Note: Underlined Text is “Proposed.” Strikethrough Text would be “Deleted.”
30.04.080 "H" Words and Phrases Defined.
A. Hedge shall mean generally dense vegetation so aligned as to form a physical barrier similar to a fence.
B. Height, Building or Structure. Building or structure height shall be the greatest vertical dimension computed by using any or all of the following, at any point within or around the structure:
1. The vertical distance from the lower of the natural or finished average adjoining grade to the highest part of the roof or structure.
2. The vertical distance from the lower of the natural or finished exterior adjoining grade to the highest part of the roof immediately above or of any structure located on such roof.
3. The vertical distance from any point of the roof or structure to the natural grade directly below.
C. Historic Property, Designated Historic Landmark means any site so designated by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 30.58 of this Title.
D. Home Occupation means an occupation or business conducted entirely within the main building by a member of a family residing therein, conducted as an incidental use to the primary residential use thereof, and in which there is no sign used; no display; no stock in trade or commodity stored, rented or sold upon the premises; no person employed other than the member of the resident family; no deliveries made or other pedestrian or vehicular traffic generated; no mechanical equipment used or kept on the premises except those customarily found in the home; no commercial vehicle used or kept on the premises in connection with such home occupation or business.
E. Hotel means a building or group of buildings in which there are six or more guest rooms where lodging with or without meals is provided for compensation, and where no provision is made for cooking in any individual room or suite. "Hotel" shall include jails, hospitals, asylums, sanitariums, orphanages, prisons, detention homes, and similar buildings where human beings are housed and detained under legal or medical restraint. (Ord. No. 562; Ord. No. 724)
ATTACHMENT H
130 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Note: Underlined Text is “Proposed.” Strikethrough Text would be “Deleted.”
30.86.090 Fences/Retaining Walls/Hedges.
The construction or installation of fences, retaining walls and entryway structures, and the planting or installation of hedges on properties within the City of Del Mar shall be subject to the following limitations and regulations:
A. Fences and Hedges in Residential Zones.
1. Fences and gateshedges located within the required front yard or side yard abutting a street shall not exceed the height of three and one-half feet, except that for every two feet that a fence or hedge is set back from the property line, its height may be increased by six inches, not to exceed a height of six feet, zero inches.
2. Fences and and hedges located within the rear yard or interior side yard shall not exceed a total height of six feet, zero inches.
3. Fences and hedges located constructed within the building area may be as high as the building within said area.
4. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Code, an entryway structure consisting of open work, such as a trellis, may be located within a required front or street side yard setback, provided such structure does not exceed the following maximum dimensions:
a. Maximum Height. Ten feet (as measured pursuant to the provisions for measurement of fence height specified in this Chapter);
b. Maximum Width. Eight feet measured from outside dimensions parallel to the property line.
c. Maximum Depth. Five feet (measured from outside dimensions perpendicular to the property line).
d. Maximum Enclosure. 50 percent of each vertical plane or overhead covering surrounding the structure. This means that a minimum of 50 percent of each vertical plane or overhead covering shall be open to light and air. The enclosure for each vertical plane or overhead covering shall be measured as a percentage of the total area of that vertical plane or overhead coverage of the trellis structure. This requirement for openness of construction shall not apply to the installation of an entryway structure consisting of a single set of two opposing vertical posts connected by a single horizontal cross-piece which meets the other provisions of this Section and which is constructed with post and cross-piece materials no greater than six inches in diameter or width.
No more than one entryway structure permitted pursuant to this Section may be constructed for each property line fronting a street.
Entryway structures which conform to the provisions of this Section shall be considered to be the same as a fence for purposes of determining the appropriate review process.
In addition to the other review requirements provided in this Chapter, an entryway structure proposed within a front or street side yard setback pursuant to this Section shall receive approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development. Such approval shall be given only if the Director finds that construction of the trellis within a front or street side yard setback will not threaten the public safety.
B. Fences and Hedges in Nonresidential Zones. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Chapter, fences constructed in all zones other than residential shall not exceed a total height of six feet, zero inches, except that walls or fences constructed within the building area and set back ten feet or more from the
ATTACHMENT I
131 July 7, 2025 Item 17
front property line and five feet or more from the side property line abutting a street may be as high as the building within said property line.
C. Fences Serving as Retaining Walls. The construction of any fence retaining more than three feet of earth or similar materials shall be designed or approved by a registered, professional civil or structural engineer or a registered architect, and/or otherwise conform to County specifications. A fence serving as a retaining wall shall not extend more than one foot above the material retained.
D. Calculation of Fence and Hedge Height. Fences and hedges located constructed in all zones shall not exceed a maximum height as set forth herein. For purposes of this Section, fence and hedge height herein shall be calculated as the vertical distance between the elevation at the top of the fence or hedge and the elevation of the lower of the natural or finished adjacent grade when measured from the exterior facade(s) of such fence or hedge at any point. The exterior facade shall be considered to be that side of a fence or hedge which faces and is closest to adjacent properties and public rights-of-way.
E. Maximum Allowed Hedge Height for Existing Hedges. The maximum hedge heights permitted under this Section shall not apply to hedges that existed on a property as of __________, 2025, and that were at least one or more feet taller than the maximum hedge heights permitted under this Section. Any new or replacement hedge planted or installed after ____________, 2025 shall adhere to the maximum allowed hedge heights contained herein.
132 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: City Councilmembers
FROM: Mayor Terry Gaasterland and Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez DATE: July 7, 2025
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting a 2026 State Ballot Initiative Sponsored by Our Neighborhood Voices to Restore Local Authority Over Land Use Planning & Zoning Law Related to Housing
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Mayor Gaasterland and Deputy Mayor Martinez recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) in support of a 2026 State ballot initiative sponsored by Our Neighborhood Voices to restore local control over land use planning and zoning law primarily related to housing.
BACKGROUND:
Sacramento lawmakers have passed over 400 laws in the last eight years alone, stripping away local control over development and allowing large developers to bypass nearly all local rules. The City of Del Mar, among many other local government agencies in the State, has been negatively affected by and voiced opposition to the State’s continued legislative overreach and erosion of local control and land use authority.
The majority of these new laws usurp the authority of local jurisdictions, including city councils, county boards of supervisors, planning departments, and mayoral offices, among others, to determine for themselves the land use, development, and planning policies that best suit their communities and residents, and instead impose “one-size-fits-all” mandates that fail to account for the unique needs and differences of local jurisdictions throughout the State.
Most of the new State housing laws do not provide any incentives or requirements lower or moderate income workforce housing, but instead impose mandates that incentivize real estate speculation and the construction of unneeded market rate, above market rate, and luxury housing on a theory of “trickle down” economics, thereby eliminating the authority and ability of local jurisdictions to implement effective policies to create more affordable housing and affirmatively further fair housing practices.
The State’s “trickle down” approach to housing has demonstrably failed to produce the needed stock of lower and moderate-income housing for working Californians, instead 1 July 7, 2025 Item 18
City Council Agenda Report
Resolution Supporting Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative July 7, 2025
pushing millions of working individuals and families into housing insecurity, defined as individuals and families who spend 50% or more of their monthly income on housing.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The City of Del Mar has strongly advocated for the critically important ability of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves, based on their constituents’ and residents’ needs, which projects require review beyond ministerial approval; what off-street parking requirements are appropriate for different neighborhoods; what housing plans are appropriate for those neighborhoods; what zoning should be applied to those neighborhoods; what restrictions to place in high fire danger severity zones and other sensitive areas; what methods are required to preserve coastal resources; and what types of housing are needed and appropriate.
The State mandated 6th Cycle Housing Element resulted in the built-out City of Del Mar, with a population of less than 4,000 and developable land totaling less than 2 square miles, being allocated 175 new housing units as part of the related Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) process. The number of units imposed on the City bears no rational relationship to the City of Del Mar’s or San Diego County’s actual housing needs, and amounts to an arbitrary and capricious state mandate. Being required to produce this high number of units forces the City to approve development in areas inappropriate and/or potentially dangerous for housing.
Construction of new unneeded and inappropriate market rate, above market rate, and luxury housing as required by the State via RHNA, places untenable and unsustainable stresses on local infrastructure, including but not limited to schools, law enforcement, and fire resources, sanitation, roads, public transit, and water and power.
By failing to appropriate funds for necessary infrastructure upgrades, including but not limited to new schools and increased resources for law enforcement, fire, sanitation, roads, public transit, and water and power, the state mandated sixth cycle RHNA units are an unfunded state mandate that violates Article XIIIB, section 6 of the Constitution of the State of California.
As such, it is critically important to empower local governmental entities to assess and respond to the unique needs of their communities and neighborhoods, and object to the proliferation of State legislation and sixth cycle RHNA mandates that deprives local governments of that ability.
Our Neighborhood Voices is a non-profit, grass roots organization that is sponsoring a 2026 State ballot initiative to restore local control to municipalities by amending the California State Constitution. Previous individual efforts at the grassroots level or as individual cities have led to the understanding that cities will need to create a coalition to support efforts to restore local control to municipalities in the State of California.
The stated purpose of the proposed initiative is to protect the ability of local communities to make local land use planning and zoning decisions, and to clarify the process to resolve conflicts between current or future state and local land use planning and zoning laws. This constitutional amendment is expressly intended to authorize local land use planning and 2 July 7, 2025 Item 18
City Council Agenda Report
Resolution Supporting Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative July 7, 2025
zoning law to override conflicting state law while ensuring that specified laws remain in full force and effect.
In line with the Council’s goal to restore and protect local control, the City of Del Mar can join community leaders and other cities across California by adopting the attached Resolution (Attachment A) in support of the Our Neighborhood Voices proposed constitutional amendment (Exhibit A to Attachment A) intended to restore local control in California.
Endorsement of the initiative by the Del Mar City Council will assist in getting the initiative onto the 2026 State ballot.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” under Section 15378(b)(5) of CEQA Guidelines because the action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This is an operational item and is not included in the City Council’s list of Goals & Priorities.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Resolution Supporting Our Neighborhood Voices Local Authority Ballot Initiative to Amend Article IX of the Constitution of the State of California to Make Zoning, Development, and Land Use Matters of Local Authority Exhibit A to Attachment A- Text of proposed constitutional amendment 3 July 7, 2025 Item 18
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF THE “OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VOICES”
BALLOT INITIATIVE TO AMEND ARTICLE IX OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO MAKE ZONING, DEVELOPMENT,
AND LAND USE MATTERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California in recent years has proposed, and passed, and Governors have signed into law more than 400 bills addressing a range of local land use, development, and planning issues; and
WHEREAS, the majority of these new laws usurp the authority of local jurisdictions, including city councils, county boards of supervisors, planning departments, and mayoral offices, among others, to determine for themselves the land use, development, and planning policies that best suit their communities and residents, and instead impose “one-size-fits-all” mandates that fail to account for the unique needs and differences of local jurisdictions throughout the State; and WHEREAS, the majority of these new laws do not provide any incentives or requirements for low-income, affordable, or moderate income workforce housing, but instead impose mandates that incentivize real estate speculation and the construction of unneeded market rate, above market rate, and luxury housing on a theory of “trickle down” economics, thereby eliminating the authority and ability of local jurisdictions to implement effective policies to create more affordable housing and affirmatively further fair housing practices; and WHEREAS, this “trickle down” approach to housing has demonstrably failed to produce the needed stock of low-income, affordable, and moderate-income housing for working Californians, instead pushing millions of working individuals and families into housing insecurity, defined as individuals and families who spend 50% or more of their monthly income on housing; and
WHEREAS, the ability of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves, based on their constituents’ and residents’ needs, which projects require review beyond ministerial approval; what off-street parking requirements are appropriate for different neighborhoods; what housing plans are appropriate for those neighborhoods; what zoning should be applied to those neighborhoods; what restrictions to place in high fire danger severity zones and other sensitive areas; and what types of housing are needed and appropriate, is a matter of critical importance to the City of Del Mar; and
WHEREAS the sixth cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) allocation of 175 new units imposed on the City of Del Mar bears no rational relationship to the City of Del Mar’s or San Diego County’s actual housing needs, and amounts to an arbitrary and capricious state mandate; and
WHEREAS, the state mandated sixth cycle RHNA units would force the City of Del Mar to approve development in open spaces, environmentally sensitive areas, high fire danger severity zones, and other areas inappropriate and/or dangerous for housing; and WHEREAS, the state mandated new construction of unneeded and inappropriate market rate, above market rate, and luxury housing via RHNA, most of which will be in dense, 4 July 7, 2025 Item 18
Resolution No. 2025-XX
unaffordable new multifamily buildings, would place untenable and unsustainable stresses on local infrastructure, including but not limited to schools, police, sheriff, and fire resources, sanitation, roads, public transit, and water and power; and WHEREAS, by failing to appropriate funds for necessary infrastructure upgrades, including but not limited to new schools and increased resources for police, sheriff, fire, sanitation, roads, public transit, and water and power, the state mandated sixth cycle RHNA units are an unfunded state mandate that violates Article XIIIB, section 6 of the Constitution of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby determines and declares that local governmental entities are best able to assess and respond to the unique needs of our communities and neighborhoods, and hereby objects to the proliferation of State legislation and sixth cycle RHNA mandates that deprives us of that ability.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California that:
1. That the City Council of the City of Del Mar is opposed to the legislature of the State of California continually proposing and adopting legislation that overrides the zoning, development, and land use authority of local government and inhibits the ability of local government to effectively plan for and implement policies to stimulate the efficient production of affordable and workforce housing.
2. That the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby finds and declares that the sixth cycle RHNA mandate of 175 units by 2029 bears no rational relationship to the City’s actual housing needs, is arbitrary and, in the case of Del Mar’s allocation is flawed in the calculation formula and input data, and would be a physical impossibility to meet.
3. That the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby finds and declares that the state mandated sixth cycle RHNA requirements are an illegal unfunded mandate in violation of Article XIIIB, section 6 of the Constitution of the State of California.
4. That the City Council of the City of Del Mar supports and endorses the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of California put forth by the grassroots nonprofit Our Neighborhood Voices attached to this 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 solutions that effectively address the unique needs and conditions of each local community.
5. That the City Council of the City of Del Mar incorporates each recital set forth herein above.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California at the Regular Meeting held this 7th day of July, 2025. _____________________________
Terry Gaasterland, Mayor
City of Del Mar
5 July 7, 2025 Item 18
Resolution No. 2025-XX
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2025-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 7th day of July, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
6 July 7, 2025 Item 18
Exhibit A to Attachment A
Our Neighborhood Voices- Ballot Initiative
The proposed constitutional amendments read as follows:
(from https://www.ourneighborhoodvoices.com/draft-initiative/) We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of _____ County , hereby propose amendments to the Constitution of California, and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election or as otherwise provided by law. The proposed constitutional amendments read as follows:
SECTION 1. The people of the State of California find and declare all of the following:
(a) California’s housing crisis is primarily due to a failure to provide enough housing (to own or rent) that is affordable for working class and lower income Californians, and this crisis has worsened due to massive reductions in available funding to help local governments encourage more affordable housing production. The involvement of large financial institutions and speculators in our housing markets and recent state laws that usurp the power of local government to exercise its constitutional authority to make local land use planning and zoning decisions have combined to further restrict affordable housing options and displace many working-class families and people of color from their own historic communities. (b) Local government is best able to consider all the requisite factors and make the difficult land use planning and zoning decisions to ensure that new development is supported by the infrastructure and utilities required to maintain appropriate levels of public services, including police and fire services, parklands and public open spaces, transportation, parking, and schools.
The specific needs and challenges facing every California community vary greatly and therefore require significant input and leadership from local government to achieve best outcomes on land use planning and zoning issues, including the provision of affordable housing and protecting the environment.
(c) The State Legislature cannot adequately consider or address the unique impacts of land use planning and zoning laws on every local community, and recent state laws designed to require local governments to increase housing density and encourage the production of more market rate housing by minimizing public input and eliminating environmental review will not solve our affordable housing crisis. In fact, these state laws will harm communities by escalating housing costs and increasing property tax burdens instead of encouraging collaboration with local government to produce more affordable housing.
(d) The purpose of this measure is to protect the ability of local communities to make local land use planning and zoning decisions, and to clarify the process to resolve conflicts between current or future state and local land use planning and zoning laws. One size does not fit all, and recent statewide land use and zoning laws will do great harm without significant input and participation from local communities. The “home rule” doctrine is enshrined in Sections 4 and 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, and local land use planning or zoning initiatives approved by voters shall not be nullified or superseded by state law.
(e) This constitutional amendment is expressly intended to authorize local land use planning and zoning law to override conflicting state law while ensuring that specified laws remain in full force and effect.
7 July 7, 2025 Item 18
Exhibit A to Attachment A
SEC. 2. Section 3.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 3.5. For purposes of this article:
(a) “Land use planning and zoning law” means any law, whether adopted or put into effect by charter, ordinance, regulation, local initiative, or other action that accomplishes any of the following:
(1) Eliminates or restricts a city or county’s discretion to establish or change the zoning designation of any parcel within its jurisdiction.
(2) Requires a city or county to review, approve, or deny a development application on a streamlined, ministerial, or expedited basis if the project meets a specified criteria. (3) Approves or denies a development or subdivision of a parcel. (4) Imposes any restriction on the ability of a city or county to deny a development project or subdivision of a parcel.
(5) Establishes the procedure for establishing or changing the zoning designation of any parcel within its jurisdiction.
(6) Establishes the procedure or timing for reviewing and approving development applications.
(b) “Covered state statute” means a state law that addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of this article, and relates to any of the following:
(1) The protection of the environment or natural resources, including, but not limited to any of the following:
(A) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) and California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15000) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations).
(B) The California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code). (C) The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(D) The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code).
(E) The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 2710) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code). (F) Pollution control or environmental justice laws, rules, or regulations. (2) The protection of health and safety, including but not limited to, the development of contaminated sites and regulation of hazardous material storage sites. (3) Emergency response to natural disasters and disaster planning and recovery. (4) The regulation of the physical structure and the construction of buildings. (5) The regulation of residential or commercial rents and landlord-tenant relations, including the Ellis Act (Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code) and Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 1954.50) of Title 5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code). (6) The siting 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 and that the facility addresses a matter of statewide concern. (7)
(A) The development or construction of a water, communication, or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature lists the specific reasons explaining 8 July 7, 2025 Item 18
Exhibit A to Attachment A
how the project addresses the statewide concern and declares that the development is in the best interests of the state.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
(8) Fair housing matters, including, but not limited to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), prohibitions against discrimination, or affirmatively furthering fair housing.
(9) Reporting and planning requirements, provided that the requirement does not otherwise impact the ability of a city or county to adopt, or put into effect, a land use planning and zoning law described in paragraph (1). Reporting and planning requirements imposed pursuant to this paragraph shall apply uniformly to all cities and counties and shall not discriminate amongst cities or counties based on voluntary compliance with any land use planning and zoning law adopted by the state.
SEC. 3. Section 5.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 5.5.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in the event of a conflict with a state statute, a land use planning and zoning law within the boundaries of the city shall be deemed a municipal affair within the meaning of Section 5 and shall prevail over a conflicting state statute. (b) A covered state statute shall prevail over conflicting land use planning and zoning laws, provided that for a covered state statute enacted on or after January 1, 2016, the Legislature makes a finding that the covered state statute addresses a matter of statewide concern. A finding of statewide concern made pursuant to this subdivision shall list the specific goals, purposes, and objectives of the statute.
(c)
(1) State funding appropriated before the effective date of this section shall not be modified due to a city preempting any state law pursuant to this section. (2) State funding appropriated after the effective date of this section shall not discriminate in favor of, or give any preference to, a city that voluntarily complies with state-adopted land use planning and zoning laws.
(d) The provisions 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.
SEC. 4. Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 7.
(a)
(1) A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. that are not, except as provided in subdivision (b), in conflict with general laws. (2) A county or city shall not supersede or otherwise interfere with any voter approved local initiative.
(b)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a land use planning and zoning law within the boundaries of the county or city shall prevail over conflicting general laws. 9 July 7, 2025 Item 18
Exhibit A to Attachment A
(2) A covered state statute shall prevail over conflicting land use planning and zoning laws, provided that for a covered state statute enacted on or after January 1, 2016, the Legislature makes a finding that the covered state statute addresses a matter of statewide concern. A finding of statewide concern made pursuant to this paragraph shall list the specific goals, purposes, and objectives of the statute. (c)
(1) State funding appropriated before the effective date of this section shall not be modified due to a city or county preempting any state law pursuant to this section. (2) State funding appropriated after the effective date of this section shall not discriminate in favor of, or give any preference to, a city or county that voluntarily complies with stateadopted land use planning and zoning laws. (d) The provisions 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.
SEC. 5. Article XXXIV of the California Constitution is repealed. 10 July 7, 2025 Item 18