following pages and are keyed into the photo map below:
1. Looking East toward 722 N. Oakway Ave. and private access road to 720 N. Oakway Ave. 1 9
8 7
2 3
10 6
4 5
ATTACHMENT 3
2. View of existing Oak tree to be preserved on Lot 1.
3. View looking West toward Oakway Avenue/Ghent Street.
4. View of existing private driveway access from Gladstone Street that is currently used by adjacent properties at 443, 445, and 447 W. Gladstone Street.
5. View looking southeast from existing vacant lot (APN: 8392-015-041); proposed Lot 5 toward 443 W. Gladstone Street property.
6. View looking West toward existing vacant lot (APN: 8392-015-041) from the existing private driveway access from Gladstone Street.
7. View looking West toward existing vacant lot (APN: 8392-015-041).
8. View looking North from proposed Lot 3 with view of detached garage of adjacent property 744 N. Oakway Avenue.
9. View looking northeast from west property line of proposed Lot 4.
10. View looking South toward adjacent properties; 445 and 505 W. Gladstone Street.
Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Chair and Members of Planning Commission
For the Meeting of November 21, 2024
From: Luis Torrico, Director of Community Development
Prepared by: Anne Moore, Senior Planner
Subject: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436); Discussion and Consideration of a request to subdivide two adjoining parcels into five parcels within the Single-Family Agriculture Zone, which are addressed as 720 N.
Oakway Avenue (APN: 8392-020-034) and an unaddressed parcel (APN: 8392- 015-041).
____________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
On April 2, 2024, the Applicant, Dean Hakkak on behalf of HMZ Holdings LLC, submitted an application to subdivide two (2) adjoining parcels; 720 N. Oakway Avenue (APN: 8392-020- 034) and APN: 8392-015-041, into five (5) parcels within the SF-A16000 Zone. The parcels are currently vacant; however, the property located at 720 N. Oakway Avenue was previously developed with one single-family one-story residence, a barn, and a storage shed that were located on the northwest portion of the site.
No residences are being proposed as part of this request. However, the Development Plan Review Board previously approved a request to construct a new 4,050 square foot, two-story single-family residence with an attached 788 square foot, three car-garage under DPRB Case No. 21-16 and the removal of eight (8) mature trees under Tree Permit No. 21-45 on August 25, 2022, for proposed Parcel No. 1. A demolition permit and grading permit were issued for proposed Parcel No.1 in preparation for the construction of the new residence and attached three-car garage.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 1687, recommending approval to the City Council of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436).
ATTACHMENT 4
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) Page 2
For the Meeting of November 21, 2024
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the recommended action. The new private driveway that will be developed to access the new lots will be required to be maintained by the individual property owners through the recordation of a maintenance agreement and not the City. The maintenance agreement is to guarantee maintenance of the private driveway and drainage improvements in perpetuity. Additionally, there is no residential development being proposed as part of this request; however, when the single-family residences are developed on the proposed parcels, additional property tax revenue would be created for the City.
BACKGROUND
On April 2, 2024, the Applicant, Dean Hakkak on behalf of HMZ Holdings LLC, submitted an application to subdivide two (2) adjoining parcels into five (5) parcels, ranging from 18,900 sq. ft. to 33,075 sq. ft. in lot size within the SF-A16000 Zone. The first parcel to be subdivided is located at 720 N. Oakway Avenue, and the second parcel is unaddressed (APN 8392-015-041). The subject site is currently 2.65 acres in size and is located east of Oakway Avenue and north of Gladstone Street (see Figure 1). The site is currently accessed by a paved road from Ghent Street.
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) Page 3
For the Meeting of November 21, 2024
The two parcels are currently vacant; however, the property located at 720 N. Oakway Avenue was previously developed with a single-family one-story residence, a barn, and a storage shed that were located on the northwest portion of the site. On August 25, 2022, the Development Plan Review Board (DPRB) approved the request to construct a new single-family residence under DPRB Case No. 21-16 and the removal of eight (8) mature trees under Tree Permit No. 21-45. A demolition and grading permit have been issued but construction has not commenced.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) would create five (5) parcels from two (2) existing adjoining parcels (see Figure 1). The parcels are currently zoned Single-Family Agriculture 16,000 (SF-A16000) and the site is surrounded by developed single-family residences that are also zoned SF-A16000. The Applicant has submitted VTTM, which locks in place the development standards and regulations that were in place when the application was deemed complete. As proposed, all of the of the lots meet the SF-A16000 development standards.
Vehicular access to the parcels is proposed via a new private driveway that is accessed from Ghent Street located to the west of the site. The new private driveway will have a minimum width of 20 feet and a new intermediate turnaround will be provided at the southeast corner of Lot 5 (see Attachment 2) as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for deadend roads in excess of 150 feet. The Applicant will also be required to dedicate access rights to Gladstone Street from Lot 5 and install full pavement improvements to provide access to the City’s manhole(s). In addition, all new utilities and utility drops are required to be installed underground per Condition No. 16 (see Attachment 1). The location of the new utility drops will be determined by the utility company. All proposed lots will also be provided public sewer connection via a sewer lateral on each lot.
As previously stated, the proposed lots will meet the minimum lot size of 16,000 square feet as required within the SF-A16000 Zone (see Table 1). The minimum lot size is calculated based on the net usable area, which would exclude the square footage of the private driveway. Table 1 shows the proposed gross and net lot size, the required lot width based on the net lot size, and the provided lot width. The proposed net lot sizes range from 16,100 square feet to 28,225 square feet with an average net lot size of 19,297 square feet. Per the development standards for the SF-A16000 zone, lots of 15,000 to 20,000 square feet must have a minimum width of 100 feet and lots of 20,001 to 39,999 square feet must have a minimum width of 150 feet. Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 meet the required 100-foot minimum width, while Lot 3 meets the required 150-foot minimum width (see Attachment 2).
Table 1
Lot Number Gross Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Net Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Required Lot Width
per Net Lot Size
Provided Lot Width
Lot 1 23,250 16,500 100’-0” 100’-0”
Lot 2 18,900 16,500 100’-0” 100’-0”
Lot 3 33,075 28,225 150’-0” 175’-0”
Lot 4 19,481 16,100 100’-0” 161’-0”
Lot 5 20,800 19,162 100’-0” 131’-0” to 189’-21/2”
Per the standards of the SF-A zone, the keeping of two (2) horses and other animals is an allowed use on lots that meet a minimum size of 16,000 square feet, and an additional horse for each additional 7,500 square feet, up to five (5) horses, allowed by right. The keeping of horses,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436) Page 4
For the Meeting of November 21, 2024
however, is subject to minimum distance requirements. These minimum distance requirements include a minimum 35-foot separation from horse enclosures/corrals and residential structures on the same parcel, and an 80-foot separation from any horse facilities and residential structures on adjacent parcels. In addition, the SF-A zone also requires that animals such as chickens, calves and goats be housed at a distance not less than 35 feet from any residence. Staff has worked with the applicant to locate the buildable pads for potential residences on the areas of each parcel in order to reduce any conflict with the minimum distance requirements for horse keeping on any of the adjacent lots that may already have equestrian use on their property. At this time, new single-family residences are not being proposed as part of this request; however, when the residences are proposed, they will require review and approval from the Development Plan Review Board at that time, and staff will work with the applicant to avoid any horse keeping conflicts with adjoining properties.
The two existing parcels have historically been uninhabited and unmaintained for an unknown time (see Attachment 3). There are a number of mature and non-mature trees located throughout the site that are not being proposed for removal at this time with the exception of the eight (8) mature trees that were approved for removal by the DPRB under Tree Permit 21-45. Any additional tree removals will be considered and reviewed when a development application is submitted for Parcel No’s 2 to 5 along with the required tree removal permit application and associated fees.
Currently, a chain link fence borders the site on the east and south (see Attachment 3). A new six-foot high decorative block wall (tan split face with finished cap) will be required to be installed all along the property lines of each of the five lots with the exception of the west property line on Lot 1, and the north property line on lots 4 and 5, which will have a new six-foot high tan vinyl fencing due to existing utility obstructions. The perimeter walls for Lot 1 will be installed in conjunction with the development of the new single-family residence under DPRB Case No. 21-
16. However, the perimeter walls for the remaining Lots 2 through 5 will be constructed in the future as each of the lots are developed.
ALTERNATIVES
There are currently no alternatives proposed for this request. The Planning Commission may recommend changes to or may recommend denial of VTTM 84436.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA guidelines, Title 14, Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects Class 32.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Moore
Senior Planner
Attachments:
1. Resolution PC - 1687
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 84436
3. Photos of Subject Site
18. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain a Public Works permit for all work within or adjacent to the public right-of-way and shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Director and the work shall be in accordance with applicable standards of the City of San Dimas; i.e. Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), and further that the construction equipment ingress and egress be controlled by a plan approved by Public Works.
19. For all projects subject to Low Impact Development (LID) regulations, Applicant/Developer must submit a site-specific drainage concept and stormwater quality plan to implement LID design principles.
20. A fully executed “Maintenance Covenant for LID Requirements” shall be recorded with the L.A. County Registrar/Recorder and submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. Covenant documents shall be required to include an exhibit that details the installed treatment control devices as well as any site design or source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) for post construction. The information to be provided on this exhibit shall include, but not be limited to:
i. 8 ½” x 11” exhibits with record property owner information. ii. Types of BMPs (i.e., site design, source control and/or treatment control) to ensure modifications to the site are not conducted without the property owner being aware of the ramifications to BMP implementation.
iii. Clear depiction of location of BMPs, especially those located below ground. iv. A matrix depicting the types of BMPs, frequency of inspection, type of maintenance required, and if proprietary BMPs, the company information to perform the necessary maintenance.
v. Calculations to support the sizing of the BMPs employed on the project shall be included in the report. These calculations shall correlate directly with the minimum treatment requirements of the current MS4 permit. In the case of implementing infiltration BMPs, a percolation test of the affected soil shall be performed and submitted for review by the City Engineer.
vi. This document shall be reviewed by and concurred with Public Works to ensure the covenant complies with the MS4 Permit.
21. Improvement plans and necessary letters of credit, cash, and/or bonds to secure the construction of all streets, storm drains, water, sewer, grading, and multi-use trails shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer, and the subdivision agreement and other required agreements approved by the City Attorney, prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
22. The Applicant/Developer shall record a Maintenance Agreement to guarantee maintenance of the private driveway and drainage improvements in perpetuity and must be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. Failure to maintain driveway will lead to code compliance action.
23. The subject development is located within an area of Special Flood Hazard as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Applicant/Developer shall meet all conditions and requirements as set forth in Title 15, Chapter 15.60 of the San Dimas Municipal Code.
CITY OF SAN DIMAS
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Regularly Scheduled Meeting
Thursday, November 21, 2024, at 6:00 p.m.
245 East Bonita Avenue, City Council Chamber
PRESENT
Chairman David Bratt
Vice-Chairman John Davis
Commissioner Margie Green
Commissioner Doran Barnes
Commissioner James Shirley
Director of Community Development Luis Torrico
Planning Manager Marco Espinoza
Senior Planner Anne Moore
Assistant Planner Taylor Galindo
Assistant Planner Yasmin Dabbous
Senior Management Analyst Kimberly Neustice
Administrative Analyst Caitlyn Cortez
Planning Intern Byron Luk
CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Bratt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:02 p.m. and Commissioner Green led the flag salute.
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC 1. Approve the October 17, 2024 Planning Commission minutes.
MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Green moved, seconded by Commissioner Shirley to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING
PH 1. Municipal Code Text Amendment 20-05; Discussion and consideration of a Municipal Code Text Amendment of Title 18-Zoning, Chapter 18.518 Specific Plan 11 of the San Dimas Municipal Code, to amend grading limits within Planning Area I and make various clean-up text amendments, and adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
November 21, 2024
Vice-Chairman Davis recused himself from this item.
Staff report presented by Director of Community Development Torrico recommending Planning Commission approve Resolutions PC-1689 and PC-1670 recommending City Council approve the final revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Municipal Code Text Amendment 20-05 (MCTA).
Commissioner Barnes clarified that the current exemption of two-hundred cubic yards doesn’t apply to pool construction.
Director of Community Development Torrico stated that was correct under the existing Environmental Impact Report (EIR). However, staff stopped this practice four years ago when this item was initiated.
Commissioner Barnes asked if the current exemption of two-hundred cubic yards would qualify under the new Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Director of Community Development Torrico stated that was correct. Anything that was graded beyond the house and garage before this new EIR is approved they will be able to stay. This only applies to any new grading which would have to comply with the measures in the new Mitigated Negative Declaration. He also stated that there is a correction on page twenty-nine, it states that pools are exempt but they are not. Page thirty section B1A staff would like to add text that includes the mitigation measures from the MND so that future readers know that these are a requirement of the additional grading in the area.
Commissioner Barnes asked if an owner wanted to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and needed to do grading, would it be exempt of the requirements of the new MND.
Director of Community Development Torrico stated yes.
Chairman Bratt opened the public hearing.
Speaker 1 – John Begin – stated that he felt that the owners of the seven vacant lots left can afford to absorb the cost of these measures in their development process. He stated that the existing developed lots, the studies alone will cost more than the proposed project they want to build. He felt pools should still be exempt from the grading requirements because that’s mostly what people are building on these lots. However, he does feel that the new review of the MND is much better than the original report. He’s in support of the item and hopes that the change goes through.
Speaker 2 – Kathy Begin – stated that she approves of the one-thousand cubic yards of extra grading however, many of the residents oppose the biological resources requirement. Many residents have spoke against the grading limits and mitigation measures of the MND over the years and she also has signed petitions showing that most of the residents are against this. The fact that people have
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
November 21, 2024
to spend sixty thousand on biological surveys isn’t right. They already have to do various mitigation measures for fire protections. A lot has happened in the four years that this was being reviewed and now the owners are being saddled with the added cost of these studies if they want to build on their lot.
Speaker 3 – Psomas Consultant – She prepared the biological sections of the new MND. The mitigation measures of the table that was shown in the presentation, just because the survey is listed in the table for the parcel doesn’t mean that all of these surveys apply. The required surveys are based on the location of the proposed project. This report is based on all possible projects so they have to prepare the worst-case scenario in the report to cover all possibilities. She doesn’t like to require a lot of surveys but unfortunately, they are meant to protect the natural habitat.
Speaker 4 – Pauline – She has lived in Via Verde Ridge for over twenty years and their properties face Covina Hills Road. In all her time there she has never seen a frog, turtle or rare plants. The county comes and digs everything up every year for fire protection and no care is given to the natural habitat. She feels that some of this information is absurd but it’s time that a decision is made.
Chairman Bratt closed the public hearing.
RESOLUTION PC-1689
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN DIMAS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION AND MONITORING REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 20-0005,
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
OF 1970, AS AMENDED
RESOLUTION PC-1670
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN DIMAS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT
AMENDMENT 20-05, AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18.518 –
SPECIFIC PLAN 11, OF THE SAN DIMAS MUNICIPAL CODE
Director of Community Development Torrico stated that he would like to add a revision to Section
18.518.170 - Grading design - removing the existing language of item D.1.a.iii. which states “One pool/spa and a five (5) foot wide deck around the perimeter of the pool/spa” and to add language to the section that the Grading Limits are subject to Resolution PC-1670 and the measures of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
November 21, 2024
MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Barnes to approve Resolution PC-1689 and PC-1670 with the revision to Section 18.518.170.D.1.a, seconded by Commissioner Shirley recommending City Council adopt Municipal Code Text Amendment 20-05. Motion carried 4-0-0-1 (Davis recused).
Commissioner Barnes stated in the short time he’s been on the Commission, he’s been surprised by the challenges the City faces as to what we can or cannot control because of State legislation and he understands that such mandates can be frustrating to the residents.
PH 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-01 (VTTM 84436); Discussion and Consideration of a request to subdivide two adjoining parcels into five parcels within the Single-Family Agriculture Zone, which are addressed as 720 N. Oakway Avenue (APN: 8392-020-034) and an unaddressed parcel (APN: 8392-015-041).
Staff report presented by Senior Planner Moore recommending Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC-1687 recommending approval to the City Council of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24- 01 (VTTM 84436).
Chairman Bratt asked if there will be an entry to the site off Cody Road.
Senior Planner Moore stated that there will not be an entrance off Cody or Gladstone, only off of Oakway.
Chairman Bratt asked for clarification on the improvements for the proposed access easement up to Gladstone.
Senior Planner Moore stated that the access road is only for the sewer line but the condition requires the paved area to be all the way through to the end of the private driveway for sewer maintenance access only.
Chairman Bratt asked how the private road for the development will be maintained.
Senior Planner Moore stated the private road will require an access easement and maintenance agreement between all neighbors to maintain the private driveway.
Chairman Bratt asked if they don’t maintain the private drive, what recourse does the City have.
Maintenance of private drives and streets has been an issue in the City before and he wants to make sure that this is going to be maintained and if it’s not that the City has some kind of recourse.
Community Development Director Torrico stated that Staff can add a condition to the approval that all residents must enter a maintenance and that failure to maintain the private drive would be subject to Code Compliance action. Staff will discuss the condition with the City Attorney and add the appropriate language to the conditions of approval to the tract map.
Commissioner Green stated that at the far east end there’s no turn around and she’s concerned for fire vehicles getting to and from the residences.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
November 21, 2024
Chairman Bratt stated that the fire code requires a turnaround within one hundred and fifty feet and there is in fact a turnaround on the third parcel.
Chairman Bratt opened the public hearing.
Speaker 1 – Applicant Dean Hakkak – stated he wants to be respectful of his neighbors as he wants to remain on a friendly and cordial basis with them. He feels that the area is underutilized and wants to make sure that this development is in accordance with the City requirements.
Speaker 2 – Laura Smith – Currently there is a fire hydrant by her house. Where is the new development going to connect to if there’s a fire. She doesn’t believe that a hose would reach back to the last lot.
Senior Planner Moore stated that the presentation doesn’t include the requirements set by Los Angeles County Fire, but they are requiring one new private fire hydrant to be installed. The new hydrant location will be located at the east corner of the turnaround on lot three and is required to be installed prior to beginning construction on the houses.
Speaker 2 – Laura Smith – stated that lots one, two and three have been constantly under construction with water trucks that come in the wrong direction. She wants to make sure that the hydrant is installed before they start construction in case there is a fire during construction. Also, she didn’t see a traffic study and Amelia Avenue is already a very busy street. Right where the entrance to the private road is, the construction people were going in and out carelessly from Ghent to Oakway, and she has asked repeatedly to have this entry yield to slow down traffic. Before any construction begins there should be a sign installed that yields construction traffic before they head out of the construction site.
Chairman Bratt asked what is the requirement for a traffic study to be done for a development.
Community Development Director Torrico stated that this project is exempt under the thresholds of traffic study requirements. Under the new Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) guidelines there are certain projects that are exempt so that’s why there wasn’t a traffic study done.
Speaker 2 – Laura Smith – She feels like there will be too much traffic coming and going from these new homes with the construction of the house, ADU’s, pools and other construction.
Community Development Director Torrico stated that Staff can check with Public Works to see if there is anything that can be added to the Conditions to help the traffic issue.
Speaker 1 – Applicant Dean Hakkak – Stated that there is currently a gate at the entrance. The plumbing trucks that are coming and going are from 716 Oakway and there’s nothing he can do to control this traffic since it isn’t from his property. He stated that he got a permit to add a water meter to the existing fire hydrant to use the water. Anyone driving in this area on the streets or private drive
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
November 21, 2024
need to follow the rules of the road in general which includes yielding to oncoming traffic and following speed limits. Law enforcement needs to enforce the rules as far as vehicle issues.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked the applicant if he plans on developing the houses.
Speaker 1 – Applicant Dean Hakkak – Stated that he does intend to develop all five lots.
Chairman Bratt closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Barnes asked about the traffic issue where Ghent Street travels east and dead ends at Oakway where this private driveway comes out. What is the traffic control at this intersection if any.
Chairman Bratt stated that there is no traffic control.
Commissioner Barnes asked if it will remain an uncontrolled intersection when these lots are developed.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that at this time there is not a condition to add a stop sign.
Public Works has a Traffic Safety Committee that reviews different areas and issues to see if additional traffic control is needed due to hazardous situations. He encourages the resident to submit an application to the Traffic Safety Committee for this issue so they can review the situation.
Commissioner Barnes stated he feels that the added homes, while might not bring a lot of traffic, will change the dynamics of this intersection. The addition of the private road may or may not warrant some additional thought from the Traffic Safety Committee.
RESOLUTION PC- 1687
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN DIMAS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24-01 (VTTM 84436), A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE TWO (2)
ADJOINING PARCELS INTO FIVE (5) PARCELS LOCATED AT 720 N.
OAKWAY AVENUE (APN: 8392-020-034 AND AN UNADDRESSED
PARCEL (APN: 8392-015-041) WITHIN THE SINGLE-FAMILY
AGRICULTURE 16000 ZONE.
MOTION: Moved by Vice-Chairman Davis, seconded by Commissioner Shirley to approve Resolution PC-1687 with a revision to Condition No. 22 adding that failure to maintain the private drive may lead to Code Compliance action. Motion carried 5-0 PH 3. Municipal Code Text Amendment 24-09; Discussion and Consideration of a Municipal Code Text Amendment to amend Title 18-Zoning, Chapter 18.20 Residential Zones Generally,
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
November 21, 2024
Chapter 18.24 S-F Single-Family Residential Zone, Chapter 18.28 SF-A Sigle-Family Agriculture Zone, and Chapter 18.35 SF-DR Single-Family Downtown Residential Zone of the San Dimas Municipal Code to clarify the intent of certain sections, add language to sections where policies have been in place, but never codified, and various clean up items as required.
Staff report presented by Senior Planner Moore recommending Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC-1688, recommending approval to the City Council of MCTA 24-09.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated that it sounds like a lot of this code has been rewritten.
Senior Planner Moore stated that over the years Staff has made policies that need to be codified in the code.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked if a policy is easier to change than a Municipal Code.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that it’s easier to change a policy but in the past few years staff had been directed not to create policies but to codify items into the code because that makes it more enforceable. For example, if a Use Determination is made it would have been written into a policy but not in the code which then requires Staff to look in more than once place for the information.
Codifying these items in the code makes it easier for everyone to understand the requirements.
Community Development Director Torrico reminded the Commission that these changes are just to codify existing policies, Use Determinations, and other clean up items and does not change the overall use or intent of the zone. There are no uses being added or deleted. The only new item being added to the code is the prohibition of short-term rentalsand a rear yard setback.
Chairman Bratt asked Davis if he would like to continue the item so he has more time to go through the changes.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated he’s ok to move forward, it just sounded like a lot of items being changed. He is ok as long as we aren’t adding additional rules.
Senior Planner Moore stated that the short-term rental prohibition, the five-foot rear yard setback and the required distance from horse corrals are new items.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that one item that has come up with the City Attorney is that the code is more permissive and now we are changing this to clarify items that are prohibited. The City Attorney stated that items like these should be codified in the code so that Code Compliance has more enforcement power.
Commissioner Barnes asked for clarification on the twelve-foot setback on one of the side yards.
For example, if he buys a house on Fourth Street and knocks the house down, would he have to have to rebuild the new house with the current setbacks.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
November 21, 2024
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that was correct.
Commissioner Barnes stated that might be something that Staff would like to consider because requiring these setbacks may change the look of the area. He believes properties in the downtown typically don’t comply with the twelve-foot and five-foot setbacks and maybe staff wants to reconsider the change in the downtown area.
Chairman Bratt asked what would happen if there’s a property with an eight-foot setback, is it grandfathered in.
Community Development Director Torrico stated that the existing lot and building become legal non-conforming however, new construction would have to meet the new setbacks.
Planning Manager Espinoza did clarify that the Code allows additions to continue existing nonconforming setbacks with not less than a five-foot setback.
Chairman Bratt opened the public hearing.
No communications were made at this time.
Chairman Bratt closed the public hearing
RESOLUTION PC-1688
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN DIMAS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT
AMENDMENT 24-09, AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18-ZONING,
CHAPTER 18.20 RESIDENTIAL ZONES GENERALLY, CHAPTER 18.24 S-F SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, CHAPTER 18.28 SF-A
SINGLE-FAMILY AGRICULTURE ZONE, AND CHAPTER 18.35 SF-DR
SINGLE-FAMILY DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL ZONE OF THE SAN
DIMAS MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THE INTENT OF CERTAIN
SECTIONS, ADD LANGUAGE TO SECTIONS WHERE POLICIES HAVE
BEEN IN PLACE, BUT NEVER CODIFIED, AND VARIOUS CLEAN UP ITEMS AS REQUIRED.
MOTION: Moved by Vice-Chairman Davis, seconded by Commissioner Green to approve Resolution PC-1688 recommending City Council approve MCTA 24-09. Motion carried 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
OB 1. Consideration and discussion of a city-initiated request to initiate a Municipal Code Text Amendment to amend Chapter 18.38 Accessory Dwelling Units and 18.170 Electric Vehicle
Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
November 21, 2024
Charging Stations of the San Dimas Municipal Code in an effort to be in compliance with changes to the State laws effecting these uses, along with associated clean up items.
Staff Report presented by Assistant Planner Galindo recommending Planning Commission initiate the Municipal Code Text Amendment.
Commissioner Barnes stated that he understands that the City needs to comply with State mandated requirements but the one thing that he feels Staff should look at, and because the City doesn’t have much control over Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development, is the parking situation.
For example, someone can build an ADU but if they try to put in a garage for the ADU it could put the project over the lot coverage threshold, However, someone can build an ADU and no garage or parking on site which then pushes the parking issue out to the street. He would like to Staff to consider options that encourage on site parking to help alleviate on street parking.
Community Development Director Torrico stated that this issue will be looked at during the MCTA process and the Planning Commission can also recommend additional changes once the MCTA comes back to the Commission for reading.
Vice-Chair Davis stated that his HOA limits ADU’s at one thousand square feet. Will the HOA have a say in this going forward.
Community Development Director Torrico stated that multi-bedroom ADU’s are capped at twelve hundred square feet per State code, but cities are allowed to further limit floor area. Our Code limits studio and one bedroom ADUs to 800 square feet and multi-bedroom ADUs to 1,000 square feet.
Unfortunately the State takes the control away from the HOA’s and therefore the City does not require HOA approvals and will not enforce the HOA rules. Currently the first 800 square feet of an ADU does not count towards lot coverage. Staff will be adding language that items such as patios and garages that are attached to the ADU will count towards lot coverage. He understands that Commissioner Barnes is asking Staff to look at possibly exempting an ADU garage from the lot coverage calculation to help encourage on-site parking.
Commissioner Shirly asked if he’s building an ADU, would a garage be allowed to be attached to an ADU.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that the garage is only allowed if there’s enough room in the lot coverage calculation.
Commissioner Shirly asked what happens if they have to park on a street that doesn’t allow parking without the owner paying for it.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that is the owner’s responsibility, so if someone needs to park on the street they would have to buy a parking permit.
Community Development Director Torrico stated that the overnight parking restrictions is City wide and you cannot park overnight on city streets if you don’t have an overnight parking permit.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
November 21, 2024
The owner needs to consider this when they are deciding to build an ADU. Tonight, we are just initiating the MCTA, staff is not suggesting any changes at this time.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated he believes the City cannot regulate parking onsite for ADU’s.
Community Development Director Torrico stated that is correct, the City cannot require on-site parking to build an ADU per State law.
Commissioner Shirley stated that the on-street parking has increased and that’s a concern for residents. He feels that this needs to be considered.
Chairman Bratt asked for clarification on the EV Charger streamline act. He understands that the application has to be deemed complete within 5 or 10 business days, does that mean if we don’t approve the application that they can move forward and build it without City approval.
Community Development Director Torrico stated that the streamlining act will allow the item to go straight into building plan check and is a ministerial approval for Planning and there won’t be any kind of Planning approval process. The Building Department does have a checklist for submittals and approval can be done quickly and possibly even over the counter.
Chairman Bratt stated that it talks about height requirements that the ADU can go up to twenty-six feet. Can the City have a say in the height of the ADU.
Assistant Planner Galindo stated that under AB 976 it does have language about the height limitation and the requirements.
MOTION: Moved by Vice-Chairman Davis, seconded by Commissioner Barnes to approve the city-initiated request for a Municipal Code Text Amendment to amend Chapter 18.38 Accessory Dwelling Units and 18.170 Electric Vehicle. Motion carried 5-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
a. Community Development Department
Community Development Director Torrico updated the Planning Commission:
• Discussion of the Tree removal ordinance and SB9 went to the City Council Study Session on November 12, 2024. The SB 9 discussion was about the affordability requirement however staff was made aware of a new state mandate that restricts any limitations such as affordability requirements so for now this will have to be reconsidered in the proposed SB 9 code.
• The Tree removal ordinance was discussed at the City Council study session as well. The changes that Planning Commission and Staff recommended were presented and City
Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
November 21, 2024
Council gave direction to staff to work on exempting single family zones from the ordinance.
The City Council did direct staff to research whether other agencies protect certain trees and if so, provide a list of said trees. This was informational purposes only and will not be writtein into the Code. An MCTA will be brought to Planning Commission in the near future. b. Members of the Audience
No communications were made.
c. Planning Commission
No communications were made.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Chairman Green moved, seconded by Commissioner Davis. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 19, 2024.
________________________________
David A. Bratt, Chairman
San Dimas Planning Commission
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kimberly Neustice
Senior Management Analyst
Approved: December 19, 2024
Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of December 10, 2024
From: Brad McKinney, City Manager
Prepared by: Luis Torrico, Director of Community Development Subject: Discussion and Consideration of Ordinance 1319 to Approve Municipal Code Text Amendment 20-05, an Amendment of Chapter 18.518 Specific Plan 11 of the San Dimas Municipal Code, to Amend Grading Limits Within Planning Area I and Make Various Clean-up Text Amendments, and Adoption of the Associated Mitigated Negative Declaration
____________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
Municipal Code Text Amendment 20-05 is a City Council initiated request to amend Chapter
18.518 Specific Plan 11 of the San Dimas Municipal Code with respect to grading limits within Planning Area I and various clean-up items.
On January 19, 2023, the Planning Commission voted 3-0-2, with Commissioners Davis and Ross recusing themselves, to adopt Resolution PC-1657 recommending approval of Municipal Code Text Amendment to the City Council, and denied Resolution PC-1658, which recommended denial of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, with a recommendation that the City Council direct Staff to seek a peer review of the biological analysis to validate the report and the proposed mitigation measures that appear to be onerous requirements on the residents.
At the March 14, 2023, meeting the City Council considered the proposed amendment and raised concerns with the mitigation measures, and directed Staff to seek a peer review of the UltraSystems prepared biological analysis and proposed mitigation measures.
At the November 21, 2024, meeting the Planning Commission considered the amendment and voted 4-0-1, with Commissioner Davis recusing, to recommend the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Municipal Code Text Amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Municipal Code Amendment 20-05 Page 2
For the Meeting of December 10, 2024
Staff and Planning Commission recommend the City Council:
• Adopt Resolution 2024-89 to adopt the revised Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND); and
• Introduce Ordinance 1319 approving Municipal Code Text Amendment 20-05, a request to amend Chapter 18.518 Specific Plan 11 of the San Dimas Municipal Code, to amend grading limits within Planning Area I and make various clean-up text amendments.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the recommended action; however, the City’s expenses associated with consultant’s fees associated with preparation and review of the environmental documents is $140,513.
BACKGROUND
In 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance 786, creating Specific Plan 11 (SP-11), Areas I - IV.
Since the time of adoption, the area has been developed with 250 single-family residences. As originally adopted in the San Dimas Municipal Code, no grading is to be performed within SP-11, Planning Area I, except as required for retaining-type building foundations and the driveway, with no visible signs of grading allowed beyond the structure’s main walls (SDMC 18.518.170(B)(1)).
In 1987, the Development Plan Review Board (DPRB) adopted a policy of allowing a maximum of two hundred cubic yards of grading, cut and fill, in excess of the grading necessary for the residence and driveway (See Attachment 6). Approval of the two hundred cubic yards was determined by the DPRB on a case-by-case basis. To allow for greater flexibility for owners, the grading associated with the construction of a pool and a five-foot perimeter deck was not counted towards the two hundred cubic yard grading limit. The DPRB, therefore, began approving grading for pools, decks and other features in SP-11 Planning Area I which was directly prohibited by the San Dimas Municipal Code.
On May 12, 2020, during a regular City Council meeting, the Council requested that Staff prepare a presentation on the history and applicability of the grading limits set forth in San Dimas Municipal Code Section 18.518.170 (SP-11, Planning Area I grading limits) for City Council to discuss and consider a Municipal Code Text Amendment (MCTA) to amend these limits.
On July 14, 2020, the City Council heard a presentation from Staff regarding the history of the grading requirements within Chapter 18.518 Specific Plan 11: Planning Area 1 (SP-11, Area I).
At that meeting, the City Council initiated the MCTA for SP-11, Area I and directed Staff to provide the City Council with options relating to grading standards within this zone.
On September 22, 2020, the City Council held a Study Session to hear a presentation from Staff regarding the various options regarding the grading standards within SP-11: Planning Area 1 and to provide direction to Staff regarding the MCTA. Due to the length of the meeting the City Council continued the item to October 13, 2020. At that meeting, the City Council continued the MCTA indefinitely due to COVID-19 gathering restrictions and to allow for in-person comments to be heard at a Public Meeting.
On March 9, 2021, the City Council provided Staff with direction regarding the MCTA, directing Staff to work towards codifying the previous DPRB policy, but with the grading allowance increased from 200 cubic yards to 1,000 cubic yards.
Municipal Code Amendment 20-05 Page 3
For the Meeting of December 10, 2024
On June 3, 2021, the item was heard during a public hearing at a regular Planning Commission meeting. Due to concerns about the use of a CEQA categorical exemption, the item was continued to a later date to allow for a thorough review of the environmental determination.
On October 7, 2021, the item was brought back to the Planning Commission after a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared by City Staff. The Planning Commission heard from Staff and the public during a regular meeting and voted 3-0-2, with Commissioners Davis and Ross recusing themselves, to recommend approval of the MCTA and the MND to the City Council.
Following the October 7, 2021, Planning Commission meeting, the item was scheduled for the October 26, 2021, City Council meeting. Prior to the meeting, potential issues with the City prepared MND were raised in a letter prepared by the Via Verde Ridge Homeowners Association’s (HOA) legal counsel. After consultation between Staff and the City’s legal counsel, the decision was made to pull the item from the City Council calendar and have an environmental consultant prepare a new MND to study the environmental issues raised by the HOA’s legal counsel.
On January 11, 2022, the City Council was presented a resolution, as a part of the Consent Calendar, to allow for an agreement with UltraSystems, an environmental consultant, to prepare a new MND for the project that would address the issues that were raised by the HOA’s legal counsel. The item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for additional discussion. After discussion, the City Council voted 3-2 with Councilmembers Bertone and Ebiner voting no to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with UltraSystems to prepare an Initial Study/ MND for the MCTA.
On January 19, 2023, the Planning Commission heard the item and considered the draft MND prepared by UltraSystems (See Attachment 5). The Planning Commission heard from Staff, representatives from UltraSystems and the public during the regular meeting. During the meeting, the public raised concerns with the various biological mitigation measures required by the MND, as it would require several surveys which could add delays and increased costs to projects requiring any grading beyond what is currently allowed per the Code. After further discussion, and having raised the same concerns with the mitigation measures, the Commission voted 3-0-2, with Commissioners Davis and Ross recusing themselves, to adopt Resolution PC-1657 recommending approval of Municipal Code Text Amendment to the City Council, and denied Resolution PC-1658 recommending denial of the MND to the City Council, with a recommendation that City Council direct Staff to seek a peer review of the biological analysis to validate the report and the proposed mitigation measures and if possible, to reduce the onerous mitigation measure requirements on the residents.
On February 28, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing and voted 5-0 to table the meeting to March 14, 2023 (See Attachment 4). At the March 14, 2023, meeting the council made a motion to direct Staff to seek a peer review of the UltraSystems prepared biological analysis and proposed mitigation measures and to approve a budget amendment not to exceed $50,000 to hire a consultant to complete the peer review.
Therefore, the City hired Psomas to perform a peer review of the MND. After reviewing the prepared biologic analysis section of the MND and performing field studies, Psomas rewrote the biologic analysis section of the MND and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and were able to reduce the number of required surveys for any additional grading. Additional details
Municipal Code Amendment 20-05 Page 4
For the Meeting of December 10, 2024
on the revised MND and Mitigation Measures are discussed later in the report.
On November 21, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the amendment and the revised MND (See Attachment 3). During the public hearing, three (3) residents spoke on the amendments; one (1) resident spoke in support of the amendment and stated that the revised mitigation measures/surveys were more reasonable, one (1) resident spoke in favor of the amendment but did not agree with the surveys and would prefer that lots be exempt from the surveys, and one (1) resident spoke against the MND/surveys as majority of lots are constantly cleared and do not support any vegetation or wildlife. The City’s consultant also spoke to clarify the survey requirements and stated that if the area of the proposed grading has been previously cleared, the survey will not have to be completed (additional information regarding the surveys is provided later in the report under the Environmental Review section). After further discussing the amendment, the Commission voted 4-0-1, with Commissioner Davis recusing himself, to recommend to the City Council adoption of the revised MND and approval of the Municipal Code Text Amendment.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Per the direction provided by the City Council at the March 9, 2021, meeting, Staff has developed code text (See Attachment 2) to codify the previous grading policy, while increasing the grading limit to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards and providing standards for the grading, landscaping and any retaining walls that the additional grading would require. Along with these changes, Staff has completed a comprehensive clean-up of Chapter 18.518 Specific Plan 11, removing sections which dealt with the initial development of the area and codifying previous policies regarding Conditional Uses within the specific plan.
The proposed MCTA would allow for up to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of grading, cut and fill, beyond that grading necessary for the primary residence, driveway and garage for properties located within SP-11 Planning Area 1 (36 residential lots, up to 36,000 CY grading). Per the previous DPRB policy, a swimming pool and five (5) feet of decking surrounding the pool were exempted from the additional grading calculations but would still be subject to the mitigation measures in the revised MND. The proposed MCTA would also include development standards for grading, landscaping and any retaining walls that the additional grading would require.
Additional clean-up items are proposed by removing sections which dealt with the initial development of the area and codifying previous policies regarding Conditional Uses within the specific plan.
Due to the potential large quantity of available grading (774,000 CY) allowed for the existing residential homes to expand their 1st floor building area, the proposed MCTA to allow for up to 36,000 CY of grading beyond the grading necessary for the primary residence, driveway and garage would be small by comparison.
To preserve the original intent of SP-11, minimize the visual impacts of potential grading and retaining walls, codify existing policies/practices and eliminate defunct sections of the code, the following code text amendment includes:
1. Requirements that any proposed grading and retaining walls follow the existing topographic contours present onsite. The proposed grading cuts and/or retaining walls should not cut directly across contour lines.
2. A limitation of retaining walls to a maximum exposed height of twelve (12) feet per wall and a maximum combined exposed height of twenty-four (24) feet. This language is
Municipal Code Amendment 20-05 Page 5
For the Meeting of December 10, 2024
consistent with existing retaining wall height limit standards used in other hillside areas within the City.
3. A requirement that if more than one retaining wall is constructed directly adjacent to one another, the two walls must be separated by half (1/2) the height of the taller of the two adjacent walls.
4. Requirements to use gravity type retaining walls, unless onsite conditions prohibit their use.
5. Wall materials must be either slump stone or split-face stone with a tan or earth tone color.
6. Landscape and irrigation standards which require the planting of trees at the base of the lowest retaining wall and drought tolerant shrubs at the base of every wall. Installation of permanent irrigation shall be required to ensure that the required landscaping survives and is healthy enough to provide screening.
At the request of Council, Staff also analyzed an exemption to allow unlimited grading for any grading, cut and fill, used to create a natural appearing slope that would be used in place of retaining walls. Per the City Engineer, the maximum slope that can be created without the use of retaining walls is a 2:1 slope, or a slope that falls one (1) vertical foot for every two (2) feet of horizontal distance. Due to this slope requirement, most properties in Planning Area I would be unable to create a 2:1 slope without significant amounts of grading, grading which would be far in excess of the proposed one thousand (1,000) cubic yard allowance. Due to the potential amount of grading which could be required, Staff has found it infeasible to achieve a natural appearing slope that could be used in place of retaining walls on most parcels. Staff has therefore not included language in the proposed code text amendment which would allow for an exemption to the grading limits in order to create a natural-looking slope.
Staff believes that the above proposed amendments will assist in minimizing the potential impact of grading and retaining walls on the hillside vistas while allowing for up to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of additional grading within SP-11, Planning Area 1.
For clarification, the proposed grading limits and associated mitigation measures found within the MND do not affect the construction of a new residence or addition, the garage and required driveways. These actions, which are allowed under the current Code were analyzed through an Environmental Impact Report that was prepared and certified when SP 11 was originally developed; thus, they would not trigger any of the requirements or studies proposed by the new MND. In addition, per State law, accessory dwelling units must be allowed and are also exempt from the requirements or studies proposed by the new MND. The proposed mitigation measures would only be required for any additional grading beyond that required for the residence, accessory dwelling unit, garage and driveway, such as, but not limited to, a pool, a flat pad for a backyard or a cabana/pool house type structure.
On July 23, 1987, the DPRB adopted a policy allowing accessory structures (i.e. cabanas, decks, spas and pools, etc.) within SP-11, Planning Area 1 to be reviewed by Staff rather than requiring DPRB review and approval. These are being reclassified as accessory uses and would be reviewed at Staff level rather than requiring a Conditional Use Permit that is reviewed and approved by the DPRB.
SP-11 has been fully subdivided, and a majority of parcels have been developed, therefore the sections of the code pertaining to the creation of the various tracts, the infrastructure needed to support them and the various aspects that accompany new development are no longer relevant.
Furthermore, Public Works has existing development standards for all proposed infrastructure
Municipal Code Amendment 20-05 Page 6
For the Meeting of December 10, 2024
which would be required to be complied with in the event of any proposed future development.
Therefore, Staff is proposing to delete these sections of the Specific Plan.
ALTERNATIVES
There are no alternatives proposed for this request.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The MCTA is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an Initial Study was prepared to determine possible environmental impacts. Based on the Initial study, which indicated that all potential environmental impacts from the Project were less than significant or could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, an MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared for the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, which specifies responsible departments/parties, monitoring frequency, timing and method of verification and possible sanctions for non-compliance with mitigation measures.
As noted above, the City originally prepared an MND that was circulated for the required 20-day period and was recommended for City Council approval by the Planning Commission at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 7, 2021. The item was then scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council at their regular meeting on October 26, 2021. Prior to that meeting, potential issues with the City prepared MND were raised in a letter prepared by the Via Verde Ridge Homeowners Association’s legal counsel. After consultation between Staff and the City’s legal counsel, the decision was made to pull the item from the City Council calendar and have a private environmental consultant prepare a new Initial Study and MND to study the environmental issues raised by the HOA’s legal counsel. The new Initial Study and MND was prepared by UltraSystems Environmental and was circulated for public review/comment from December 22, 2022, through 5:00 PM on January 18, 2023.
At the Planning Commission meeting of January 19, 2023, the Planning Commission denied Resolution PC-1658, which would have recommended approval of the UltraSystems prepared MND to the City Council, recommending that the City Council direct Staff to seek a peer review of the biologic analysis section of the MND with the goal of reducing the required mitigation measures, specifically the number of required surveys. The City Council, at their March 14, 2023, meeting, agreed with this and directed Staff to hire a consultant to prepare a peer review of the MND.
The City hired Psomas to perform a peer review of the MND. After reviewing the prepared biologic analysis section of the MND and performing field studies, Psomas rewrote the biologic analysis section of the MND and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and were able to reduce the number of required surveys for any additional grading. Under the previous MND, a total of 17 biological mitigation measures were required, 11 of which were surveys. Per Psomas updated MND (See Attachment 1), a total of 13 mitigation measures are required, seven (7) of which are surveys. Of the 36 parcels located within SP-11, only four (4) parcels would be subject to all seven (7) surveys. It’s also important to note that just because the survey is listed in the table for the parcel doesn’t mean that a full survey is required. If a survey is listed as a requirement, the property owner will have to hire a biologist to come out and review the area of the proposed grading. There will be instances where the area to be improved will already have been cleared, either for maintenance purposes or for brush fire purposes, and the biologist may determine that
Municipal Code Amendment 20-05 Page 7
For the Meeting of December 10, 2024
the survey is not needed. Majority of the parcels in Area I have vegetation at the bottom of the slopes but not necessarily adjacent to the residence which is where grading will typically occur.
However, since CEQA requires that the entire parcel be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, majority of parcels have the survey requirement as a mitigation measure in the MND due vegetation being located somewhere on their parcel. In cases where the proposed grading area has already been cleared, the biologist will make the determination that the survey will not be needed, thus meeting the requirement under the MND.
In addition to reducing the number of surveys, the updated MND does not require that a qualified project biologist be present to monitor construction activities for the duration of the project, which the previous MND did. The reduction of the number of required surveys and the fact that a biologist will not have to be hired to be present to monitor construction activities for the duration of the project will avoid delays and will keep costs low for homeowners seeking to do grading improvements in their backyards. It’s important to note that the revised MND was completed in compliance with CEQA and does still include mitigation measures which will reduce environmental impacts of the MCTA to a less than significant level.
The revised MND was recirculated for public review to allow the public and outside agencies to review and comment on the document. It was recirculated from June 21, 2024, through July 21, 2024. During the recirculation period, Staff received four (4) comments. Three (3) comments came from residents; one (1) supported the revised MND, one (1) supported the amendment but did not agree with required surveys, and one (1) resident expressed concerns with the required surveys and recommended that the pools and previously disturbed areas be exempt from the MND. The fourth comment came from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), which recommended revisions to certain mitigation measures. Some of CDFW’s comments were incorporated into the MND; however, other recommendations such as adding unnecessary surveys or giving CDFW authority over some of the surveys where it’s not required, were not incorporated. Responses to the comments are provided in the revised MND, which is attached as Exhibit A to Resolution 2024-89 (See Attachment 1).
In order for the City Council to approve MCTA 20-05, the City Council must also adopt the revised MND. Therefore, Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the revised MND and approve MCTA 20-05.
Respectfully submitted,
Luis Torrico
Director of Community Development
Attachments:
1. Resolution 2024-89 (MND)
2. Ordinance 1319 (MCTA 20-0005)
3. November 21, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report & Draft Minutes
4. March 14, 2023, City Council Staff Report & Minutes
5. January 19, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report, Resolution PC-1658 & Minutes
6. DPRB 200 Cubic Yards Additional Grading Policy
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2024-89
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 20-05,
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970,
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, the City of San Dimas initiated a Municipal Code Text Amendment (MCTA) for the modification of a grading standards affecting Specific Plan 11, Planning Area I ("Proposed Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., herein referred to as “CEQA”) the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the “CEQA Guidelines”), the City is the “lead agency” for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared by the City, circulated for the required 20-day public/responsible agency review and presented to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 7, 2021; and
WHEREAS, potential issues with the City prepared MND were raised by legal council for the Via Verde Ridge Homeowners Association, with the decision being made by the City to hire an outside environmental consultant to prepare a new Initial Study and MND in order to protect the City from potential exposure to lawsuits from the HOA; and WHEREAS, a draft MND was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines by UltraSystems Environmental to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The MND was circulated for a 20-day public/responsible agency review on December 22, 2022, through January 18, 2023, and was also made available for review on the City’s website at www.sandimasca.gov. A complete copy of the MND is on file and can be viewed in the Community Development Department at 245 E. Bonita Avenue, San Dimas, California; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the Amendment and new MND, and voted 3-0-2, with Commissioners Davis and Ross recusing themselves, to adopt Resolution PC-1657 recommending approval of MCTA to the City Council, and denied Resolution PC-1658 recommending denial of the MND to the City Council, with a recommendation that City Council direct Staff to seek a peer review of the biological analysis to validate the report and the proposed mitigation measures and if possible, to reduce the onerous mitigation measure requirements on the residents; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, the City Council considered the MCTA and new MND, and voted 5-0 to continue the item to the March 14, 2023, meeting, at which the Council voted 5-0 to continue the item to a date uncertain and directed Staff to seek a peer review of the UltraSystems prepared biological analysis and proposed mitigation measures; and
Resolution 2024-89 Page 2
Adopting MND for MCTA 20-05
December 10, 2024
WHEREAS, the City hired Psomas, an environmental consultant, to prepare a peer review of the UltraSystems’ MND, and prepared a revised biological analysis and updated the mitigation measures; which required a recirculation of the MND from June 21, 2004 to July 21, 2024 and was also made available for review on the City’s website at www.sandimasca.gov. A complete copy of the revised MND is on file and can be viewed in the Community Development Department at 245 E. Bonita Avenue, San Dimas, California; and
WHEREAS, the City gave notice of its intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration to (a) the public pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (b) individuals and organizations, if any, that previously submitted written requests for notice pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, and (c) the Clerk of the County of Los Angeles pursuant to Section 15072(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the Amendment and voted 4-0-1, with Commissioner Davis recusing himself, to approve Resolution PC-1689 recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and to approve Resolution PC-1670 recommending approval of Municipal Code Text Amendment 20-05 to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, notice was duly given of the public hearing on the matter and that public hearing was held on December 10, 2024 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., with all testimony received being made a part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully and independently reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented with respect to the draft MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, including, but not limited to, the staff reports, studies, and all written and oral testimony presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the evidence received at the hearing, and for the reasons discussed by the Councilmembers at the hearing, the City Council now finds as follows:
A. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
B. All actions required to be taken by applicable law related to the preparation circulation, and review of the MND have been taken.
C. A revised Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared consisting of the Initial Study, all comments and recommendations received during the public review period, and a Mitigation and Reporting Program. The MND was posted on the City’s Website at http://www.sandimasca.gov on June 21, 2024. On the basis of the Initial Study prepared for the Proposed Project it has been determined that the Proposed Project may have a potential significant effect on the environment which, however, will be mitigated to a level that is less than significant and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a period of not less than 30 days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(b).
Therefore the City Council finds the Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate to assess the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, based on the findings contained herein and in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and finds, on the basis of the whole record that there is no substantial evidence that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the recommended adoption of the Mitigated
Resolution 2024-89 Page 3
Adopting MND for MCTA 20-05
December 10, 2024
Negative Declaration reflects the City of San Dimas City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.
D. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached hereto as Exhibit A), as this Proposed Project would not result in any significant, adverse environmental impacts with the mitigation imposed. The full record is available for review in the Planning Division.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Dimas does hereby resolve that:
SECTION 1. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to assess the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, based on the findings contained herein and in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and, on the basis of the whole record, there is no substantial evidence that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment. This determination reflects the City of San Dimas City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.
SECTION 2. The City Council adopts and approves the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in “Exhibit A” attached hereto and incorporated herein, and that the decision shall be final. A copy of this Resolution shall be mailed to the Applicant/Property Owner. The City Council directs the Director of Community Development, located at the Community Development Department, 245 E. Bonita Ave., San Dimas, CA 91773, to serve as the custodian of all documents or other material which constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the Council's adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would be based. The City Council authorizes and directs the Director of Community Development, or designee, to execute and file with the Los Angeles County Clerk, within five business days of the adoption of a resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Notice of Determination that complies with CEQA Guidelines, section 15075.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, this 10th day of December, 2024. ____________________________________
Emmett G. Badar, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Debra Black, City Clerk
Resolution 2024-89 Page 4
Adopting MND for MCTA 20-05
December 10, 2024
I, Debra Black, City Clerk, hereby certify that Resolution 2024-89 was adopted by the City Council of San Dimas at its regular meeting of December 10, 2024 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Debra Black, City Clerk
Final Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for the
Municipal Code Text Amendment 20-0005
San Dimas - MCTA 20-0005 Project
In San Dimas, California
State Clearinghouse Number: 2022120594
Prepared for
Prepared by
Ken Fichtelman
Associate Planner
City of San Dimas
Psomas
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92707
October 2024
Final IS/MND
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 2.0
Executive Summary............................................................................................................. 1-2 Comments ............................................................................................................................... 2-4
APPENDICES
Appendix
A
B
C
D
Previously Circulated Draft IS/MND (December 2022)
Updated Biological Technical Report (January 2024)
Recirculated Draft IS/MND (June 2024)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (October 2024) MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT i
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 930 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In December 2023, the City of San Dimas (City) circulated a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Municipal Code Text Amendment (MCTA) 20-0005 San Dimas - MCTA 20-0005 Project (Project) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
During public review of the Draft IS/MND, the City received a comment from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) that identified revisions in the biological resources analyses which were needed.
As required by Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability but prior to its adoption. A “substantial revision” of the negative declaration means: (1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required.
On June 21, 2024, a Recirculated Draft IS/MND was circulated for public review to provide the public, interested agencies, and other stakeholders with an opportunity to review and comment on the updated biological resources analyses that was prepared for the Project since the original Draft IS/MND was circulated in December 2023. The public review period occurred from June 21, 2024 to July 21, 2024. During the public review period, a total of four comments were received including comments from one agency and three individuals as detailed below in Table 1.
Table 1 – Commentors on the Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Agencies
A-1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Individuals
1 2
3 John Davis
John Begin
Riener Nielsen
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 1-2
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 931 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) states that prior to approving a project, the lead agency must consider the proposed IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. Written responses to comments are not required; however, the City of San Dimas, as lead agency, has prepared a written response to the comment received for consideration by the City Council. The comment letter followed by the City’s response are attached in Section 2.0 of this Final IS/MND.
Based on the evaluation in the IS/MND and the comments received, the City has determined that all potential impacts associated with the Project are less than significant with incorporation of identified mitigation measures. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has also been prepared and will be implemented for the Project. Therefore, the City of San Dimas has determined that and Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with CEQA is the appropriate environmental document for the Project.
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 1-3
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 932 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
2.0 COMMENTS
Comment Letter A-1 from California Department of Fish and Wildlife:
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2-4 Page 933 – 2053
Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-5
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 934 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-6
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 935 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-7
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 936 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-8
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 937 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-9
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 938 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-10
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 939 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-11
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 940 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-12
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 941 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-13
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 942 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-14
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 943 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-15
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 944 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-16
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 945 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-17
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 946 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-18
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 947 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-19
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 948 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-20
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 949 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-21
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 950 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-22
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 951 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-23
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 952 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-24
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 953 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-25
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 954 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-26
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 955 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-27
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 956 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-28
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 957 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-29
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 958 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-30
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 959 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
Response to Comment Letter A-1 from California Department of Fish and Wildlife:
A-1A: The commentor states that the Project’s mitigation measures should equally apply to all parcels in the Project Site rather than specific to each parcel as is currently proposed.
The comment is noted. This Project is not proposing any specific improvements; rather, the Project would change the City’s municipal code to allow individual homeowners to make improvements to their respective lots. The Recirculated IS/MND analyzes the worst-case scenario, which assumes that all homeowners would choose to improve their entire lot, up to the conservation easement. In implementation, some homeowners may not choose to do any improvements, some may make some limited improvements to a small portion of their lot, and some may choose to do improvements that would impact their entire lot. Because the improvements would be proposed by individual homeowners, the mitigation responsibility would fall on the individual homeowners to implement with verification by the City. Mitigation measures would be applied to each lot (as applicable) based on the biological resources contained on the specific lot rather than as a blanket requirement for all parcels. The Recirculated IS/MND identifies which mitigation measures are applicable to each lot. While the mitigation measures would only be applied to one lot at a time, they would mitigate impacts as they would occur. The mitigation strategy outlines a series of plan checks for the homeowners where the City would review the proposed improvements and would require that the homeowners implement the required avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures prior to receiving approval on their plans. Therefore, mitigation would occur across the entire Project area, as needed, lot by lot.
In summary, the comment is noted and will be provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council. Given that the comment does not relate to the content or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND, no further response is required.
A-1B: The commentor states that according to the Recirculated Draft IS/MND, there are two listed plants and nine additional plant species with a CRPR 1 or 2 that could occur within the Project Site. Variations in precipitation year-to-year can impact the amount of germination from the seed bank; additionally, seeds can be spread by weather or wildlife, making assessment by individual lot inaccurate.
The comment is noted. A special status plant survey of 1 acre and a special status plant survey of 100 acres, should not vary in accuracy as long as appropriate protocols are followed. The Recirculated IS/MND requires MM BIO-2 for all lots, except for Lots 1, 34, and 36, which are entirely developed. MM BIO-2 requires that special status plant surveys be conducted “following the most current protocols approved by CDFW and CNPS” prior to removal of any vegetation for improvements. This survey would detect special status plant species if they were present and would require avoidance and/or mitigation if the proposed improvements would impact a significant population1 of the special status plant species. 1 A quantitative threshold of significance is defined within MM BIO-2 for each category of special status plants.
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-31
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 960 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
MM BIO-2 would allow for the Home Owner’s Association (HOA) to conduct focused surveys across the entire Biological Study Area (BSA), as it would be more cost effective to do one focused plant survey of the entire area rather than conducting separate focused surveys lot by lot. However, as many homeowners may not be proposing improvements, they may not be supportive of spending HOA funds to support the improvements of individual lots.
Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the HOA will provide for conducting the focused surveys of the entire area. Instead, each individual homeowner would be responsible for carrying out the mitigation that would be triggered by their proposed improvements. The text of MM BIO-2 has been revised to require the impacts on special status plants to be considered cumulatively within the BSA.
In summary, the comment is noted and will be provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council. Given that the comment does not relate to the content or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND, no further response is required.
A-1C: The commentor states that there are more than 20 wildlife species that may occur in the Project Site. The commentor states that while wildlife may have specific habitat preference, they are not confined to specific areas and may utilize a variety of breeding and foraging habitat. The commentor states that for example, burrowing owl pre-construction surveys are only required for future projects on 29 of the 36 lots within the Project area.
While burrowing owls generally find suitable habitat in open fields, they have been known to occupy developed land that has small crevices in pipes, cracks in debris piles, or other construction-related structures or materials on site. The commentor states that similar to burrowing owls, bats species are not confined to specific residential lots and can utilize various trees or man-made structures as roost sites. The commentor states that mitigation measures that require a habitat assessment and pre-construction surveys should apply to all 36 residential lots. If surveys are not conducted, the commentor states that there is a possibility that special-status species may go undetected and consequently be impacted by the Project.
The comment is noted. However, homeowner improvements would likely be staggered over time. As described above, some homeowners may not choose to do any improvements, some may make some limited improvements to a small portion of their lot, and some may choose to do improvements that would impact their entire lot. This means that only a small portion of habitat would be disturbed at a time; most lots (31 out of 36 lots) contain less than one acre of habitat. The habitat area within the Conservation Easement (53.18 acres) would remain available to wildlife for breeding, foraging, and sheltering.
MM BIO-5 requires pre-construction surveys for all lots, except for lots that are entirely developed/ornamental (i.e., Lots 1, 34, and 36) and lots that consist entirely of woodland habitat (i.e., Lots 20, 21, and 27). While burrowing owls may sometimes nest in standpipes and in debris piles, those sites are typically surrounded by a debris basin or other larger area of open space. Burrowing owls do not typically occur in a suburban yard that is entirely landscaped and they do not typically occur in woodlands. While pre-construction burrowing owl surveys would not be required in these lots, MM BIO-6 requires pre-construction nesting bird surveys for all lots, including those with woodland habitat; therefore, if burrowing owl MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-32
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 961 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
were nesting in the woodland habitat on Lots 20, 21, and 27, they would be detected during the nesting bird survey. The only lots that do not require either pre-construction burrowing owl or nesting bird surveys are lots that are mapped as entirely developed/ornamental (i.e., Lots 1, 34, and 36); in these cases, the lots have already been developed up to the conservation easement and do not contain any natural habitat. The potential for burrowing owl to nest on these sites is not expected; therefore, the homeowners should not be burdened with additional surveys when the chance that the species would occur is so small that it is not expected.
MM BIO-7 requires pre-construction surveys for roosting bats on all lots, except for lots that are entirely developed/ornamental (i.e., Lots 1, 34, and 36) and lots that consist entirely of ruderal or coastal sage scrub habitat (i.e., Lots 5, 6, 29, and 30). If an area is already developed (typically with a house), it likely would not be removed by the proposed improvements. Bats do not roost in sage scrub shrubs or weedy ruderal vegetation. As discussed above, homeowners should not be burdened with additional surveys when the chance that bat roosting would occur is so small that it is not expected.
In summary, the comment is noted and will be provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council. Given that the comment does not relate to the content or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND, no further response is required.
A-1D: The commentor states that the City should amend the MND such that all mitigation measures apply to the entire Project area, so that impacts to biological resources are appropriately avoided and/or minimized.
As explained above, although implemented lot by lot, significant impacts on biological resources would be fully mitigated by the homeowners who choose to make improvements that would impact habitat. The mitigation strategy contains plan checks whereby the City would confirm that required pre-construction surveys and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are being implemented, as applicable. As explained above, the City finds that the requirements in MM BIO-2, MM BIO-5, and MM-BIO 7 reasonably exclude the few lots where the target species are not expected to occur; as such, the measures will not be applied to all lots as requested by CDFW.
In reviewing Table 4.4-5, it was noted that Lot 28 contains a small amount of coastal sage scrub; therefore, Lot 28 should be included as a lot that requires pre-construction burrowing owl surveys per MM BIO-5. This revision has been made in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that accompanies this Final Recirculated IS/MND as Appendix D.
A-2: The commentor states that the mitigation measures outlined in the Draft Recirculated MND contain distance buffers that may not reduce future project impacts to a level less than significant. The commentor states that the inclusion of a 200-foot buffer in mitigation measures, (i.e., if the project activities would occur within 200 feet of a biological resource), future project-related activities such as grading, clearing, disking, excavation, and paving may negatively impact biological resources within the Project area. The commentor also suggests revisions to mitigation measures in this comment.
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-33
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 962 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
The comment is noted. The 200-foot buffer was not based on specific guidelines or a specific source. Instead, the 200-foot buffer was based on the 100-foot setback distance from riparian areas/jurisdictional features required by various other cities and counties in their general plans (e.g., City of Simi Valley). Double this distance (i.e., 200 feet), was considered a reasonable distance to require the homeowner to conduct additional surveys and/or protective measures. After measuring the distance from the homes to the end of each lot, there is not much of difference between limiting the distance to 200 feet versus requiring for the entire lot; in other words, if sensitive habitat is within the lot, it is usually located within 200 feet, so changing the distance in the referenced measures would not change the implementation substantially, and it would make the measures easier for the City to apply.
The City accepts the changes to MM BIO-1, MM BIO-9, and MM BIO-11 suggested by the commentor. This comment was also applied to MM BIO-2. The revised mitigation measures are shown in the MMRP that is provided as Appendix D.
In summary, the comment is noted and will be provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council. The commentor’s revisions to mitigation measures have been incorporated.
Given that the comment does not relate to the content or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND, no further response is required.
A-3A: The commentor states that MM-BIO-2 does not adequately offset Project-related impacts on special status plants. The commentor states that the Project’s ground-disturbing activities would result in loss of suitable habitat, loss of population, and direct mortality of special status plant species.
The comment is noted. No special status plant surveys have been conducted in the BSA to date; it is currently unknown whether any special status plant species occur in the BSA.
Therefore, it is incorrect to state that Project activities would result in the loss of special status plant species because the impact is currently unknown. Because special status plant species have potential to occur in the BSA, there is potential for there to be an impact.
A-3B: The commentor states that the Project area has the potential to support listed plant species and plant species designated as rare with a CRPR of 1B or 2B. The commentor states that in the Recirculated Draft IS/MND, MM BIO-2 was included which states that if plants with a CRPR 1B or 2B cannot be avoided and the population size represents less than five percent of the regional population, then the impact would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. The commentor states that CDFW disagrees that impacts should be considered as less than significant. According to the California Native Plant Society, plants with a CRPR of 1B are rare throughout their range with the majority of these plants are endemic to California (CNPS 2024). Additionally, plants with a CRPR of 2B may be common in other states but are considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California. Whether or not there is a large population regionally, these plant species are still considered significant under CEQA, and compensatory mitigation should be provided if any individual rare plant is observed on site. CDFW is also concerned that the MND does not provide biological justification as to why five percent of the regional population is the minimum threshold
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-34
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 963 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
The comment is noted. Because the presence of special status plant species in the BSA is currently unknown, the mitigation must establish a quantitative criteria upon which future survey results can be evaluated for significance. MM BIO-2 establishes that any impact (i.e., impacts to one individual) on a federally or State-listed plant species would be a significant impact and would require take authorization be obtained from the USFWS and/or CDFW (depending on whether the species is federally or State listed), which is in agreement with the commentor. For California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 and 2 species, which are considered rare, threatened or endangered in California by the California Native Plant Society, the CEQA impact analysis considers Section 15065 as to whether the Project impacts would “substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare, threatened, or endangered species”. The City disagrees with the commentor that any impact (i.e. impacts to one individual) on a CRPR 1 or 2 species would be considered significant. MM BIO-2 establishes that if a CRPR 1 or 2 species were observed on an individual lot, but only a few individuals of that species were observed, the Biologist would then consider whether the loss of these few individuals would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of the species in the Project region. Special status species vary substantially based on each species’ specific life history traits, some occur as scattered individuals with 20 individuals occurring over 10 acres while others occur in patches of a few thousand in a polygon 10 feet in diameter.
Therefore, it is not possible to set a specific number of individuals that would apply to all species; hence, MM BIO-2 specifies five percent of the regional population as the threshold of significance. If the number of individuals found would not substantially reduce the regional population or restrict the range of the species, then the impact would not be considered significant, and no mitigation would be required. For example, if a special status plant survey is conducted on a particular lot and 8 intermediate mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius) individuals are observed, but there are 350 individuals of this species known from a nearby population that is still present, then the loss of those few individuals would not warrant mitigation. However, if a special status plant survey is conducted on a lot and 8 individual Greata’s aster2 (Symphyotrichum greatae) are observed, but only 20 Greata’s aster are known from the Project region, the loss of those few individuals would be a significant impact that should be avoided or fully mitigated. As CRPR species are not formally listed by the State, CDFW does not have the jurisdictional authority to determine the threshold of significance; the threshold of significance is determined by the Lead Agency (i.e., the City). The City finds that the criteria included in MM BIO-2 are reasonable for assessing significance. The City does not want individual homeowners burdened with carrying out complicated and costly mitigation requirements for an impact that is below the threshold of significance. However, per the requirements of MM BIO-2, impacts will be avoided and minimized to the extent possible depending on the location of the special status plants with respect to proposed homeowner activities.
In summary, the comment is noted and will be provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council. Given that the comment does not relate to the content or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND, no further response is required.
2 This species is not expected to occur in the BSA, but was used in this example because this species occurs in lower population numbers than the other species with potential to occur.
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-35
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 964 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
A-3C: The commentor states that the mitigation measure proposes the option of collecting seeds of rare plants and donating them to the California Botanic Garden. Handing seeds or bulbs to a local organization for future use does not guarantee that Project impacts in that particular area would be appropriated mitigated.
Collecting seeds of rare plants and providing them to a local organization for future use is one of three mitigation approaches included as potential options. This approach would only be considered suitable in certain circumstances, such as when the number of individuals impacted is limited and the species grows well from seed/bulbs. The seeds/bulbs could provide genetic diversity to the seed bank maintained by a botanic garden, or other suitable organization. MM BIO-2 requires City approval of the mitigation option selected.
A-3D: The commentor states that impacts on rare flora could be considered a significant effect on the environment. The commentor states that impacts to CRPR 1 and 2 plant species and their habitat meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). The commentor states that some CRPR 3 and 4 species meet the definitions of endangered, rare, or threatened under CEQA. The commentor states that impacts to CRPR 1 and 2 plant species and their habitat may result in a mandatory finding of significance because the Project would have the potential to threaten to eliminate a plant community and substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). The commentor states that insufficient mitigation may result in unmitigated temporal or permanent impacts to a rare plant species.
Subsequently, the commentor states that the Project would continue to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by CDFW.
See CDFW-3B above.
A-3E: The commentor provides suggested edits to MM BIO-2.
The comment is noted. Some of the commentor’s suggested wording revisions to MM BIO-2, related to federally and State listed species, have been incorporated to clarify the process related to impacts to listed species. However, the City prefers to retain a range of possible mitigation approaches in the measure, rather than deleting them as suggested by the commentor, to help guide homeowners and future City staff on the implementation of MM BIO-2.
Similarly, some of the commentor’s suggested wording revisions to MM BIO-2, related to CRPR 1 and 2 species, have been incorporated to clarify the process related to impacts on these species. However, some of the revisions incorrectly give authority to CDFW in the approval of mitigation for CRPR 1 and 2 species, which CDFW does not have jurisdiction over.
Additionally, the commentor’s revisions related to mitigation ratios are unclear with how the impact would be defined (based on individuals, the amount of habitat they occupy, or suitable habitat present on the lot). Therefore, the mitigation approval for CRPR 1 and 2 species will be retained by the City; however, wording has been added to MM BIO-2 to MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-36
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 965 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
suggest that CDFW could be consulted in an advisory role. As described above, the City prefers to retain a range of possible mitigation approaches in the measure, rather than deleting them as suggested by the commentor, to help guide homeowners and future City staff on the implementation of MM BIO-2.
Revisions to text for MM BIO-2 have been incorporated into the MMRP that is provided as Appendix D.
A-4A: The commentor states that the Recirculated Draft IS/MND did not provide avoidance or minimization measures to reduce Project impacts on Species of Special Concern. The commentor states that direct impacts to Species of Special Concern could result from Project activities (e.g., equipment staging, mobilization, and grading); ground disturbance; vegetation clearing; trampling or crushing from construction equipment, vehicles, and foot traffic. Project ground-disturbing activities such as vegetation removal will also result in habitat destruction, causing the death or injury of adults, juveniles, eggs, or hatchlings.
The Recirculated IS/MND discusses the potential impact to suitable habitat for wildlife Species of Special Concern on pages 4-66 through 4-70. As discussed, the worst-case scenario (i.e., that all homeowners would fully develop their lots), would result in impacts on 22.527 acres. As discussed above (CDFW-1C), the projects of individual homeowners would occur staggered over time, with some of the homeowners likely not proposing any improvements on their lots, or only impacting a portion of their lots, which differs from development of a new community where the entire project site is mass graded at the same time. Most lots (i.e., 31 out of 36 lots), contain less than one acre of habitat, while the largest lot contains less than four acres of habitat that could be impacted. Meanwhile, the habitat area within the Conservation Easement would continue to provide 53.182 acres available to wildlife for breeding, foraging, and sheltering. The Conservation Easement is located along the bottom of the slope for all lots, so it is immediately adjacent to all areas that would be impacted.
Additionally, because homeowner projects would be contained within a single lot, the construction crew for each project is expected to be small, likely consisting of only one or two pieces of equipment at a time. The small scale and slower pace of small-scale construction would allow most wildlife time to escape, triggered by the vibration of the approaching equipment and/or human activity, from the impact area to the Conservation Easement on the same lot. On most lots, the Conservation Easement is only a few hundred feet away from the edge of development. While some individuals of low mobility could be killed by construction activities, especially if construction begins during the cold winter season when herpetofauna are aestivating. The loss of a few individuals of these species is not expected to substantially reduce their population numbers or restrict their range (Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines).
While Section 15380 of CEQA allows some Species of Special Concern to be treated as if they are listed for CEQA purposes, the application of this treatment is not appropriate for all Species of Special Concern. The species listed by the commentor (i.e., Southern California legless lizard, California glossy snake, Blainville’s horned lizard, coastal whiptail, red diamond rattlesnake, and San Diego desert woodrat) do not currently trigger focused MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-37
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 966 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
surveys and mitigation. A recent court case, Nassiri v. City of Lafayette, et al. (2024), addressed the use of Section 15380 of CEQA, in which the courts clarified that the designation of a species as a “species of conservation concern” is not equivalent to being deemed “rare.” For the species to be treated as listed under Section 15380 of CEQA, a species should be considered rare or unique in the area or imminently at risk of endangerment (Allen Matkins 2024).
A-4B: The commentor recommends the addition of a mitigation measure requiring that a preconstruction wildlife survey be conducted within all parcels.
See Response A-4A. Because impacts on these species would not be considered significant, no mitigation would be necessary. The City would like to simplify the process for homeowners as much as possible and would like to minimize the surveys to those absolutely needed in order to minimize costly requirements for homeowners. Also, because of the configuration of the impacts in relation to the nearby Conservation Easement on each lot, wildlife would be expected to move away from the work area on their own as the construction equipment and human activity approach. Additionally, when the work area is this close to the Conservation Easement (i.e., within a few hundred feet in most cases), it is expected that wildlife that are relocated would move back to the work area within a few hours of being relocated, so if relocated more than a few hours prior to the work, they would likely return to their home territory. In this case, with this configuration of habitat within the Conservation Easement on each lot, this measure would likely not be effective at achieving the purpose. Therefore, it has not been added to the mitigation program. However, MM BIO1 has been revised to require construction plans to include a note to allow wildlife to escape from the work area unharmed (e.g., no killing of snakes) and that no wildlife shall be handled.
Revisions to text for MM BIO-2 will be incorporated into the Final Recirculated IS/MND and are shown in Section 4.1.
A-4C: The commentor states that a mitigation measure should be added requiring compensatory mitigation for impacts to Species of Special Concern.
See Response A-4A. As explained above, the impact on Species of Special Concern would not be considered significant under Section 15380 of CEQA; therefore, no mitigation would be required. It is important to note that when this community was originally constructed, a Conservation Easement was placed over the canyon bottoms, requiring protection of habitat on each lot. The Conservation Easement contains 53.182 acres of habitat that will remain in perpetuity with long-term protection granted. The areas at the bottom of the canyons are the areas of woodland that are most valuable for wildlife movement. In this case, one main reason that the loss of habitat is not considered significant for wildlife Species of Special Concern is that a limited amount of habitat would be impacted on each lot, while the habitat in the Conservation Easement would remain.
A-5: The commentor states that the City should change MM BIO-3 related to Crotch’s bumble bee as they have marked up in their comment.
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-38
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 967 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
The majority of the commentor’s suggested text has been incorporated into MM BIO-3 for Crotch’s bumble bee. The introductory text to the measure will be retained; the text states that if CDFW determines that Crotch’s bumble bee listing is not warranted, then the measure will not be applicable. If CDFW determines that listing is not warranted, then Crotch’s bumble bee would have been determined to be not at risk of endangerment in the foreseeable future; in this case, additional protections would not be warranted. The other suggested text change that has not been incorporated is to change “qualified Biologist” to “qualified Entomologist”. If a Biologist is qualified to do the survey, they would have the appropriate qualifications to conduct the survey (e.g., a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] to net and handle the species). Not all Biologists that hold this MOU are considered Entomologists; use of the term Biologist allows someone with multiple specialties (not just insects) to conduct the survey as long as they have the appropriate qualifications. However, text has been added following “qualified Biologist” to explain the qualification, “(i.e., one with a Memorandum of Understanding to handle the species)”.
A-6: The commentor states that the Recirculated Draft IS/MND did not include any compensatory mitigation in the event of unavoidable impacts to sensitive vegetation communities. The commentor states that the Recirculated Draft IS/MND should be amended to include a discussion of compensatory mitigation for coastal sage scrub, coast prickly pear scrub, and/or California walnut groves, including a mitigation measure or measures that provide specific requirements to meet mitigation obligations for these sensitive communities
The comment is noted; however, the Recirculated IS/MND explains the reasoning for the finding of less than significant on these vegetation types on pages 4-71 to 4-73. As detailed in the analysis, the worst-case scenario would impact less than 10 percent of coast prickly pear scrub in the BSA, totaling a maximum of 0.329 acre, while 90 percent of coast prickly pear habitat would remain in the Conservation Easement. Considering the small amount of coast prickly pear that could be impacted, the amount remaining in the Conservation Easement, the impact would be considered less than significant. Additionally, projects that would affect coast prickly pear scrub (as well as projects that would affect other coastal sage scrub habitat types) would require focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher per MM BIO-4. Impacts to habitat occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher would require compensatory mitigation, including securing long-term protections. Also, MM BIO-1 encourages that homeowners avoid and minimize impacts on this vegetation type.
A larger percentage of coastal sage scrub habitat types would be affected under the worstcase scenario (i.e., approximately one-third with 2.395 acres impacted and 5.012 remaining in the Conservation Easement). Other than coast prickly pear scrub, none of the other coastal sage scrub vegetation types are considered sensitive according to the California Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2023). As explained above, projects that would affect coastal sage scrub would require focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher per MM BIO-4.
Impacts to habitat occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher would require compensatory mitigation, including securing long-term protections. Also, MM BIO-1 encourages that homeowners avoid and minimize impacts on these vegetation types.
The Recirculated IS/MND states that the impact on California walnut woodlands and California walnut woodlands (disturbed) would be considered potentially significant, and MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-39
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 968 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
requires MM BIO-1 to avoid and minimize impacts on this woodland, and MM BIO-10 to require obtaining a permit for any mature trees that would be removed. The City’s permitting process requires that mature trees (including both California walnut [Juglans califonrica] and coast live oak [Quercus agrifolia]) removed be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio.
Therefore, mitigation is included for the loss of California walnut woodland and coast live oak woodland.
Additionally, the City of San Dimas Municipal Code related to Tree Protection (Section
18.162.100 (C) and (D)) requires the following long-term protection:
“Where applicable, a bond or cash deposit as determined by the director of development services shall be furnished by the developer for the management and protection of each existing, replanted or relocated tree(s). Said bond or cash deposit shall be refunded upon the successful completion of a tree maintenance program as required by the director of development services.”
“Any tree removal and/or replacement permit granted by the director of development services pursuant to Section 18.162.030 and the development plan review board pursuant to Section
18.162.050 shall include a condition requiring an objectively observable maintenance and care program to be initiated to insure the continued health and care of mature significant tree(s) on the property. Such program shall specify length of maintenance program, maintenance plan and method of inspection. Said tree maintenance program and plan is not required of the applicant when trees are to be relocated to an approved off-site location pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.”
Further, an information brochure on the topic of Tree Preservation (City of San Dimas 2021) on the City’s website summarizes the above measures as follows:
“If said conditions are imposed, the owner will be responsible for all replacement and relocated trees for a minimum period of two years. If during this time the tree(s) is (are) declared unhealthy by a certified arborist as set forth in Section 18.162.090, the diseased trees shall be removed and replaced at the cost of the applicant, as set forth in Section 18.162.100.
A maintenance agreement shall be submitted by the applicant and established for each replaced and relocated tree. The maintenance agreement and maintenance responsibility shall be transferred with the sale of the property if title to the property is transferred within the specified maintenance' period.”
Therefore, MM BIO-10, by requiring compliance with the existing tree preservation ordinance, requires compensatory mitigation and long-term protection of mature native woodlands. As mentioned for other issue areas, the City prefers to minimize the additional requirements for homeowners; preferring to rely on the existing procedures where they would accomplish the necessary protective measures.
A-7: The commentor states that the Recirculated Draft IS/MND notes that within each lot there is a conservation easement area that would remain as open space and could not be impacted by future homeowner projects. CDFW recommends that the City clarifies whether the conservation easement area, as depicted in Figure 4.4-4, has already been protected or whether the conservation easement will be granted through a formal protection mechanism.
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-40
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 969 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
The comment is noted. Page 4-63 of the Recirculated IS/MND states “The green areas in Figure 4.4-4 represent the existing conservation easement; these areas would not change following the text amendment; they would remain as open space and could not be impacted by future home-owner projects.”
The Project Description (Section 2.2) does not currently mention the Conservation easement because it is already in place; it is not part of the proposed Project.
A-8: The commentor states that CDFW appreciates the conversation to discuss the updated biological resources and welcomes an additional meeting prior to adoption of the Draft IS/MND to lessen significant impacts to the maximum extent feasible. The commentor states that they are available to continue the discussion of how to best avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts of Project to biological resources, and look forward to future coordination with the City.
The City appreciates CDFW’s comments and welcomes the cooperative spirit in the implementation of the Municipal Text Code Amendment. Several of the lots have drainages that are potentially under the jurisdiction of CDFW; although not all of CDFW’s suggestions have been incorporated into the Final Recirculated IS/MND, CDFW will have the opportunity review project activities that may affect drainages and would require a Streambed Alteration Agreement.
A-9: The commentor states that CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database [i.e., CNDDB], which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations [Public Resources Code, Section 21003, subdivision (e)]. Accordingly, the commentor requests that the City report any special status species detected by completing and submitting CNDDB Online Field Survey Form (CDFW 2024). The Project proponent should ensure that data was submitted data properly, with all data fields applicable filled out, prior to finalizing/adopting the environmental document. The data entry should also list pending development as a threat and then update this occurrence after impacts have occurred. The commentor states that the Project proponent should provide CDFW with confirmation of data submittal.
Psomas’ fieldwork was limited to one survey visit in July 2023. The only special status plant species observed was California walnut; California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) forms are generally not submitted for CRPR 4 species. No special status wildlife species were observed during the fieldwork; therefore, no CNDDB forms were needed for Psomas’ survey.
Ultrasystems (2022) reported monarch butterfly (Danaus Plexippus; foraging, not overwintering) and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii; foraging, not nesting). As the observations of these species were during foraging and not their protected states (i.e., overwintering and nesting, respectively), no CNDDB forms would be needed for these species either.
A-10: The commentor states that they recommend that the City incorporate the new and revised mitigation measures that CDFW has presented in their comment letter.
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-41
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 970 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
The Final Recirculated IS/MND has incorporated many of the suggested revisions recommended by CDFW. These measures are provided in the MMRP that is attached as Appendix D.
A-11: The commentor states that the Project, as proposed, could have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary.
This comment is noted.
A-12: The commentor states that CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City in adequately analyzing and minimizing/mitigating impacts to biological resources. CDFW requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the Project [CEQA Guidelines, § 15073(e)].
The comment is noted. The Final Draft IS/MND has incorporated many of the suggested revisions recommended by CDFW. These measures are provided in the MMRP that is attached as Appendix D.
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-42
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 971 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
Comment Letter 1 from John Davis:
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-43
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 972 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
Response to Comment Letter 1 from John Davis:
1-1: The commentor states that they believe that grading for new home construction including driveways, garages, and a pool would not require implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft IS/MND. The commentor states that the City has historically allowed for up to 200 cubic yards of grading.
The comment is noted and will be provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council. The mitigation measures would not apply to development/grading necessary for the primary residence, driveway, and garage. A pool would trigger the mitigation measures.
Given that the comment does not relate to the content or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND, no further response is required.
1-2: The commentor states that the parcel that they own as well as many others in the areas contain land designated as natural or scenic and cannot be developed. The commentor states that these areas of the parcels seem to be of most interest to the IS/MND’s preparer. The commentor states that the mitigation measures are not reasonable and are too expensive for a single-family homeowner to implement.
The comment is noted and will be provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council. As indicated in this comment, many of the parcels in the Project Site are partially covered by a Scenic Easement which already limits development within these areas of the parcels. The mitigation measures have been divided in Table 7.0-1 of the Recirculated Draft IS/MND for those measures that would need to be implemented for each parcel, regardless of where the improvements would occur in that parcel, as well as measures that are only required if work in that parcel were to extend into the Scenic Easement area of the parcel. 1-3: The commentor states that they believe that development that involves less than 200 cubic yards of grading and/or areas that are already improved, landscaped, and/or fenced in should not trigger surveys and other mitigation measures.
The comment is noted and will be provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council. See response to comment 1-2 above.
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-44
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 973 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
Comment Letter 2 from John Begin:
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-45
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 974 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
Response to Comment Letter 2 from John Begin:
2-1: The commentor states that they support the Project, and the commentor expresses gratitude to City staff for answering their questions related to the Project.
The comment is noted and will be provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council. Given that the comment does not relate to the content or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND, no further response is required.
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-46
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 975 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
Comment Letter 3 from Riener Nielsen:
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-47
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 976 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
Response to Comment Letter 3 from Riener Nielsen:
3-1: The commentor states that they are in support of the Project.
The comment is noted and will be provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council. Given that the comment does not relate to the content or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND, no further response is required.
3-2: The commentor states that although they support the Project, they believe that the required mitigation measures for this one area of the City is discriminatory. The commentor states that the mitigation measures should be reduced or eliminated, or otherwise they should be applied to all other parcels in the City.
The comment is noted and will be provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council. Given that the comment does not relate to the content or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND, no further response is required.
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 2-48
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 977 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Final IS/MND
3.0 REFERENCES
Allen Matkins. 2024. California Court of Appeal Clarifies What Constitutes a “Rare” Species Under CEQA. https://www.allenmatkins.com/real-ideas/californiacourt-of-appeal-clarifies-what-constitutes-a-rare-species-underceqa.html City of San Dimas. 2021. Tree Preservation Pamphlet.
https://files.sandimasca.gov/Document_Center/Department/Commu nity%20development/Tree%20Preservation.pdf
MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-0005 PROJECT 3-49
RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Page 978 – 2053 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Appendix A
Previously Circulated Draft IS/MND
November 2022