CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM
F
ebruary 14, 2022
TO
: City Council
F
ROM: Office of the City Manager
S
UBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VOICES INITIATIVE (AKA: THE
BRAND-HUANG-MENDOZA TRIPARTISAN LAND USE INITIATIVE ) TO AMEND SECTION 7 OF ARTICLE XI OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO MAKE ZONING AND LAND USE A
COMMUNITY AFFAIR AND NOT A MATTER OF STATE INTEREST
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
S
taff recommends that the City Council discuss the Our Neighborhood Voi ces Initiative and determine whether to adopt a resolution of support.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
D
uring the January 24, 2022 , City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Litster requested that the Ci ty Council consider taking a position to support (Resolution 2022-07, page 5) the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative (Initiative).
T
he Initiative, also known as ballot measure 1910 (21- 0026A1), provides that adopted local land use and zoning laws will p revail over conflicting state laws (Exhibit 1 to Resolution 2022-07). This Initiative would amend the State of California’s Constitution to preserve this local control.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
O
ver the past several years, the California State Legislature (“Legislature”) has passed numerous laws restricting the ability of local government to make land use, zoning, and planning decisions. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following:
• S
enate Bill 35 (2017) – This law streamlines housing construction in counties and cities that fail to build enough housing to meet their state- mandated Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) housing production. Cities and counties who are unable to meet their RHNA assigned numbers must use a streamlined, ministerial review process for qualifying multifamily residential projects.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
8A
2 • Assembly Bill 68 (2019) – This law allows two Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on a single lot, as well as multiple ADUs on multifamily lots. This law also eliminates design requirements that cities can impose on ADUs and requires ADU approval to be completed in 60 days.
• Sena
te Bill 330 (2019) – This law limits the ordinances and policies cities and counties can adopt that apply to housing developments. This includes prohibiting any approval of a local moratorium, project or action that would result in a net downzoning of residential uses, a limit of the number of permits to be issued, or otherwise reduce housing or limit overall population. Additionally, applicable, housing development projects must receive a decision in no more than five public hearings – regardless of the body hearing the item, including any appeals. This law was scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2025, however Senate Bill 8 (2021) extended the sunset date to January 1, 2030.
• Sena
te Bill 9 (2021) – This law provides that two primary residential units can be developed on a single family residential lot (by adding either two new detached units or one new SB-9 unit attached to one existing unit) with ministerial approval and for the creation of a two-lot subdivision on an existing single family residential lot, subject to certain criteria being met (two units may also be constructed on each lot with ministerial approval).
Cities in California make most decisions about when, where, and what type of housing will be built. Cities and counties enac t zoning ordinances to specify loc al land use requirements. A community’s zoning ordinance typically defines how each property can be used and its form.
As mentioned above, recent housing legislation requires local government to s treamline housing approvals and allow for more dense housing to be built. This legislation generally declares that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and not a local affair. In recent years, the Legislature has increasingly seen issues of zoning and land use as matters of s tatewide concern. This has led to the introduction of hundreds of bills, and the passing of numerous laws, which override a local jurisdiction’s authority over land use, zoning , and planning dec isions. For the most part, these new laws do not require affordable housing be built, just that more housing is built. The presumption appears to be that if there is more housing, it will bring down the overall cost of housing; however, the legislation that has been passed, by and large, does not address the affordable component. Ins tead, it requires more housing to be built in communities, without necessarily providing cities with the authority to plan for the infrastructure required to support these additional bodies and units . Additionally, the legislation can prevent cities from recovering planning, utility connec tion, and other costs as sociated with the new housing development.
As drafted, the Initiative would amend the California Constitution to specify that loc al zoning and land use laws (in general) would prevail over conflicting state law, for the most part. (Attachment A, page 12). State land use planning laws that address legitimate
3 statewide interests such as coastal protection and large infrastructure projects will continue to supersede any conflicting local laws.
According to the proponents of the Initiative, it was written to ensure full compliance with all state environmental laws , all fair housing and anti -discrimination laws, and does not conflict with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Therefore, under the Initiative, local laws that currently conflict with state law generally would become enforceable. Moreover, local initiatives related to zoning or land use not only would prevail over laws passed by local governing bodies, but also state law. While the State could continue to enact legislation relate d to local zoning and land use, rather than follow State law, cities and counties could enact conflicting law. These local laws would generally prevail over State law, returning local control to communities.
Currently, the Initiative is gathering signatures to qualify for the November 2022 General Election. The proponents of the Initiative have until May 2, 2022 , to submit sufficient signatures to the California Secretary of State such that there are 997,139 val id signatures once the signatures are verified.
As of the writing of this report, there are 29 cities listed on the Coalition website in support of the Initiative, in addition to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), California Cont ract Cities Association, and the South Bay Council of Governments. Currently there are no Ventura County cities included on the list.
If the Initiative receives sufficient signatures to be placed on the November 2022 ballot and is passed by the voters, local control , for the most part, will be returned to local governments.
The following alternatives are available to the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-07 in support of the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative;
2. Take no position on the Initiative;
3. Provide alternative direction to staff.
Staff recommends Alternatives No. 1.
SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
I move to:
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-07 in support of the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative to return land use authority to cities;
OR
Take no position on the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative. 4 SUMMARY
During the January 24, 2022, City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Litster requested that the City Council consider taking a position to support the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative (Ini tiative). The Initiative , also known as ballot measure 1910 (21 -0026A1), provides that adopted local land use and zoning laws override conflicting State laws. This Initiative would amend the State of California’s Constitution to preserve this local control.
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative and determine whether to adopt a resolution in support.
____________________________________
Samantha Argabrite
Deputy City Manager
Prepared by: Samantha Argabrite, Deputy City Manager
INDEX Page
Resolution No. 2022-07 .................................................................... 5 Exhibit 1 – Ballot Initiative .......................................................... 7 Attachment A – Initiative Frequently Asked Questions ................... 12
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-07
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SIMI VALLEY IN SUPPORT OF THE “BRAND- HUANG-
MENDOZA TRIPARTISAN LAND USE INITIATIVE (OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD VOICES) 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
W
HEREAS, the City Council of Simi Valley has historically supported local control in matters including land use, planning, and zoning matters as outlined in the City’s adopted Legislative Platform; and
W
HEREAS, local control over development is essential to preserving the City of Simi Valley’s unique identity; and
W
HEREAS, the City of Simi Valley has an adopted General Plan that guides future growth and development in the community that continues to promote the unique character of Simi Valley and a recently updated housing element with a statement of goals, policies, objectives, financial resources and scheduled progr ams for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and W
HEREAS, the state legislature has passed numerous laws restricting the ability of local government to make land use, zoning, and planning decisions over the past several years which overrides the careful and well thought out urban planning process undertaken by the City of Simi Valley; and
W
HEREAS, the majority 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 residents and instead impose a “one size fits all” approach that do not take into account the unique needs and differences of local jurisdictions throughout the state; and
W
HEREAS, a 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 addition of market-rate or luxury housing, thereby eliminating the opportunity for local jurisdictions to implement effective policies that will create more affordable housing an affirmat ively further fair housing practices; and
W
HEREAS, the ability of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves which projects 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 community, is a matter of critical 5 importance t o t he City o f Simi Valley and many ot her m unicipalities focused on local zoning and housing issues; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that local government entities are best able to assess and respond to the unique needs of their respective communities and herby objects to the proliferation of State legislation including SB 35 (2017), AB 330 (2019), Senate Bills 9 (2021).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Simi Valley is opposed to the legislature of the State of California continually proposing and adopting legislation that overrides the zoning and land use authority of local government and inhibits the ability of local government to effectively plan for and implement policies to stimulate efficient production of affordable housing in the City of Simi Valley.
SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Simi Valley supports the Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative AKA Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative (Attached as Exhibit 1) to ensure that zoning and land use authority rests with the local government entities that represent the com munities 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 loc al community.
SECTION 3. The City C lerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.
PASSED
and ADOPTED this 14th day of February, 2022.
At
test:
Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
Ap
proved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
David L. Caceres, City Attorney Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager Samantha Argabrite
Deputy City Manager
6 November 1, 2021
Initiative 21-0016 (Amdt. 1)
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
PROVIDES THAT LOCAL LAND-USE AND ZONING LAWS OVERRIDE
CONFLICTING STATE LAWS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Provides that city and county land-use and zoning laws (including local housing laws) override all conflicting state laws, except in certain circumstances related to three areas of statewide concern: (1) the California Coastal Act of 1976; (2) siting of power plants; or (3) development of water, communication, or transportation infrastructure projects. Prevents state legislature and local legislative bodies from passing laws invalidating voter-approved local land-use or zoning initiatives. Prohibits state from changing, granting, or denying funding to local governments based on their implementation of this measure. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Fiscal effects of the measure depend on future decisions by the cities and counties and therefore are unknown. (21-0016A1.)
7 EXHIBIT 1
RES. NO. 2022-07
58277666.v2
SECTION 1. The people of the State of California find and declare all of the following:
(a) The circumstances and environmental impacts of local land use decisions 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, declines in public transit ridership, and increases 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 regulations 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 governments that know and can address the needs of, and the impacts upon, local communities.
Local initiatives approved by voters pertaining to land use and zoning restrictions 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, including 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 furthering 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 megawatts of electricity, or the development or construction of water, communication or transportation infrastructure projects which the Legislature declares are matters 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.
8 RES. NO. 2022-07
58277666.v2
SECTION 2. Section 4.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 4.5. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (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 zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of an unincorporated area of the county shall 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 otherwise nullified by any legislative body. (b) A county charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted and applicable to an unincorporated area within a county, may be determined only by a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with Section 4, to address either a matter of statewide concern or a county affair 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 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 purposes of this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this 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 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.
SECTION 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 city charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a city charter, that establishes land use policies or regulates zoning or development standards 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. No voter approved local initiative that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of any city shall be overturned or otherwise nullified by any legislative body. (b) A city charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a city charter, may be determined only by a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with Section 5, to address either a matter of statewide con cern or a municipal affair 9 RES. NO. 2022-07
58277666.v2
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 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 purposes of this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this 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 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.
SECTION 4. Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 7. (a) A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not 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 restrictions. (b) 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:
(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.
(B) An ordinance or regulation that addresses 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 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 purposes of this subparagraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit- oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use. 10 RES. NO. 2022-07
58277666.v2
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this 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 provisions of this subdivision are severable. If any provision of this subdivision 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. 11 RES. NO. 2022-07
Join Us! www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com
Our Neighborhood Voices
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this initiative do?
The “Our Neighborhood Voices” Initiative restores the authority of your local representatives to decide what gets built in your community, on your street and right next door to where you live.
Why should you support this initiative?
Recent state laws let developers tear down the house right next door to you and build a multi-unit, multi-story building and you have no say in the matter. Under these new laws, developers are not required to conduct any environmental review, provide onsite parking, or build affordable housing. These laws give a blank check to developers that lets them do whatever they want to in our neighborhoods without any local input. The Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative is the strongest weapon we have to fight back against these draconian state laws, because it restores our ability to speak out and impact what is happening in our own communities.
If you believe that we should have a voice in our own neighborhoods – join us! Visit www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com and volunteer today!
Why do we need this initiative?
Amending the state constitution with an initiative to put local communities in charge of land use and zoning laws will send a clear and powerful message that the recent state housing laws that damage our community without providing any affordable housing do not solve our problem – in fact, they are making our affordable housing crisis even worse.
We can’t afford to let developers make billions without paying anything to offset the impact of all this new housing on our communities – sticking all of us with the bill by overstressing our local infrastructure. We can’t afford more gentrification and economic displacement in working class neighborhoods and communities of color.
We can’t afford more traffic gridlock and less parking, since these state housing laws have no funding for roads or transit, and no parking requirements.
Ad Paid for by Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative, committee major funding from Reyla Graber
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
12 ATTACHMENT A
Who is backing ONV?
Our Neighborhood Voices has received significant donations from individuals and organizations, including the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The initiative is supported by a statewide grassroots coalition of Californians that includes Democrats, Republicans, Independents and voters from every part of the political spectrum.
There are five initiative proponents, three of whom are local elected officials, one is an affordable housing advocate, and one is a former city planning commissioner.
Our Neighborhood Voices is building a statewide coalition of community advocates, elected officials, and Californians from all walks of life who agree that it is time to restore our voice on local community decisions.
Don’t we just need to build more housing?
We need to build more housing that is affordable for middle and lower income Californians as an urgent priority. Simply allowing developers to build more housing in a market that is already dominated by investors and lots of expensive, vacant housing units will only produce more expensive housing that very few Californians can afford. That is exactly what is already happening under the current state housing laws that seek to increase housing density in single family communities without requiring anything to be affordable.
What laws will be impacted by the initiative?
The initiative enables any state law that directly impacts land use planning and zoning to be overridden by a local law, including density bonus, Housing Element requirements, Housing Accountability Act approval requirements, and certain aspects of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). State land use planning laws that address legitimate statewide interests such as coastal protection and large infrastructure projects will continue to supersede any conflicting local laws.
What about the environment and housing equity?
The initiative was written to ensure full compliance with all state environmental laws and all fair housing and anti-discrimination laws. The initiative does not conflict with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and in fact it helps local agencies ensure that new development gets sufficient environmental review and protections.
Single family neighborhoods are not inherently discriminatory, and many people of color own and rent homes in these neighborhoods that represent the main means of building wealth for them. Now that BIPOC single family neighborhoods exist, Our Neighborhood Voices finds it ironic and disturbing that there is an effort to undermine and devalue the importance of single family homes. For more details about how the initiative interacts with these laws, please read our land use attorneys’ expert legal opinion, available at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com.
Frequently Asked Questions
13 How will the initiative become law?
We have until late April 2022 to obtain 1 million valid signatures from California registered voters to qualify the initiative for the November 8, 2022 ballot. Once we have qualified for the ballot, we need to educate enough Californians to vote for the initiative to restore our collective voice on these important local land use policy decisions.
You can help restore your neighborhood voice by joining us at www
.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com
How can I help?
Our Neighborhood Voices is a grassroots effort that will require lots of money and volunteers to succeed. Any donation, large or small, will help, and you can make it online right now at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com/donate. Please make sure to volunteer to collect signatures, endorse the campaign, and spread the word about Our Neighborhood Voices to your friends, relatives and neighbors! If you sign up to receive petitions on the “Action Kit” section of our website you will receive online training and supplies before going out to collect signatures.
Where can I find more information?
Please visit www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com for more details, and you can also email at [email protected] if you have a detailed question or concern.
How will the initiative affect the relationship between state and local government?
The initiative will help restore a balance of power between our state and local government by putting communities back in charge of local land use decisions, and encouraging our state legislators to remain focused on matters that are truly of statewide concern, like working with local communities to implement real solutions to California’s affordable housing crisis.
Frequently Asked Questions
Join Us! www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com
14