Advertisement
Advertisement

Column:  Proposal would give local officials veto power over state housing legislation

Homes line the Carmel Valley Road corridor, as seen fromt he sky on Monday, March 29, 2021.
(K.C. Alfred / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

Long-shot measure runs counter to trend of state seeking more power over local land use policy

Share

A new wrinkle has surfaced in the Sacramento housing wars.

As momentum continues to build behind legislation to increase housing density across California, a constitutional amendment is being proposed that would allow local governments to essentially override state laws on land use and zoning policies within their jurisdictions.

Prospects for approval are not good, given that the push for the state to have more of a say in local housing matters is backed by powerful figures, including Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.

Advertisement

To place Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 on the ballot, backers need votes of at a least two-thirds majorities in both the Assembly and state Senate.

The measure says city or county regulations regarding zoning and use of land “would prevail over conflicting general laws” with some exceptions.

“I’m as concerned as anybody about the housing affordability crisis and related problem of homelessness,” said ACA 7 author Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance. “But I am as frustrated as anyone with the never-ending onslaught of bills passing in Sacramento taking away local control.”

“Local control” has long been a treasured concept in California, but many housing advocates say the skyrocketing cost of homes is in part a result of local residents pressuring councils and boards to block development that would alter their neighborhoods, limiting supply.

Skeptics question whether more density will do much to moderate prices, while making desirable communities less so as developers turn profits.

There is no disputing California has a housing affordability problem, though disagreements over how to solve it have become one of the state’s prime political battles.

Responsibility for the situation rests with government and the private sector at various levels and involve regulations, capital markets, labor costs and the price of land and materials. Lumber costs have skyrocketed, even though they dipped recently.

In 2019, California local governments had approved 552,000 housing units, many of which remained unbuilt, according to a California Economic Forecast report.

For years, the concept of building dense housing along trolley and major bus routes has been widely supported — something Muratsuchi said he has long backed. The big fight is over legislation to put multiple-unit buildings in areas zoned for single-family homes, while diminishing local authority in the process.

The highest profile proposal to do that is Atkins’ Senate Bill 9, which would allow single-family lots to be split with a duplex on each property. Critics have said the measure could lead to at least a total of six, with the addition of accessory dwelling units, which for decades had been called “granny flats.”

Atkins has disputed that analysis, insisting her bill calls for a maximum of two duplexes. SB 9 states “a local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit” on those properties, suggesting a board or council could allow them. Many local governments in San Diego County and elsewhere have encouraged the building of ADUs by streamlining the process and cutting fees.

SB 9 does not prohibit single-family homes from being built.

The bill does require ministerial approval of the duplexes and lot splits, without discretionary action by the local governing body, if they meet certain conditions.

That is the basis for much of the opposition from dozens of nonprofits, homeowners associations, the League of California Cities and more than 60 individual cities. Other opponents range from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to Neighbors for a Better San Diego.

The list of supporters includes the city of San Diego, San Diego Housing Commission, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, Circulate San Diego and dozens of other business groups and organizations, from AARP to Zillow Group, the online real estate company.

SB 9 easily passed in the Senate and is now working its way through the lower house. The Assembly Local Government Committee approved the measure on a 5-1 vote last week.

In a statement, Atkins said her bill “strikes an appropriate balance between respecting local control and creating an environment and opportunity for neighborhood housing that benefits the broader community.

”. . . This bill will provide more options for families to maintain and build intergenerational wealth — a currency we know is crucial to combatting inequity and creating social mobility.”

The bill includes language intended to keep the new units from being used as short-term vacation rentals and to protect existing rent-restricted housing.

Numerous bills have become law in recent years to encourage more housing by offering density bonuses, streamlining permits, limiting the number of hearings on projects, allowing more ministerial approvals “by-right,” making it easier to build ADUs and eliminating parking requirements.

However, some big housing measures have failed to make it out of the Legislature. Among them was Atkins’ SB 1120, a forerunner to her current bill, which hit a deadline on the final day of the legislative session last year just before final approval.

Muratsuchi’s constitutional amendment, co-authored by state Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, goes against the prevailing wind in Sacramento, and he harbors no illusions about the difficult task in getting it passed in the Legislature.

“We’re going into this with our eyes open,” he said.

Right now, he said he is doing a lot of organizing with local officials concerned with Sacramento usurping their authority. He’s also looking at whether there’s potential to put the proposal on the ballot through a citizens initiative down the line if prospects in the Legislature don’t brighten.

That’s not an easy road, either. The expense to gather signatures and wage an effective campaign would be enormous — not to mention facing certain well-financed opposition. Further, Californians increasingly seem supportive of efforts to increase the housing stock, if not always right on their street, and could view the initiative as exacerbating housing costs.

It’s an even bigger question whether such a measure could ignite a revolt by homeowners against Sacramento policies they see as overcrowding their neighborhoods. Whether or not that comes to pass, the reality is local governing bodies increasingly are approving higher densities as a means to address the shortage of affordable housing.

At the very least, ACA 7 may give local governments a rallying point to try to hold onto their power.

Advertisement