CC SR 20211207 04 - Ballot Initiative Local Land Use
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 12/07/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to support the Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land
Use ballot initiative to preserve local land use authority.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-__, thereby endorsing the Brand-Huang-Mendoza
Tripartisan Land Use Ballot Initiative intended to preserve local land use authority;
and,
(2) Direct Staff to notify the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative of the City Council’s
adopted Resolution endorsing the Ballot Initiative.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2021-__ (page A-1)
B. Initiative Text (page B-1)
C. Resolution No. 2021-57 – 2022 Legislative Platform
D. April 6, 2021 staff report
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On November 2, 2021, the City Council adopted the City’s 2022 Legislative Platform , via
Resolution No. 2021-57, outlining the City Council’s policy positions on issue areas
including housing and local land use. Section 1.A. states the City’s opposition to
“legislation that usurps local control and erodes the City’s authority to control i ts own
affairs” (See Attachment C).
1
On April 6, 2021, during the Legislative Session, the City Council supported
Assemblymember Muratsuchi’s Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7 (ACA 7) (See
Attachment D). ACA 7 sought to amend the California Constitution to ensure local land
use authority would prevail over conflicting state laws. To be ratified, it would have
required a two-thirds approval by the Legislature and approval by a majority of voters.
The bill was not referred to a committee after introduction, which was required for the bill
to move forward, although there is the potential the bill could be moved forward when the
Legislative Session resumes in January, it is unlikely due to lack of Legislative
leadership’s support.
Separately, but with largely similar text, Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand, Yorba Linda
Mayor Peggy Huang, and Brentwood City Council Member Jovita Mendoza introduced a
voter initiative known as the Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative (see
Attachment B), and officially titled by the Attorney General of California as an active ballot
measure that “Provides that Local Land-Use and Zoning Laws Override Conflicting State
Laws.”1
The initiative seeks to amend Article XI of the California Constitution to allow county or
city general plans, specific plans, ordinances, or regulations pertaining to zoning,
development or use of land within the boundaries of the jurisdiction to prevail over general
law, except as it relates to the Coastal Act of 1976, siting of certain power generating
facilities, and development or construction of water, communication, or transportation
infrastructure projects that are a matter of statewide concern.
To be placed on the ballot, the initiative must receive 997,139 signatures from registered
voters (at this time, the petition is not yet available for signatures). If it qualifies to be
placed on the ballot and receives a majority of votes cast, it would amend the California
Constitution.
If enacted, it is anticipated that the measure would have the potential to reverse recent
housing bills. For example, Senate Bill No. 9 (Statutes of 2021) requires cities to
ministerially approve duplexes and lot splits in single-family zoning, and Assembly Bill No.
68 (Statutes of 2019) requires ministerial approval of accessory dwelling units (ADU s)
and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in single-family and multifamily zoning. Since
the ministerial approval of a duplex and/or J/ADU generally conflicts with the City’s
General Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision ordinance unless certain findings and/or
requirements are met through the discretionary process , this initiative would allow the
City’s zoning policy to supersede the general law (SB 9 and AB 68). This would effectively
return the City’s land use authority.
1 The Attorney General’s Title and Summary is available at
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/Title%20and%20Summary%20%2821-0016A1%29.pdf.
The Legislative Analyst Office’s fiscal summary is avai lable at
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/fiscal-impact-estimate-report%2821-0016A1%29.pdf.
2
Members of the public interested in learning more about the Band -Huang-Mendoza
Tripartisan Land Use (Ballot) Initiative, including when and how to sign the ballot initiative
petition, and how they can get involved can visit the Initiative’s website at
ourneighborhoodvoices.com.
CONCLUSION:
Like ACA 7, the Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use (Ballot) Initiative aligns with
the City’s 2022 Legislative Platform, as it has the potential to protect the City’s local land
use authority. Staff therefore recommends the City Council adopt, as drafted or with
revisions, the attached resolution demonstrating the City’s support of the ballot initiative.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify revised language to add to the Resolution.
2. Do not adopt the attached resolution thereby not taking a position on the Brand-
Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative.
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
3
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA,
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 addressing a range of land use planning
and housing issues; and
WHEREAS, 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 “one-size-fits-all” 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 addition of
market-rate housing, thereby eliminating the opportunity for local jurisdictions to
implement effective policies that will create more affordable housing and affirmatively
further fair housing practices; and
WHEREAS, 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
importance to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and many other municipalities focused on
local zoning and housing issues; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2020, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No. 2020-46, expressing opposition to proposed planning and zoning
legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates, and expressing
support for actions to further strengthen local democracy, authority and control; and
A-1
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2021, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution
No. 2021-31, adopting the City’s Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform; and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No. 2021-57, adopting the City’s 2022 Legislative Platform to guide the City’s
active advocacy efforts on a variety of topics, including housing and local land use
policies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes 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 (including SB 9 and SB 10, Statutes of 2021), that would deprive us of
that ability.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does
hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein
by reference.
Section 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes 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 .
Section 3: The City Council supports the Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land
Use Initiative 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.
Section 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of
this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and its certification to be entered in the
Book of Resolutions of the City Council of the City.
A-2
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 3 of 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021.
___________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2021-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on December 7, 2021.
________________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
A-3
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.
B-1
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 concern or a municipal affair
B-2
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.
B-3
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.
B-4