Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-15; City Council Legislative Subcommittee; ; Legislative Update and Advocacy ReportCity Council Legislative Subcommittee Meeting Date: March 15, 2022 To: City Council Legislative Subcommittee From: Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director Item 2: Legislative Update and Advocacy Report CCity of Carlsbad Recommendation: Receive an update on state and federal legislative and budget activity and recent and ongoing advocacy efforts; discuss and provide feedback to staff. Discussion: Staff and the Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG) will present an update and overview of state legislative and budget activity (Exhibits 1 and 2). With the Legislature recently reconvening for the second year of a two-year session, staff and RPPG are working to identify potential priority bills for city monitoring and advocacy. Staff continues to evaluate bills that may impact city operations and policy priorities, which will be presented for discussion and feedback from the Legislative Subcommittee. Exhibits: 1.RPPG Legislative Monthly Report — Feb. 2022 2.Priority Legislation List — March 2022 March 15, 2022 Item #2 Page 1 of 12 RPPG Pif.);i.:;,. Policy Grcup Exhibit 1 (City of Carlsbad California March 11, 2022 To: Mayor Matt Hall, Legislative Subcommittee Member Councilmember Teresa Acosta, Legislative Subcommittee Member Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director City of Carlsbad From: Sharon Gonsalves Director of Government Affairs Renne Public Policy Group Re: Legislative Monthly Report — February 2022 The Capitol was active during the month of February, as legislators worked to meet the new bill introduction deadline, considered several early budget action items, and dealt with numerous COVID- 19 procedural updates. Additionally, legislators and the Administration began working towards establishing consensus on funding priorities included in the Governor's January budget framework proposal. UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE DEADLINES •April 7, 2022: Beginning of Spring Recess •April 18, 2022: Legislature reconvenes from Spring Recess •April 29, 2022: Last day for policy committees to hear and report to fiscal committees fiscal bills introduced in their house. CITY SPONSORED LEGISLATION AB 1672 (Boerner Horvath) Public Swimming Pools: lifeguards. This bill sponsored by the City of Carlsbad would authorize lifeguards who are certified by the United States Lifesaving Association (USLA) to provide services at municipal operated swimming pools. This bill will be heard in the Assembly Health Committee on March 22. RPPG continues working diligently with the lifeguard stakeholder community including USLA, YMCA and the American Red Cross (ARC) to ensure that we address any potential concerns they have with the measure. As originally introduced the group outlined two concerns: 1) That jurisdictions would use AB 1672 to permanently phase out the use of YMCA and ARC pool lifeguards for beach lifeguards March 15, 2022 Item 42 Page 2 of 12 RPPG Ro-re Put!ic 2) That while the physical nature of beach lifeguarding was not a concern, the standard USLA certified lifeguards did not inherently have the proper crossover training for emergency situations that may take place in a pool versus in the ocean. In response to these concerns, staff, RPPG and stakeholders worked with the author's office to craft the following amendments: 1)That a local agency would need to adopt a council resolution outlining the need to temporarily utilize beach lifeguards in order to maintain regular pool hours of operation. When the council adopts the resolution, they may utilize these provisions 2)That any USLA certified lifeguard who is selected to staff a public swimming pool or aquatic center must take appropriate pool-specific crossover training that includes standard first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, treatment of spinal injuries, floatation device use techniques, pool extraction and extrication techniques, and submerged rescue techniques. On March 7, 2022, the bill was formally amended to reflect the above changes and to date, there have been no new concerns expressed. The bill is currently being analyzed by the Assembly Health Committee and is set to be heard on March 22. RPPG is hopeful that with no listed opposition AB 1672 will be a consent candidate and move quickly through the process. AB 1682 (Boerner Horvath) Public safety: Speeding vessels: lifeguard rescue vessels. This bill is jointly authored by Assemblymember Chris Ward and co-sponsored by the City of San Diego. On February 28, 2022, the bill was amended after the Assembly Public Safety Committee and the California Professional Firefighters provided technical assistance. These amendments: •Clarify in the Harbors and Navigation Code that a subdivision of the state includes cities and counties. •That activities in which the "blue light" can be affixed to and used by a public safety vessel include use from a marine safety or lifeguard agency and; •Defines public safety activities to include marine safety or lifeguard agency activities On March 8, 2022, AB 1682 passed out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee on a 7-0 bipartisan consent item. Given the bill has not been tagged as having any state fiscal impact, the measure bypasses the appropriations process and will move to the Assembly Floor for a vote of the full legislative body. However, it should be noted that after the bill passed out of public safety, Assemblymember Boerner Horvath's office was contacted by the California State Sheriffs Association, who expressed some concern regarding the amendments taken on February 28. RPPG is in active negotiations and anticipate that we can come to a resolution quickly. STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS On March 8, 2022, Governor Newsom gave his fourth annual State of the State address. While he focused on California's achievements during his time in office, he did briefly introduce the concept of Care Court, a proposal that would provide mandatory treatment for mentally ill homeless people. If approved by the legislature, it would require each county in California to add a "CARE Court" — short for Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment program — to their justice system. The March 15, 2022 Item #2 Page 3 of 12 RPPG PoTc-s: Governor has not yet provided details of the plan but suggested it could become state law this year. The initiative's main focus is on getting severely mentally ill and chronically addicted people off the streets and into shelters. A few days following the State of the State address, the Governor conducted a meeting of various stakeholders to discuss the logistics of such a program. The Governor also announced the State's efforts to offset skyrocketing fuel costs. Governor Newsom in January proposed suspending gasoline and diesel fuel tax inflation-related increases expected in July — a plan aimed at saving motorists money when prices were rising faster than they had in nearly 40 years. Since then, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has put added pressure on prices and there are locations in the State where gas is over $7.00 a gallon. Although details of the new proposal were scarce, he did acknowledge the plan would be in the form of a tax rebate. STATE RESPONSE TO COVID-19 The beginning of the year saw a dramatic surge in positive cases of COVID-19 due to the highly contagious Omicron variant, since then, the State's indoor mask mandate expired on February 15. Furthermore, the Governor announced his SMARTER Plan, the next phase of California's pandemic response. The plan is a strategic approach to managing COVID-19 while moving the state's recovery forward. The goal of the SMARTER plan is to maintain continued readiness, awareness and flexibility, and ensured California will maintain its focus on communities that continue to be disproportionately impacted and stay prepared to swiftly and effectively respond to emerging COVID-19 variants and changing conditions. As a result of the SMARTER plan, in late February, Governor Newsom announced taking action to lift all but 5 percent of COVID-19 related Executive Order provisions, while maintaining the original COVID-19 State of Emergency. The remaining provisions include maintaining California's nation- leading testing and vaccination programs and protecting hospital and health facility capacity, key components of the state's SMARTER Plan to guide California's evolving pandemic response. Altogether, Newsom has issued 561 executive actions since the start of the pandemic. He has since rescinded all but 82. The most recent order lifts 52 of the remaining executive provisions by the end of June. Maintaining the State of Emergency provides for such things as continued Brown Act flexibility for local agencies. The Governor has not yet released a timeline for which he plans to end the State of Emergency. ### March 15, 2022 Item #2 Page 4 of 12 RPPG flenre Publ:c Policy Group Priority Legislation List March 2022 (City of Carlsbad California Housing and Land Use AB 2063 (Berman) Density bonuses: affordable housing impact fees (As introduced 02/14/22) This bill would prohibit affordable housing impact fees, including inclusionary zoning fees, in-lieu fees, and public benefit fees, from being imposed on a housing development's density bonus units. Status: Referred to Assembly Housing and Community Development and Assembly Local Government: Set for hearing in (Asm. H&CD) 03/23/22 Client Position: AB 2094 (R. Rivas) General plan: annual report: extremely low-income housing (As introduced 02/14/22) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Current law requires the planning agency of a city or county to provide an annual report to certain specified entities by April 1 of each year that includes, among other information, the city or county's progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, as specified. This bill would additionally require a city or county's annual report to include the locality's progress in meeting the housing needs of extremely low-income households. Status: Referred to Assembly Housing and Community Development and Assembly Local Government: Set for hearing in (Asm. H&CD) 03/23/22 Client Position: AB 2097 (Friedman) Residential and Commercial Development: Parking Requirements (As Introduced 02/14/22) Would prohibit a public agency from imposing a minimum automobile parking requirement, or enforcing a minimum automobile parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the development is located on a parcel that is within one-half mile of public transit. The bill would prohibit these provisions from reducing, eliminating, or precluding the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a new multifamily or nonresidential development to provide electric vehicle supply equipment installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities. Status: Referred to Assembly Housing and Community Development and Assembly Local Government: No hearing dates set Client Position: Updated on March io, 2022. RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GAOUP1 1100 Street, Suite zoo-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup..com March 15. 2022 Item #2 Page 5 of 12 RPPG . Renne Public Policy Group SB 897 (Wieckowski) Accessory Dwelling Units: Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (Introduced 02/01/22) This bill would change the height limitation applicable to an accessory dwelling unit subject to ministerial approval to 25 feet. The bill, if the existing multifamily dwelling exceeds a height of 25 feet or has a rear or side setback of less than 4 feet, would prohibit a local agency from requiring any modification to the existing multifamily dwelling to satisfy these requirements. The bill would prohibit a local agency from rejecting an application for an accessory dwelling unit because the existing multifamily dwelling exceeds a height of 25 feet or has a rear or side setback of less than 4 feet. This bill would prohibit a local agency from denying a permit for a constructed, but unpermitted, accessory dwelling unit because the unit is in violation of building standards or state or local standards applicable to accessory dwelling units, unless the local agency makes a finding that correcting the violation is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or occupants of the structure. This bill would specify that enclosed uses within the proposed or existing single-family residence, such as attached garages, are considered a part of the proposed or existing single-family residence. The bill would require a junior accessory dwelling unit that does not include separate sanitation facilities to include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area. Status: Referred to Senate Housing Committee. Hearing date scheduled March 24, 2022 Client Position: SB 1466 (Stern) Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Introduced 02/18/22) This bill would establish in state government the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program, which would be administered by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee. The bill would also authorize certain local agencies to establish an affordable housing and community development investment agency and authorize an agency to apply for funding under the program and issue bonds, as provided, to carry out a project under the program. Status: Senate Rules Awaiting Committee referral Client Position: AB 500 (Ward) Local Planning: Permitting: Coastal Development (As amended 08/31/21) This bill requires local governments in the coastal zone to amend their local coastal programs by January 1, 2024, to provide streamlined permitting procedures for certain housing projects Status: Senate Inactive File Client Position: Oppose Homelessness AB 2211 (Ting) Shelter crisis: homeless shelters (as introduced 02/15/22) This bill would remove the repeal date of the shelter crisis pilot program. This bill would provide that a city, county, or city and county is in a shelter crisis if the number of unsheltered homeless persons that comprises the total homeless population within the jurisdiction of the city, county, or city and county is greater, as a percentage, than the combined average of the 49 states in the United States not including California, as determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development, as specified. This bill would apply the provisions applicable to a city, county, or city and county that Updated on March 10, 2022. RENNE PUBLIC POL:CY GROUPI1100 iith Street, Sidle -.2co-):31, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.puhlicpolicygroup.com March 15. 2022 Item #2 Pane 6 of 12 RPPG Renne Pune Policy Croup Om,* has declared a shelter crisis to those jurisdictions in the above circumstance. This bill would require the department to publish a list of jurisdictions that are in a shelter crisis pursuant to this provision on its internet website. This bill would expand the definition of homeless shelter to include any facility that is leased by the city, county, or city and county for the purpose of providing temporary shelter for the homeless and any facility that is not owned or leased by the city, county, or city and county but that is voluntarily provided to the city, county, or city and county for the purpose of providing temporary shelter for the homeless. Status: Referred to Assembly Housing and Community Development No hearing date set. Client Position: AB 2339 (Bloom) Housing element: emergency shelters: regional housing need. (As Introduced 02/14/22) This bill would revise the requirements of the housing element, in connection with zoning designations that allow residential use, including mixed use, where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The bill would prohibit a city or county from establishing overlay districts to comply with these provisions. The bill would delete language regarding emergency shelter standards structured in relation to residential and commercial developments and instead require that emergency shelters only be subject to specified written, objective standards. The bill would specify that emergency shelters for purposes of these provisions include other interim intervention, including, but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care. Status: Referred to Assembly Housing and Community Development and Assembly Local Government: No hearing dates set Client Position: SB 513 (Hertzberg) Homeless Shelter Grants. Pets and Veterinary Services This would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop and administer a program to award grant to qualified homeless shelters for the provision of shelter, food, and basic veterinary services for pets owned by people experiencing homelessness. Status: Assembly, no hearing date set. Client Position: Support COVID-19 AB 1993 (Wicks) Employment: COVID 19 vaccination requirements This bill would require an employer to require each person who is an employee or independent contractor, and who is eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, to show proof to the employer, or an authorized agent thereof, that the person has been vaccinated against COVID-19. This bill would establish an exception from this vaccination requirement for a person who is ineligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine due to a medical condition or disability or because of a sincerely held religious belief, as specified, and would require compliance with various other state and federal laws. The bill would require proof-of-vaccination status to be obtained in a manner that complies with federal and state privacy laws and not be retained by the employer, unless the person authorizes the employer to retain proof. Updated on March io, 2022. RENW. l'1113L:C 1'01 :CY U01;1'11100 11th Street, Suite 2o0-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com March 15. 2022 Item #2 Pane 7 of 12 RPPG Rome Public: Policy Group Status: Introduced Client Position: AB 1464 (Pan) Law Enforcement: Public Health Orders This bill would require sheriffs and peace officers to enforce all orders issued by the State Department of Public Health or that of a local health officer for the purpose of prevent the spread of any contagious, infectious or communicable disease. By expanding the duties of local law enforcement, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would additionally prohibit state funds from being provided to any law enforcement agency that publicly announces that they will oppose, or adopts a policy to oppose, a public health order. Status: Senate Health Committee, no hearing date set. Client Position: Transportation AB 1622 (Chen) Smog check program: catalytic converter theft This bill would require the department to provide a licensed smog check station with a sign informing customers about strategies for deterring catalytic converter theft, including the etching of identifying information on the catalytic converter. The bill would require the sign to be posted conspicuously in an area frequented by customers and would require it in all licensed smog check stations. The bill would also authorize stations where licensed smog check technician repairs are performed to offer and recommend to customers the etching as an optional service provided in conjunction with the smog check. Status: Assembly Transportation Brown Act Public Records Act Em lo ee Relations AB 1944 (Lee) Open and Public Meetings (As Introduced 02/10/22) This bill would specify that if a member of a legislative body elects to teleconference from a location that is not public, the address does not need to be identified in the notice and agenda or be accessible to the public when the legislative body has elected to allow members to participate via teleconferencing. This bill would require all open and public meetings of a legislative body that elects to use teleconferencing to provide a video stream accessible to members of the public and an option for members of the public to address the body remotely during the public comment period through an audio-visual or call-in option. Status: Assembly Local Government City Position: AB 2449 (Blanco Rubio) Open Meetings: Teleconferences (As Introduced 02/17/22). This bill would authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with those specified teleconferencing requirements if at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body participates in person from a singular location clearly identified on the agenda that is open to the public and situated within the local agency's jurisdiction. The bill would impose prescribed requirements for this exception relating to notice, agendas, the means and manner of access, and procedures for disruptions. The bill would require the legislative body to implement a procedure for Updated on Mardi 10, 2022. RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GRO'JPI 1100 iith Street, Suite )00-)51, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.pi iblirpolicygroup.com March 15. 2022 Item #2 Page 8 of 12 RPPG Renne Public Policy Group AM receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, consistent with federal law. Status: Assembly Local Government City Position: AS 2582 (Bennett) Recall elections: local offices (as introduced 02/18/22) The California Constitution reserves to the electors the power to recall an elective officer and requires the Legislature to provide for recall of local officers. Existing law requires a recall election to include the question of whether the officer sought to be recalled shall be removed from office and an election for the officer's successor in the event the officer is removed from office. This bill would instead require a recall election for a local officer to include only the question of whether the officer sought to be recalled shall be removed from office. If a local officer is successfully removed from office in a recall election, the bill would provide that the office becomes vacant and would require it to be filled according to law. Status: Assembly Rules Committee awaiting assignment Client Position: SB 1100 (Cortese) Open Meetings-Orderly Conduct (As Amended 03/09/22). This bill would authorize the members of the legislative body conducting a meeting to remove an individual for willfully interrupting the meeting. The bill, except as provided, would require removal to be preceded by a warning, either by the presiding member of the legislative body or a law enforcement officer, that the individual is disrupting the proceedings and a request that the individual curtail their disruptive behavior or be subject to removal. The bill would similarly require a warning before clearing a meeting room for willful interruptions by a group or groups. The bill would define "willfully interrupting" to mean intentionally engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that substantially impairs or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting in accordance with law. The term would include failure to comply with a reasonable regulation adopted in accordance with existing law after a warning and request in accordance with the bill, as applicable. By establishing new requirements for local legislative bodies, this bill would impose a state-mandated program. Status: Hearing in Senate Governance and Finance on March 17, 2022. City Position: Public Safety AB 1682 (Boerner Horvath) Lifeguard Ocean Vessel Speed Limit Exemption AB 1682 would provide an exemption to city-owned lifeguard rescue vessels from the existing five mile per hour (mph) speed limit if engaged in ocean rescue operations within 200 feet of the beach. Status: Passed Assembly Public Safety on consent calendar City Position: Sponsor AB 1599 (Kiley) Proposition 47: Repeal This bill would repeal the changes and additions made by Proposition 47, except those related to reducing the penalty for possession of concentrated cannabis. This bill would reduce the value threshold for a violation of those provisions to be punishable as a felony from $950 to $400. Status: Assembly Public Safety; Failed Passage 2 AYE votes, 5 NO votes. Updated on March 10, 2022. RCN N C PUBLIC PO: :CY GROUP' 1100 tith Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.puhlicpolicygroup.com March 15. 2022 Item #2 Page 9 of 12 RPPG Itenre PubEckey Group AB 1740 (Muratsuchi) Catalytic Converter (As Introduced 1/31/22). This bill would require a core recycler to maintain a written record of the year, make, and model of the vehicle from which the catalytic converter was removed. The bill would prohibit a core recycler from entering into a transaction to purchase or receive a catalytic converter from any person that is not a commercial enterprise or owner of the vehicle from which the catalytic converter was removed. Status: Assembly Business and Professions Parks AB 1737 (Holden) Children's Camps: Local Registration and Inspections (As introduced 1/31/22). This bill among various other provisions would require a local agency to make at least one unannounced inspection and one scheduled inspection of each children's camp within its jurisdiction during the calendar year and to make additional inspections in specified circumstances. If the local agency identifies any violation of these provisions during an inspection, the bill would require the local agency to issue a notice to correct the violation to the camp operator and the camp director. The bill would require each local agency to develop a registration form for a children's camp to file with the local agency that includes specified information, including the name and location of the camp and the name and contact information of the camp operator and camp director. The bill would authorize each local agency to charge a registration fee that does not exceed the reasonable costs incurred by the local agency to register and inspect the children's camps in its jurisdiction. The bill would require the local agency to maintain all records of children's camp inspections and make the records available for public inspection. Status: Assembly Health Committee. Hearing set for March 29, 2022 Client Position: Environmental Quality and Wildfire SB 45 (Portantino) Short Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Reduction Goals: Local Jurisdiction Assistance (As amended 01/03/22) This bill would require CalRecycle, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board to provide assistance to local jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, any funding appropriated by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act, for purposes of assisting local agencies to comply with these provisions, including any regulations adopted by the department Status: Assembly. No hearing date set. Client Position: SB 54 (Allen) Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act (As amended 02/25/21) This bill would establish the Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act, which would prohibit producers of single-use, disposable packaging or single-use, disposable food service ware products from offering for sale, selling, distributing, or importing in or into the state such packaging or products that are manufactured on or after January 1, 2032, unless they are recyclable or compostable. Status: Assembly Rules (Pending Referral) Updated on March io, 2o),. RI- N N I- PU:31 :c POI ICY GROUP' 1100 l Street, Suite zoo-231, Sacramen I o, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com March 15. 2022 Item #2 Page 10 of 12 RPPG Renne PubUc Policy Group Client Position: Support (Letter submitted 04/09/2021) Utilities and Public Works SB 1157 (Hertzberg) Urban Water Use Objective: Indoor Residential Water Use This bill would establish, beginning January 1, 2025, the standard for indoor residential water use as 47 gallons per capita daily and, beginning January 1, 2030,42 gallons per capita daily. Status: Senate Natural Resources and Water Client Position: SB 379 (Weiner) Residential solar energy systems: permitting. This measure would require every city, county, or city and county to implement an online, automated permitting platform that verifies code compliance and issues permits in real time for a solar energy system, as defined, that is no larger than 38.4 kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating and an energy storage system, as defined, paired with a solar energy system that is no larger than 38.4 kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating. Status: Assembly Desk Awaiting Committee Referral Client Position: SB 612 (Portantino) Electrical Corporations and other load-serving entities: allocation of legacy resources (As amended 05/04/21) This bill would require an electrical corporation, by July 1, 2022, and not less than once every 3 years thereafter, to offer an allocation of certain electrical resources to its bundled customers and to other load-serving entities, including electric service providers and community choice aggregators, that serve departing load customers who bear cost responsibility for those resources. The bill would authorize a load-serving entity within the service territory of the electrical corporation to elect to receive all or a portion of the vintaged proportional share of those legacy resources allocated to its end-use customers and, if it so elects, would require it to pay to the electrical corporation the commission-established market price benchmark for the vintage proportional share of the resources received. Status: Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee, no hearing date set. Client Position: Support (Letter submitted 4/5/2021) Miscellaneous Bond and Financing Measures AB 411 (Irwin) Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act of 2022. (As amended 01/24/22) This measure would enact the Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act of 2022 to authorize the issuance of bonds in an amount not to exceed $600,000,000 to provide additional funding for the VHHPA. The bill would provide for the handling and disposition of the funds in the same manner as the 2014 bond act. Status: Senate Rules Committee Client Position: Updated on March 10, 2022. RENNE PUBLIC POLICY CROUP 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.pubhcpolicygroup.corn March 15. 2022 Item #2 Pane 11 of 12 RPPG Remo Public Policy GroJp Full Bill Text to any measure can be found by going to the State's legislative Information uvebsite: That can be accessed by Clicking HERE Updated on March 10, 2022. RCN N F'USLIC POI :CY GROUP' 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231,'Sarramento, Ca, 95814 )...y.ww-publi_cpalicygroup.cam March 15, 2022 Item #2 Page 1Z of 12 Kaylin McCauley From: D Lech <dilech@ymail.com> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 3:52 PM To: Kaylin McCauley Subject: Public Comment or Agenda Item #2 Legislative Subcommittee Meeting March 15, 2022 Dear Ms. McCauley, Please include my written comment for either Public Comment or Agenda Item #2 as appropriate, to be included as part of the agenda packet. Thank you. All Receive - Agenda Item # For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date 311111,1CA / CC / CM k./ACM V DCM (3) / Dear Honorable Mayor, Council Member Acosta, Jason Haber, and members of the public, I am writing to please ask that each of you show support for reestablishing control of zoning and land use by endorsing the Our Neighborhood Voices (ONV) Initiative so that local governments and citizens have a voice in deciding what gets built in our neighborhoods. As you are aware, this Initiative will not appear on the ballot until 2024, but we need your support now. A lot of damage can be done to our neighborhoods in 2 years before the Initiative takes effect, IF it qualifies for the ballot AND gets voted in. Please go to the Our Neighborhood Voices.com website where anyone can easily sign up to endorse and show support, read a sample resolution for Cities, and examine the Initiative language. I also suggest that you read Solana Beach Ordinance 521 which passed unanimously in their City to help mitigate the damage of SB9 and SB10 and prevent what's being allowed to happen in the City of San Diego from happening in their City. Hopefully, Carlsbad will promptly take similar precautions to mitigate the destruction of our single family zoned neighborhoods due to our State legislators dramatically and undemocratically rewriting land-use rules in California. I honestly can't believe that the legislators up in Sacramento, who most people voted for, have allowed SB 9 and SB 10 to pass, effectively eliminating the pursuit of the American dream in California. Senator Atkins and Senator Weiner have, in my opinion, lost their minds, and are now 1 pushing the narrative that "single-family homeowners are segregationists", another tactic to promote divisiveness. The proposed (ONV) Initiative proves this is furthest from the truth. If the legislators had taken the time to read the bills, perhaps they would have realized how environmentally and economically destructive these 2 laws are. Uncontrolled, unplanned, thoughtless building of high density urban housing creates slums. Both of these laws create that scenario. Imagine, every single family zoned lot with 4 residences instead of 1, with 4 foot setbacks on side and rear yards instead of 20-25 feet in the rear. Where are children supposed to play? In the streets? What about noise from other residences' music, dogs, and conversations. Not to mention loss of privacy, and to think of all the mature trees bull-dozed in developing 4 residences on 1 lot. Are trees no longer important to Carlsbad, or just not in certain neighborhoods? What a place to raise a family, IF a family could even afford it. Since neither of the laws provide for ANY affordable housing, the Sacramento politicians and investors, developers, and real estate agents are, right now, having a field day with buying and selling whatever comes on the market, turning a single residence into 4 or 10 , flipping them at high market prices, and making a fortune. After all, look how much money the developer is saving by not having to provide the necessary infrastructure to increase sewer and water capacity in our aging system, or pay for street maintenance due to increased traffic, or provide for the increased school enrollment, fire protection, and evacuation routes, and let's not forget the Poinsettia Fire in 2014 that started near the La Costa golf course and crossed 6 lanes of El Camino Real asphalt to continue its destruction near Aviara, causing 2 schools and a senior care facility to evacuate. Wild fire danger is not going away. Neither is our water shortage. It's not realistic to just make a neighborhood more crowded without all these things to consider. Up-zoning neighborhoods only benefits land speculators and developers by driving up land values, increasing housing costs, and creating more unnecessary market-rate housing. In addition, there is no data to prove that simply increasing density lowers housing costs, especially in high demand coastal cities such as Carlsbad. And, it only takes ONE single-family lot redeveloped into 4-10 units to destroy an entire neighborhood and community. I ask you to please do something to protect our single family zoned neighborhoods NOW while also supporting affordable and equitable housing 2 for everyone, and protecting open spaces and environment. Other cities have been able to come up with ordinances that help mitigate the damaging effects of the 2 new laws until the Initiative is passed and we return to our former local-zoning laws, such as: -limiting square footage to 825 square feet to keep costs down, which can actually provide for the much needed moderate income affordable housing, also known as the "missing middle", -requiring an off-street parking space for each unit, -design requirements for neighborhood compatibility and preservation of neighborhood character, -limiting heights to 16 feet for protection of privacy for neighboring residences, -replacing 2 trees for every one that is removed, -requiring 1 unit to be affordable for low income seniors, veterans, or persons with disabilities, -creating housing in commercial areas and vacant office buildings, -limiting what persons or entities may apply for projects (ie: foreign investors who have no intention of living in or renting any of the units. As this is an election year, I urge you and the public to vote out any legislator who supports any legislation or constitutional amendment that weakens or interferes with the powers of charter cities and diminishes local authority. We need legislators in Sacramento who support measures in local land use that are consistent with the doctrine of "home rule" and the local power in planning and zoning processes. And, the community must have a voice in this process. Please, be mindful of who you vote for in November! Help spread the word about Our Neighborhood Voices and support their efforts in regaining local control. Please endorse the Initiative! Thank you. 3 D. Lech https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com/ CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 4 "*"*" SAMPLE RESOLUTION '""* MODELED ON CITY OF REDONDO BEACH RESOLUTION NO. CC-2110400 PASSED 10/20121 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE [CITY/COUNTY OF )000000000000q, 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 or luxury 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/COLINTY.:pF.-voop00000000q and many other municipalities focused on local zoning and housing issues; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the [CITY/COUNTY OF,',XXXXXXXX,\POcXX] 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) that would deprive us of that ability. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE [CRylpooNTY:, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the [CITY/COUNTY OF )000000000000] 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 SUPPORT FOR BRAND-HUANG-MENDOZA TRIPART1SAN LAND USE INITIATVE PAGE 1 government and inhibits the ability of local government to effectively plan for and implement policies to stimulate the efficient production of affordable housing in the [CITY/COUNTY OF XXXXXXXXXXXXX]. SECTION 2. That the City Council of the [CITY/COUNTY OF XXXXXXXXXXXXX] supports the Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative (Attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A) to ensure that zoning and land use authority rests with the local government entities that represent the communities in which the residents reside, and to allow local government to participate in solving our affordable housing crisis through solutions that effectively address the unique needs and conditions of each local community. SECTION 3. That the City Council of the [CITY/COUNTY incorporates each recital set forth herein above. SUPPORT FOR BRAND-HUANG-MENDOZA TRIPARTISAN LAND USE INITIATVE PAGE 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this [DATE XXXXXX]. [XXXXXXXX1 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: [City Attorney )00000q [XXXXXXXX, City Clerk] SUPPORT FOR BRAND-HUANG-MENDOZA TRIPARTISAN LAND USE INITIATVE PAGE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF p000mm [CITY/COUNTY OF x)oopow00000q I, [CLERK XXX)0(X] City Clerk of the [CITY/COUNTY OF XXX)0(XXXXXXXX], California, do hereby certify thatResolution No. P000000(X] was passed and adopted by the City Council of the [CITY/COUNTY OF ], California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the [DATE x)ooq, and there after signed and approved by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, and that said resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX SUPPORT FOR BRAND-HUANG-NrIENDOZA TRIPARTISAN LAND USE INITIATVE PAGE 4 Our Neighborhood Voices Why We Need the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative Sacramento Politicians are Taking Away Our Ability to Speak Out When Developers are Damaging and Gentrifying our Neighborhoods. A series of recently passed laws allow developers to build multi-story, multi-unit buildings right next door to single-family homes, destroying communities and denying our ability to fight back. We are a coalition of thousands of California neighborhood leaders fighting to preserve our ability to speak out about what happens in our own neighborhoods. New State Laws Don't Create Affordable Housing, but Massive Profits for Developers. The politicians say they took away our neighborhood voice because we need to lower the cost of housing. But their "answers" have ZERO requirements to build new affordable housing. The developers will make billions and the facts show that recent state laws will create massive displacement — forcing working families out of their own communities. The Developers Make Billions We Pay the Bill. Recent laws passed by Sacramento do not require developers to contribute one new cent to roads, transit, schools, parks, police and fire protection, new water sources or any other service. They profit — we pay! California Can Build Housing Without Bulldozing Neighborhoods and Creating More Gridlock. There are solutions — but the politicians gave their developer donors the ability to build market-rate, multi-story projects in every neighborhood and took away our ability to speak out about projects that are being built literally right next door to us. The politicians and developers have had their say. Now it is our turn! We are working to give every California voter the chance to speak out about what is happening in their own neighborhoods. Our measure takes away the blank check to developers and restores a process that allows neighborhoods to be heard. www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com Ad Paid for by Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative, committee major funding from ADS Healthcare Foundation. OFFICIAL TOP FUNDERS. Valid only for February 2022. PROVIDES THAT LOCAL LAND-USE AND ZONING LAWS OVERRIDE CONFLICTING STATE LAWS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Petition circulation paid for by BRAND-HUANG-MENDOZA TRIPARTISAN LAND USE INITIATIVE Committee major funding from: Reyla Graber AIDS Healthcare Foundation Latest Official Top Funders: https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com/ OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY (SAME AS ON PETITION) The Attorney General of California has prepared the following circulating title and summary of the chief purpose and points a the proposed measure: 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.) ORDINANCE 521 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 17.20.040(R) TO THE SOLANA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR REGULATIONS CONCERNING TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 AND SECTION 17.20.020 MAKING TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS A PERMITTED USE IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND ADDING CHAPTER 16.48 TO THE SOLANA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS CONCERNING URBAN LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISIONS IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach seeks to implement Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) (Chapter 162, Statutes 2021) through the implementation of regulations concerning two-unit residential developments and urban lot split subdivisions in single-family residential zones; and WHEREAS, state lawmakers are increasingly concerned about the lack of supply of housing units in the State of California; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature adopted SB 9 in order to require local jurisdictions to approve infill developments of up to four units in existing single-family zones, subject only to objective local standards that would permit at least two units of 800 square feet per lot in single family zones; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n) because the adoption of an ordinance to implement SB 9 shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. All of the statements set forth in the recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein. Section 2. Section 17.20.040(R) "Two-unit residential developments in single family zones" is added to Chapter 17.20 "Specific Requirements" of the Solana Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: "17.20.040(R) Two-unit residential developments in single family zones. A. Purpose and Findings. Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 2 of 20 1.The purpose of this section is to provide regulations for the establishment of two-unit residential developments in single-family residential zones and to define an approval process for such two-unit residential developments consistent with Government Code Section 65852.21, or any successor statute. The intent of this section is to provide opportunities for more housing in existing single family residential zones as mandated by state law. It is also the goal to provide development standards to ensure the orderly development of these units in appropriate areas of the City. 2.Two-unit residential developments are residential uses consistent with the uses permitted in zones that allow for single-family residential development. 3.Government Code Section 65852.21 preempts the density limitations established by the General Plan and the underlying zones in which two-unit residential developments created pursuant to the requirements of this subsection are permitted. Incompatibility with the City's density limitations shall not provide a basis to deny a two-unit residential development that otherwise conforms to the requirements of this section. B. A two-unit residential development containing no more than two residential units within a single-family residential zone shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing, if the proposed housing meets all of the standards set forth below. For purposes of this section, a two-unit residential development contains two residential units if the development proposes two new units or if it proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit. 1.If a parcel includes an existing single family home, one additional unit of not more than 825 square feet may be developed pursuant to this section. No more than 25 percent of the existing exterior structural walls shall be demolished to create the two-unit residential development, unless the existing single family home has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. 2.If a parcel does not include an existing single family home, or if an existing single family home is proposed to be demolished in connection with the creation of a two-unit residential development, two units of not more than 825 square feet each may be developed pursuant to this section. Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 3 of 20 3.Each unit in a two-unit residential development shall be separated by a distance of at least ten feet from any other structure on the parcel; however, units may be adjacent or connected if the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. 4.Unit Count. The following limitations apply to the number of units that may be created on a single parcel. a. If a parcel was created subject to the urban lot split subdivision provisions of Chapter 16.48, no more than two units -- including primary dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, and/or junior accessory dwelling units in any combination -- shall be permitted on a parcel. i.If a parcel was created subject to the urban lot split subdivision provisions of Chapter 16.48 and includes an existing or proposed two-unit development, then no accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units shall be permitted on the parcel. ii.If a parcel was created subject to the urban lot split subdivision provisions of Chapter 16.48 and includes one primary dwelling unit only, then one accessory dwelling unit or one junior accessory dwelling unit for each primary dwelling unit is permitted. b. If a parcel was not created subject to the urban lot split subdivision provisions of Chapter 16.48, no more than four units -- including primary dwelling units,.accessory dwelling units, and/or junior accessory dwelling units in any combination -- shall be permitted on a parcel. i.If a parcel was not created subject to the urban lot split subdivision provisions of Chapter 16.48 and includes an existing or proposed two-unit development, then one accessory dwelling unit may be developed for each primary dwelling unit on the parcel. ii.If a parcel was not created subject to the urban lot split subdivision provisions of Chapter 16.48 and includes a single primary dwelling unit, then one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit may be developed instead of a two-unit residential development. Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 4 of 20 C. A two-unit residential development shall be prohibited in each of the following circumstances: 1. The two-unit residential development would require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: a.Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. b.Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power. c.Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. An applicant for a two-unit residential development must demonstrate whether any existing housing on the parcel was owner occupied or vacant to Director's satisfaction. 2. The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is a parcel on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner's rights under Government Code Section 7060 et seq. to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application. 3. The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance. 4. If the two-unit residential development is on a parcel that is any of the following: a. Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 5 of 20 protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction. b.Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993). c.Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179 of the Government Code, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. d.A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, or Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses. e.Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2. f.Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 6 of 20 Federal Emergency Management Agency. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site. A development may be located on a site described in this subparagraph if either of the following are met: (i) The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local jurisdiction; or (ii) The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. g.Within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has received a no- rise certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site. h.Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural resource protection plan. Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 7 of 20 i.Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code). j.Lands under conservation easement. 5. If the two-unit residential development would cause there to be more than four total units — including primary dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, and/or junior accessory dwelling units — on any single parcel or on any two parcels that were created using the urban lot split subdivision provisions of Chapter 16.48. D. Any construction of a two-unit residential development shall conform to all property development regulations of the zone in which the property is located including, but not limited to, height limits, setback, lot coverage, landscape, and floor area ratio (FAR), as well as all fire, health, safety and building provisions of this title, subject to the following exceptions: 1.No setback shall be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. Verification of size and location of the existing and proposed structure by City staff requires the applicant to provide pre- and post-construction surveys by a California licensed land surveyor to the City's satisfaction. 2.For all other dwelling units proposed in connection with a two-unit residential development, a minimum setback of four feet, or the applicable setback for the zone district, whichever is less, is required from the rear and side property lines. 3.Limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and size must permit two units of 800 square feet each in connection with a two-unit residential development. Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 8 of 20 4.New dwelling units proposed in connection with a two-unit residential development shall not exceed 16 feet in height measured from preexisting grade or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the highest point of the roof. 5.For a two-unit residential development connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system, the applicant shall provide a percolation test completed within the last 5 years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. 6.All dwelling units created in connection with a two-unit residential development shall have independent exterior access. 7.For applications that do not involve an urban lot split subdivision pursuant to Chapter 16.48, one of the dwellings on the lot must be the bona fide principal residence of at least one legal owner of the lot containing the dwelling, as evidenced at the time of approval of the two-unit residential development by appropriate documents of title and residency. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that a covenant has been recorded stating that one of the dwelling units on the lot shall remain owner occupied. 8.Two-unit residential developments shall only be used for rentals of terms of longer than thirty (30) days. 9.To ensure compliance with the provisions of the California Coastal Act of 1976, the following parking requirements apply: a. One off-street parking space shall be required for each residential unit. c. If a two-unit residential development replaces an existing garage or other required parking, replacement spaces shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the underlying zone. 10.Design. When a two-unit residential development dwelling unit is proposed on a parcel with an existing single family dwelling unit, the new unit shall utilize the same exterior materials and colors as the existing dwelling unit. Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 9 of 20 11.Two-unit residential developments shall provide a new separate gas, electric, and water utility connection directly between each dwelling unit and the utility. The connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge. 12.Two-unit residential developments shall be required to provide fire sprinklers. 13.Two-unit residential developments shall be required to provide a solar photovoltaic (PV) system as an electricity source. 14.In no event shall grading pursuant to an application submitted under this chapter exceed one hundred (100) cubic yards. E.Applications for two-unit residential developments located in the Coastal Zone must be submitted together with a copy of a valid Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. F.Applications for two-unit residential developments conforming to the requirements of this section shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing by the director of community development. Incomplete applications will be returned with an explanation of what additional information is required. G.A proposed two-unit residential development may be denied if the director of community development makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. H.Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a two-unit residential development dwelling unit, the property owner shall record a covenant with the County Recorder's Office, the form and content of which is satisfactory to the City Attorney. The covenant shall notify future owners of the owner occupancy requirements, the approved size and attributes of the units, and minimum rental period restrictions. The covenant shall also reflect the number of units approved and provide that no more than four total units may be created on any single parcel or on any two parcels created using urban lot split subdivision procedures. If an urban lot split subdivision was approved, the covenant Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 10 of 20 shall provide that no variances shall be permitted other than those code deviations expressly allowed by this Chapter. This covenant shall remain in effect so long as a two-unit residential development exists on the parcel. I. In cases of conflict between this section and any other provision of this title, the provisions of this section shall prevail. To the extent that any provision of this section is in conflict with State law, the applicable provision of State law shall control, but all other provisions of this section shall remain in full force and effect." Section 3. Subparagraph D.1 of Section 17.12.010 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: "b.Two-Unit Residential Development. Any primary dwelling units designed and used to house two households living independently of each other on the same legal lot. Dwelling units may be attached or detached and are subject to the provisions of Section 17.20.040(R). "c.Duplex. Any building(s) designed and used to house three or more families living independently of each other on the same legal lot. Dwelling unit may be attached or detached. Minimum separation between principal structures on the same lot is 15 feet." Section 4. Table 17.12.020-A in Section 17.12.020 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (changes shown in underline and strikeout): ZONE USE ER-1 ER-2 LR LMR MR IVIHR FIR C SC LC OF PI LI A OSR ROW 1. RESIDENTIAL USES 1 Single-Family Dwellings PP P PPPPE EEEEEPPLE 1.5 Two-Unit PP P P EEEEEEEEEEEE Residential Development 2 DuolexT EEEPPPPLPLPLEEEEEE Dwellings (duplex) Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 11 of 20 Section 5. Section 17.20.020 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code is amended by adding a new subparagraph "E" to read as follows: "E. Two-unit Residential Developments. Two-unit residential developments shall be permitted in the (ER-1), (ER-2), (LR), (LMR) zones pursuant to SBMC 17.20.040(R) (Two-unit Residential Developments in Single-Family Zones)." Section 6. Chapter 16.48. "Urban Lot Split Requirements" of the Solana Beach Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: "Chapter 16.48 URBAN LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS Sections: 16.48.010 Urban tot split subdivision. 16.48.020 Preparation of urban lot split map. 16.48.030 Application. 16.48.040 Information to be filed with urban lot split map. 16.48.050 Requirements for urban lot split map. 16.48.060 Application of objective standards. 16.48.070 Grading plan. 16.48.080 Preliminary title report. 16.48.090 Revised urban lot split map. 16.48.100 City Engineer — Duties. 16.48.110 Consideration of urban lot split map — Notice of decision. 16.48.120 Disapproval of urban lot split map. 16.48.130 Transmittal of urban lot split map to County Recorder. 16.48.140 Correction and amendment of urban lost split map. 16.48.010 Urban lot split subdivision. No person shall create an urban lot split subdivision except by the filing of an urban lot split map approved pursuant to this title and the Subdivision Map Act, 16.48.020 Preparation of urban lot split map. Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 12 of 20 The urban lot split map shall be prepared by or under the direction of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, shall show the location of streets and property lines bounding the property and shall conform to all of the following provisions: A.The provisions of Section 66445 of the Subdivision Map Act. B.Shall be based upon a field survey made in conformity with the Land Surveyors Act. (Gov. Code § 66448) 16.48.030 Application. A.A subdivider applying for an urban lot split subdivision plat shall file an application with the City Engineer, together with copies of an urban lot split map. An applicant for an urban lot split subdivision shall sign and submit with the application an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three (3) years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. An affidavit shall not be required of an applicant that is either a "community land trust" or a "qualified nonprofit corporation" as defined in the Revenue and Taxation Code. B.The City Engineer shall not accept an application or map for processing unless the Department finds that the urban lot split map is consistent with the zoning provisions of this code and that all approvals and permits required by the city zoning provisions for the project have been given or issued. C.The City Engineer shall not accept an application or map an urban lot split located in the Coastal Zone unless it is submitted together with a copy of a valid Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. D.Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection B of this section, an urban lot split map may be processed concurrently with documents, permits or approvals required by the zoning provisions of this code, if the applicant first waives the time limits for processing, approving or conditionally approving or disapproving an urban lot split map provided by this title or the Subdivision Map Act. 16.48.040 Information to be filed with urban lot split map. Such information as may be prescribed by the rules and regulations approved by the city council and such additional information as the City Engineer may find necessary with respect to any particular case to implement the provisions of this title shall Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 13 of 20 accompany the urban lot split map at the time of submission, including a certificate of an engineer or land surveyor in accordance with Section 66449 of the Subdivision Map Act, and a certificate in accordance with Section 66450 of the Subdivision Map Act relating to unincorporated territory. 16.48.050 Requirements for urban lot split map. The City Engineer shall ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split only if the City Engineer determines that the parcel map for the urban lot split meets all of the following requirements: A.Both newly created parcels shall be no smaller than 1,200 square feet. B.Both newly created parcels shall be of approximately equal lot area, which for purposes of this paragraph shall mean that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision. C.New unit size shall be not greater than 825 square feet. Maps shall show the footprints of existing and proposed structures. D.The parcel being subdivided is located within an (ER-1), (ER-2), (LR), or (LMR) zone permitting single family dwellings described in Chapter 17.20 SBMC. E.The parcel being subdivided is not located on a site that is any of the following: 1.Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction. 2.Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993). 3.Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178 of the Government Code, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 14 of 20 Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179 of the Government Code, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. 4.A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, or Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses. 5.Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code. 6.Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site. A development may be located on a site described in this subparagraph if either of the following are met: (i) The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local jurisdiction. Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 15 of 20 (ii) The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 7.Within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has received a no-rise certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site. 8.Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 at seq.), or other adopted natural resource protection plan. 9.Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code). 10.Lands under conservation easement. F. The proposed urban lot split would not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: 1. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 16 of 20 2.Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power. 3.A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner's rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application under this Chapter. 4.Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. An applicant for an urban lot split subdivision must demonstrate wither any existing housing on the parcel was owner occupied or vacant to Director's satisfaction. G.The parcel is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance. H.The parcel has not been established through prior exercise of an urban lot split as provided for in this Chapter. I.Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split as provided for in this Chapter. J.All easements required for the provision of public services and facilities shall be dedicated or conveyed by an instrument in a form acceptable to the Department of Community Development. K.Units constructed on an urban lot split subdivision approved pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to and comply with the minimum setback requirements specified in SBMC 17.20.040(R).D. L.Units constructed on an urban lot split subdivision approved pursuant to this chapter shall not exceed sixteen feet (16') in height measured from preexisting grade or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the highest point of the roof. M.Each unit located on a parcel created pursuant to this chapter shall have vehicular ingress and egress to the public right-of-way, which shall be either through access over Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 17 of 20 land owner in fee or evidences by a recorded easement in favor of the parcel requiring right-of-way access. N.There shall be provided no less than one space per unit of off-street parking. 0. Each unit shall be required to provide a solar photovoltaic (PV) system as an electricity source. P.The uses allowed on a parcel created pursuant to this chapter shall be limited to residential uses. O.Dwelling units constructed on urban lot split subdivision lots shall only be used for rentals of terms of longer than thirty (30) days. R. Prior to approval of an urban lot split subdivision, the applicant shall have complied with the covenant recording requirement contained in SBMC 17.20.040(R).D.7 and 17.20.040(R).H. 16.48.060 Application of Objective Standards. Development proposed on lots created by an urban lot split subdivision shall comply with all objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards applicable to the parcel based on the underlying zoning; provided, however, that the application of such standards shall be reduced if the standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels created pursuant to this chapter or would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet. Any waivers or reductions of development standards shall be the minimum waiver or reduction necessary to avoid physically precluding two units of 800 square feet, and no additional variances shall be permitted. 16.48.070 Grading plan. There shall be filed with each urban lot split map a grading plan showing graded building site elevations and grading proposed for the creation of building sites or for construction or installation of improvements to serve the subdivision. The grading plan, together with the original topography contours, may be shown on an exhibit to the urban lot split map. The grading plan shall indicate approximate earthwork volumes of proposed excavation and filling operations. In the event no grading is proposed, a statement to that effect shall be placed on the urban lot split map. In no event shall Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 18 of 20 grading pursuant to an application submitted under this chapter exceed one hundred (100) cubic yards. 16.48.080 Preliminary title report. There shall be filed with each urban lot split map, a current preliminary title report of the property being subdivided or altered. 16.48.090 Revised urban lot split map. Where a subdivider desires to revise an approved urban lot split map, the subdivider may file with the City Engineer, prior to the expiration of the approved urban lot split map, a revised urban lot split map on payment of the fees specified in SBMC 16.08.010. 16.48.100 City Engineer — Duties. The City Engineer or his or her designee is authorized and directed to carry out the following duties, concerning applications for urban lot split maps under this chapter: A.Obtain the recommendations of other city departments, governmental agencies or special districts as may be deemed appropriate or necessary by the City Engineer in order to carry out the provisions of this title; B.Consider all recommendations and the results of all investigations and ministerially approve, or disapprove the application. 16.48.110 Consideration of urban lot split map — Notice of decision. Within 50 calendar days after a complete application for an urban lot split map is filed with it, the City Engineer shall ministerially approve or disapprove such map. The time limit specified in this paragraph may be extended by mutual consent of the applicant and the city. If the urban lot split map is disapproved, the reasons therefor shall be stated in the notice of disapproval. 16.48.120 Disapproval of urban lot split map. The City Engineer shall not approve an urban lot split map under any of the following circumstances: A. The land proposed for division is a lot or parcel which was part of an urban lot split map that the City previously approved. Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 19 of 20 B.The subdivision proposes creation of more than two lots or more than four units total among the two lots. C.The City Engineer finds that the urban lot split map does not meet the requirements of this code or that all approvals or permits required by this code for the project have not been given or issued. D.Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the building official finds that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. E._The urban lot split's failure to comply with applicable, objective requirements imposed by the Subdivision Map Act and this title._Any decision to disapprove an urban lot split map shall be accompanied by a finding identifying the applicable, objective requirements imposed by the Subdivision Map Act and this title or the conditions of approval which have not been met or performed. 16.48.130 Transmittal of urban lot split map to County Recorder. After the approval by the City of an urban lot split map, the applicant or its agent shall transmit the map to the County Recorder. An urban lot split subject to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act shall be processed in compliance with Government Code Section 66464(b). 16.48.140 Correction and amendment of urban lot split map. Corrections of and amendments to the urban lot split map shall be made pursuant to Section 66469 et seq. of the Act. Section 7. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n) because the adoption of an ordinance to implement SB 9 shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Section 8. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Chapter, or its application to any person or circumstance, if for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, JOHAN N. CANL S, City Attorney Ordinance 521 SB9 Two-Unit, Lot Split Page 20 of 20 paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Chapter, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, the City Clerk of the City of Solana Beach shall cause this Ordinance to be published pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ by the City Council of the City of Solana Beach at a regular meeting thereof on the 10th day of November 2021. PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Solana Beach at a regular meeting thereof this 8th day of December 2021 by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers — Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson NOES: Councilmembers — None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers — None ABSENT: Councilmembers — None APPROVED AS TO FORM: LESA HEEBNER, Mayor ATTEST: TV: ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO § CITY OF SOLANA BEACH 1 1, MEGAN BAVIN, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Solana Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of ORDINANCE 521 adding Section 17.20.040(R) to the Solana Beach Municipal Code to provide for regulations concerning two-unit residential developments in single family residential zones, amending Chapter 17.12 and Section 17.20.020 making two-unit residential developments a permitted use in single-family residential zones, and adding Chapter 16.48 to the Solana Beach Municipal Code to provide regulations concerning urban lot split subdivisions in single-family residential zones, by the City Council of Solana Beach. This Ordinance has been published as required pursuant to law and the original is filed in the City Clerk's Office. (GC 40806). CERTIFICATION DATE: re_v)(1.4cAS\I , 2022 INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS The Attorney General of California has prepared the following circulating title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: (21-0016A1.) 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: (I) 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. To the Honorable Secretary of State of California We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of County (or City and 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)The circumstances and envi- ronmental 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 local- ity. (c)Land use decisions made by local officials must balance devel- opment with public facilities and services while addressing the eco- nomic, 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 com- munities are properly analyzed and addressed. (e)Gentrification of housing adjacent to public transportation will reduce or eliminate the avail- ability 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 pub- lic transit ridership, and increases in vehicle miles travelled. (f)The State Legislature cannot properly assess the impacts upon each commun ity of sweeping centralized and rigid state land use rules and zon- ing regulations that apply across the state without regard to community im- pacts 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 vot- ers 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 zon- ing 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 regard- ing local land use controls, includ- ing 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 Employ- ment 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 pro- vide 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 proj- ects 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 infrastruc- ture project shall not include a transit- oriented development project that is residential, commercial, or mixed-use. SECTION 2. Section 4.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitu- tion, 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, spe- 1 cific 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, gen- eral 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 30090) of the Public Re- sources Code), or a succes- sor statute. (2)The siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utili- ties Commission has deter- mined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern. (3)The development or construction of a water, com- munication 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 appro- priations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the applica- tion of this section. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provi- sions 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 af- fect 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 Constitu- tion, 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, spe- cific 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 ad- dress either a matter of statewide concern or a municipal affair if that provision, ordinance, or regulation conflicts with a state statute with re- gard to only the following: (1)The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Re- sources Code), or a succes- sor statute. (2)The siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utili- ties Commission has deter- mined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern. (3)The development or construction of a water, com- munication 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 appro- priations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the applica- tion of this section. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or grants shall be given fo an entity that opts not to utilize the provi- sions 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 af- fect 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 lim- its all Ibcal, 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 initia- tive pertaining to land use or zoning restrictions. (b) A county or city general plan, 2 specific plan, ordinance or regula- provision or application. tion that regulates the zoning, de- velopment 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 Sec- tion 30000) of the Public Re- sources Code), or a successor statute. (B)An ordinance or regula- tion that addresses the siting . of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electric- ity 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 regula- tion that addresses the de- velopment or construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastruc- ture 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 sub- paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use. (c)No modification to appropria- tions 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 appro- priations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provi- sions 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 3 INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS The Attorney General of California has prepared the following circulating title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: (21-0016AL) 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. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEE AN "OFFICIAL TOP FUNDERS" SHEET. THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK. THE PROPONENTS OF THIS PROPOSED INITIATIVE MEASURE HAVE THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW THIS PETITION AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE MEASURE QUALIFIES FOR THE BALLOT. This column for All signers of this petition must be registered to vote in County. official use only 1.Residence Print Name. Address ONLY: Signature: City. 2.Residence Print Name: Address ONLY: Signature. City: 3.Residence Print Name- Address ONLY: Signature: City. 4.Residence Print Name* Address ONLY: Signature. City: 5.Residence Print Name: Address ONLY: Signature: City. 6.Residence Print Name. Address ONLY: Signature: City: 7.Residence Print Name. Address ONLY: Signature: City' 8.Residence Print Name. Address ONLY. Signature: City* DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR. (To be completed in circulator's own hand after the above signatures have been .t. . am 18 years of age or older. obtained.) petition of . My residence and witnessed the person 1 showed each true and correct. Signature of (print name) address is .1 circulated this section of the (addrebs, city. state, zip) i each of the appended signatures being written. Each signature on this petition s, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the dates of and (month, day. year) (month, signer a valid and unfalsified "Official Top Funders" sheet. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that Executed on . at , CA. day, year) the foregoing is (month, day, year) (place of signing) Circulator (complete signature indicating fun name of circulator) eCtg,:`,.#4365 4