City Council Legislative Subcommittee
Meeting Date: April 29, 2022
To: City Council Legislative Subcommittee
From: Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Item 4: Our Neighborhood Voices (2024 Ballot Initiative) - Resolution of Support Recommendation:
Review and discuss a sample resolution in support of the 2024 Our Neighborhood Voices Ballot Initiative; determine recommendation , if any, to the City Council.
Discussion:
At its meeting on March 15, 2022, the Legislative Subcommittee received written correspondence regarding the 2024 ballot initiative being proposed by the group Our Neighborhood Voices (Exhibit 1). The March 14, 2022, letter from Diane Lech reque sts that the city "show support for reestablishing control of zoning and land use by endorsing the Our Neighborhood Voices (ONV) Initiative so that local governments and citizens have a voice in deciding what gets built in our neighborhoods."
Additional information, including the group's reasons for pursuing the initiative, is available at https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com/ .
A sample resolution of support, adopted by the South Bay Cities Council of Govern ments , is attached for Subcommittee consideration (Exhibit 2).
State law allows a public agency to adopt a position on a ballot measure as long as the position is taken at an open meeting where all voices have the opportunity to be heard . However , state law prohibits the use of public resources to campaign for or against a ballot measure. A summar y of permi ssible and impermissible activities is included in Exhibit 3.
Next Steps:
If the Subcommittee decides to recommend that the city adopt a resolution concerning the Our Neig hborhood Voices Ballot Initiative, staff will work with the City Manager to place an item on a future City Council agenda for consideration.
Exhibits
1. Letter from D. Lech
2. Sample resolution
3. Ballot Mea sure Activities & Public Resources
April 29, 2022 Item #4 Page 1 of 13
Kaylln McCauley
From:
Sent
To:
D Lech <[email protected] >
Monday, March 14, 2022 3:52 PM
Kaylin McCauley
Exhibit 1
Subject: Public Comment or Agenda Item #2 Legislative Subcommittee Meeting March 15, 2022 Dear Ms, McCauley,
Please include my written comment for either Public Comment or Agenda Item #2 as appropriate , to be included as part of the agenda packet.
Thank you. All Receive - Agenda Item # .:!:_
For t he Information of the:
~ ~IT'(_~OUNCIL
Date~CA...:L cc::[__
CM ~ACM L DCM {3) ~
Dear Honorable Mayor, Council Member Acosta, Jason Haber, and members of the public,
I am writing to please ask that each of you show support for reestablishing control of zoning and land use by endorsing the Our Neighborhood Voices (ONV) Initiative so that local governments and citizens have a voice in deciding what gets built in our neighborhoods . As you are aware, this Initiative will not appear on the ballot until 2024, but we need your support now. A lot of damage can be done to our neighborhoods in 2 years before the Initiative takes effect, IF it qualifies for the ballot AND gets voted in. Please go to the Our Neighborhood Voices .com website where anyone can easily sign up to endorse and show support, read a sample resolution for Cities, and examine the Initiative language. I also suggest that you read Solana Beach Ordinance 521 which passed unanimously in their City to help mitigate the damage of SB9 and S810 and prevent what's being allowed to happen in the City of San Diego from happening in their City.
Hopefully, Carlsbad will promptly take similar precautions to mitigate the destruction of our single family zoned neighborhoods due to our State legislators dramatically and undemocratically rewriting land-use rules in California.
I honestly can't believe that the legislators up in Sacramento, who most people voted for, have allowed SB 9 and SB 10 to pass, effectively eliminating the pursuit of the American dream in California. Senator Atkins and Senator Weiner have, in my opinion, lost their minds, and are now April 29, 2022 1 Item #4 Page 2 of 13
pushing the narrative that "single-family homeowners are segregationists 11 ,
another tactic to promote divisiveness. The proposed (ONV) Initiative proves this is furthest from the truth. If the legislators had taken the time to read the bills, perhaps they would have realized how environmentally and economically destructive these 2 laws are. Uncontrolled, unplanned , thoughtless building of high density urban housing creates slums. Both of these laws create that scenario. Imagine , every single family zoned lot with 4 residences instead of 1, with 4 foot setbacks on side and rear yards instead of 20-25 feet in the rear. Where are children supposed to play? In the streets? What about noise from other residences' music, dogs, and conversations. Not to mention loss of privacy, and to think of all the mature trees bull-dozed in developing 4 residences on 1 lot. Are trees no longer important to Carlsbad, or just not in certain neighborhoods? What a place to raise a family, IF a family could even afford it. Since neither of the laws provide for ANY affordable housing, the Sacramento politicians and investors, developers , and real estate agents are, right now, having a field day with buying and selling whatever comes on the market, turning a single residence into 4 or 10 , flipping them at high market prices, and making a fortune. After ali, look how much money the developer is saving by not having to provide the necessary infrastructure to increase sewer and water capacity in our aging system, or pay for street maintenance due to increased traffic, or provide for the increased school enrollment , fire protection , and evacuation routes, and let's not forget the Poinsettia Fire in 2014 that started near the La Costa golf course and crossed 6 lanes of El Camino Real asphalt to continue its destruction near Aviara , causing 2 schools and a senior care facility to evacuate. Wild fire danger is not going away . Neither is our water shortage.
It's not realistic to just make a neighborhood more crowded without all these things to consider. Up-zoning neighborhoods only benefits land speculators and developers by driving up land values, increasing housing costs, and creating more unnecessary market-rate housing . In addition, there is no data to prove that simply increasing density lowers housing costs, especially in high demand coastal cities such as Carlsbad . And, it only takes ONE single-family lot redeveloped into 4-10 units to destroy an entire neighborhood and community.
I ask you to please do something to protect our single family zoned neighborhoods NOW while also supporting affordable and equitable housing 2 April 29, 2022 Item #4 Page 3 of 13
for everyone, and protecting open spaces and environment. Other cities have been able to come up with ordinances that help mitigate the damaging effects of the 2 new laws until the Initiative is passed and we return to our former local-zoning laws, such as:
-limiting square footage to 825 square feet to keep costs down, which can actually provide for the much needed moderate income affordable housing, also known as the "missing middle",
-requiring an off-street parking space for each unit,
-design requirements for neighborhood compatibility and preservation of neighborhood character,
-limiting heights to 16 feet for protection of privacy for neighboring residences,
-replacing 2 trees for every one that is removed ,
-requiring 1 unit to be affordable for low income seniors, veterans, or persons with disabilities,
-creating housing in commercial areas and vacant office buildings, -limiting what persons or entities may apply for projects (ie: foreign investors who have no intention of living in or renting any of the units.
As this is an election year , I urge you and the public to vote out any legislator who supports any legislation or constitutional amendment that weakens or interferes with the powers of charter cities and diminishes local authority . We need legislators in Sacramento who support measures in local land use that are consistent with the doctrine of "home rule" and the local power in planning and zoning processes . And, the community must have a voice in this process. Please, be mindful of who you vote for in November! Help spread the word about Our Neighborhood Voices and support their efforts in regaining local control.
Please endorse the Initiative!
Thank you.
April 29, 2022 3 Item #4 Page 4 of 13
D. Lech
https://oumeighborhoodvoices. com/
CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless 4 April 29, 2022 Item #4 Page 5 of 13
Exhibit 2
Resolution 2021-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH BAY CITIES COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE "BRAND
HUANG-MENDOZA TRIPARTISAN LAND USE INITIATIVE" TO
AMEND ARTICLE XI OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO MAKE ZONING AND LAND USE COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS, AND NOT OF STATE INTEREST
WHEREAS , the Legislature of the State of California in recent years has proposed, passed, and signed into law a number of bills address ing a range of land use planning and housing issues; and
WHEREAS , the maJonty of these bills usurp the authority of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves the land use policies and practices that best suit each city and its resident s and instead impose "one-size-fits-a ll" mandates that do not take into account the unique needs and differences of local jurisdictions throughout the State of California; and WHEREAS , the majority of these bills do not provide any incentives or requirements for low-income affordable or moderate income workforce housing, but instead impose new policies that will incentivize speculation and result in the addit ion of market-rate or luxury housing , thereby eliminating the opportunity for local jurisdictions to implement effective policie s that will create more affordable housing and affi rmatively further fair housing practices; and WHEREAS , the ability of local jurisdictions to determine for themselve s which project s require review beyond ministerial approval; what parking requirements are appropriate for various neighborhoods ; what housing plans and programs are suitable and practical for each community; and what zoning should be allowed for residential properties , rather than having these decisions imposed upon cities without regard for the unique circumstances and needs of each individual comm unity, is a matter of critical importance to the South Bay Cities Counci l of Governments and many other municipalities focused on local zoning and housing issues ; and WHEREAS , the Board of Directors of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments hereby determines that local government entities are best able to assess and respond to the unique needs of their respective communities and hereby objects to the proliferation of State legislation (inc luding SB 9 and SB I 0) that wou ld deprive us of that abi lity.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTH BAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I . That the South Bay C ities Counc il of Governments is opposed to the legis lature of the State of California continua lly proposing and adopting legislation that overrides the zon ing and land use authority of local government and inhibits the ability of local gove rnment to effect ively plan for and implement policies to stimulate the efficient production of affordable housing.
April 29, 2022 Item #4 Page 6 of 13
SECTION 2. That the Board of Directors of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments support s the Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripart isan Land Use Initiative (Attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A) to ensure that zoning and land use authority rests with the local government entities that represent the communities in which the residents reside , and to allow local government to participate in solving our affordable housing crisis through so lutions that effective ly address the unique needs and conditions of each local community.
SECTION 3. That the Board of Directors of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments incorporate s each recital set forth herein above.
PASSED , APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day ofNovember 2021.
Drew Boyles , Chair
South Bay Cities Counci l of Governments
Jacki Bacharach, Board Secretary
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
April 29, 2022 Item #4 Page 7 of 13
SECTION I. The people of the State of California find and declare all of the following:
(a) The circumstances and environmental impacts of local land use decision s vary greatly across the state from locality to locality.
(b) The infrastructure required to maintain appropriate levels of public services, including police and fire services, parklands and public open spaces, transportation, water supply, schools, and sewers varies greatly across the state from locality to locality . (c) Land use decisions made by local officials must balance development with public facilities and services while addressing the economic, environmental, and social needs of the particular communities served by those local officials. (d) Thus, it is in the best interests of the state and local communities for these complex decisions to be made at the local level to ensure that the specific, unique characteristics, constraints, and needs of those communities are properly analyzed and addressed. (e) Gentrification of housing adjacent to public transportation will reduce or eliminate the availability of low or very low income housing near public transit, resulting in the loss of access by low or very low income persons to public transit, decline s in public transit ridership , and increase s in vehicle miles travelled.
(f) The State Legislature cannot properly assess the impacts upon each community of sweeping centralized and rigid state land use rules and zoning regulation s that apply across the state without regard to community impacts and, as a result, statewide land use and zoning will do great harm to local communities with differing circumstances and concerns. (g) Community development should not be controlled by state planners , but by local gove rnments that know and can address the needs of, and the impacts upon, local communities .
Local initiative s approved by voters pertaining to land use and zoning restriction s should not be nullified or superseded by the actions of any local or state legislative body. (h) Numerous state laws that target communities for elimination of zoning standards have been enacted , and continue to be proposed , that eliminate or erode local control over local development and circumvent the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA "), creating the potential for harmful environmental impacts to occur.'
(i) The purpose of this measure is to ensure that all decisions regarding local land use controls , including zoning law and regulations , are made by the affected communities in accordance with applicable law, includin g but not limited to CEQA (Public Resources Code§ 21000 et seq.), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code §§ 12900 - 12996), prohibitions against discrimination (Government Code§ 65008), and affirmatively furtherin g fair housing (Government Code § 8899.50). This constitutional amendment would continue to provide for state control in the coastal zone , the siting of a power plant that can generate more than 50 megawatt s of electricity , or the development or construction of water , communication or transportation infrastructure projects which the Legislature declare s are matter s of statewide concern and are in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this measure, it is the intent that a transportation infrastructure project shall not include a transit-oriented development project that is residential , commercial , or mixed-use.
April 29, 2022 Item #4 Page 8 of 13
SECTION 2. Sect ion 4.5 is added to Artic le XI of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC . 4.5. (a) Except as provided in subdivis ion (b), in the event of a conflict with a state statute , a county charter provision, general plan, specific plan , ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a county charter , that regulates the zon ing, development or use of land within the boundaries of an unincorporated area of the county shal l be deemed a county affair within the meaning of Section 4 and shall prevail over a conflicting state statute. No voter approved local initiative that regulates the zoning , development or use of land within the boundaries of any county shall be overturned or otherw ise nullified by any legislative body. (b) A county charter provision , general plan , specific plan , ordinance or a regulation adopted and app licab le to an unincorporated area within a county , may be determined on ly by a court of competent juri sdiction , in accordance with Section 4, to address either a matter of statewide concern or a county affa ir if that provision , ordinance, or regulation conflicts with a state statute with regard to only the following:
(1) The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code) , or a successor statute. (2) The siting of a power generating facility capab le of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern. (3) The development or construction of a water , communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legis lature has declared in statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statew ide concern and is in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project , whether residential , commercia l, or mixed-u se.
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding sha ll be denied as a result of the app licat ion of this section. No benefit or preference in state appropr iations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provisions of this section.
(d) The provisions of this section are severab le. If any provision of this sect ion or its application is held invalid , that invalidity sha ll not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or appl ication.
SECT ION 3. Section 5.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 5.5. (a) Except as provided in subd ivis ion (b), in the event of a conflict with a state statute , a city charter provision, general plan, spec ific plan , ord inance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a city charter , that estab lishes land use policies or regulates zoning or development standard s within the boundaries of the city shall be deemed a municipal affair within the meaning of Section 5 and shall prevail over a confl icting state statute. No voter approved local initiative that regulates the zoni ng, development or use of land within the boundaries of any city sha ll be overturned or otherwise nullified by any legis lative body. (b) A city charter provision , genera l plan , specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a city charter , may be determined only by a cou1t of competent jurisdiction , in accordance with Section 5, to address either a matter of statewide concern or a municipal affair April 29, 2022 Item #4 Page 9 of 13
Exhibit A
if that provision , ordinance, or regulation conflicts with a state statute with regard to only the following:
(I) The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 ( commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), or a successor statute. (2) The sit ing of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern. (3) The development or construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best interests of the state. For purpose s of this paragraph , a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project , whether residential, commercial, or mixed-u se.
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded program s shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of thi s section. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provisions of this section.
(d) The provision s of this section are severable. If any provision of this section 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.
SECTION 4. Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 7 . .(fil A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police , sanitary, and other ordinances and regulation s f½et that are not. except as provided in subdivision (b), in conflict with general laws. A county or city may not supersede or otherwise interfere with any voter approved local initiative pertaining to land use or zoning restriction s.
Cb) A county or city general plan. specific plan. ordinance or regulation that regulates the zoning. development or use of land within the boundaries of the county or city shall prevail over conflicting general laws. except for only the following:
April 29, 2022
(A) A coastal land use plan , ordinance or regulation that conflicts with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). or a successor statute.
ffi2 An ordinance or regulation that addresses the siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatt s of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern.
(C) An ordinance or regulation that addresses the development or construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best interests of the state. For pumoses of this subparagraph, a transportation infrastructur e project does not include a transit oriented development project. whether residential, commercial, or mixed-u se.
Item #4 Page 10 of 13
(c) No modification to appropriations for state fund ed program s shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this sect ion. No benefit or prefere nce in state appropriations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provisions of this sect ion.
(d) The provisions of this subdivi sion are severable. If any provi sion of this subdivisio n or its app lication is held invalid , that invalidity shall not affect other provi sions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provi sion or application.
April 29, 2022 Item #4 Page 11 of 13
Exhibit 3
IDIII INSTITUTE FOR
I.II LOCAL GOVERNMENT S.\!
Promoting Coad Gaveniment 111 the Local Level
As important as ballot measures are to policymaking, public agencies and officials face important restrictions and requirements related to ballot measure activities.
The basic rule is that public resources may not be used for ballot measure campaign activities. Public resources may be used, however , for informational activities. The key difference between campaign activities and informational activities is that campaign activities support or oppose a ballot measure , while informational activities provide accurate context and facts about a ballot measure to voters.
This document summarizes some of the key applications of these principles. The law, however , is not always clear and the stakes are high. Missteps in this area are punishable as both criminal and civil offenses. Always check with agency counsel for guidance on how these rules apply in any specific situation.
Public Agency Resources May Be Used To
✓ Place a measure on the ballot.
✓ Prepare and distribute an objective and fact-based analysis on the effect a ballot measure may have on the agency and those the agency serves.
✓ Express the agency 's views about the effect of the measure on the agency and its programs , provided the agency is exceedingly careful not to advocate for or against the measure 's passage. ✓ Adopt a position on the measure, as long as that position is taken at an open meeting where all voices have the opportunity to be heard.
✓ Respond to inquiries about the ballot measure in an objective and fact-base d manner. ✓ Agency communications about ballot measures should not contain inflammat ory language or argumentative rhetoric.
✓ Public employees and elected officials may, on their own time and with their own resources, engage in the following activities:
o Work on ballot measure campaigns or attend campaign-related events on personal time (for example, evenings, weekends and lunch hours).
o Make campaign contributions to ballot measures , using one's own money or campaign funds (while observing campaign reporting rules).
o Send and receive campaign related emails using one's personal (non-agency) compute r and email address.
April 29, 2022 Item #4 Page 12 of 13
Public Officials Should Not
x Engage in campaign activities while on agency time or with agency resources.
x Use agency resources (including office equipment, supplies, staff time, vehicles or public funds) to engage in advocacy related activities, including producing campaign-type materials or performing campaign tasks.
x Use public funds to pay for campaign-related expenses (for example, television or radio advertising, bumper stickers, or signs) or make campaign contributions.
x Use agency computers or email addresses for campaign
communication activities.
Best Practices
✓ Inform agency employees and public officials about these legal restrictions, particularly once a ballot measure affecting the agency has qualified for the ballot.
✓ Include language on informational materials that clarifies that they are for informational purposes only. For example, "these statements shall not be construed in support of or against XX ballot measure."
WHEN DO THESE
RESTRICTIONS KICK
IN?
The rules against the use
of public resources for
campaign activities are
triggered once a measure
has qualified for the ballot.
There may be more
latitude before a measure
has qualified, but consult
with agency counsel
regarding the permissibility
of specific activities.
DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS
Ballot measure activities
that cross the line into
advocacy are also subject
to disclosure
(transparency)
requirements under
California 's Political
Reform Act (Government
Code sections 81000 et
seq.).
The Institute for Local Government (ILG) is the nonprofit 501 (c)(3) research and education affiliate of the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties and the California Special Districts Association. Our mission is to promote good government at the local level with practical, impartial and easy-to-use resources for California communities. For more resources related to ballot measures and campaigns, visit www.ca-ilg.org/campaigns .
© 2018 Institute for Local Government . All rights reserved .
April 29, 2022 Item #4 Page 13 of 13