HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 30 - Proposed Resolution and Discussion of Other Actions Opposing the State of Califo30)Proposed Resolution and Discussion of Other Actions Opposing the State of
California Interfering with the City’s Land Use Authority
1. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA INTERFERING WITH THE
CITY’S LAND USE AUTHORITY; and
2. Discuss and consider providing staff with additional direction on actions intended to
address the State’s interference with the City’s land use authority.
Page 1 of 4
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
To:Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From:Jason Simpson, City Manager
Prepared by:Gina Gonzalez, Director of Economic Development and Legislative Affairs
Date:April 22, 2025
Subject:Proposed Resolution and Discussion of Other Actions Opposing the State
of California Interfering with the City’s Land Use Authority
Recommendation
1. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA INTERFERING WITH THE
CITY’S LAND USE AUTHORITY; and
2. Discuss and consider providing staff with additional direction on actions intended to
address the State’s interference with the City’s land use authority.
Background
Housing mandates imposed by the California Legislature aimed at increasing housing density and
circumventing housing development processes directly undermine community input, proper
environmental review, and planning decisions made at the local level.
The League of California Cities supports efforts by cities to adopt resolutions that oppose State-
level rules that erode local control. Other organizations, such as the Association of California
Cities-Orange County (ACC-OC) with 25 city members, has identified housing as a top priority,
indicating potentially significant support for this effort.
Discussion
Cities and counties in California value having local control over their land use and services,
including public safety. These local agencies adopt general plans and zoning codes to establish
a blueprint for future housing densities and the necessary infrastructure to plan for the growth
outlined in the general plan, as well as to provide a framework for the establishment of public
facilities, including parks, libraries, senior centers, other recreational amenities, and police and
fire stations.
State Interference with City’s Land Use Authority
Page 2 of 4
1
7
6
6
The State, through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, has mandated that
cities update the Housing Element of their General Plan to demonstrate that the city can
accommodate the building of a set number of new dwelling units without regard to the unique
characteristics of a community.
Adding to the formulaic imposition found in the RHNA, a myriad of legislation has also been
adopted by the State, further eroding local control. The list is long:
•SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019);
•AB 1763 (Density Bonuses for 100 Percent Affordable Projects);
•AB 1485 (Reduced planning standards);
•SB 35 (Imposes Ministerial Approval Process);
•AB 101 (Housing Development and Housing 2019-20 Budget Act);
•AB 1783 (Farmworker Housing);
•AB 68 (Accessory Dwelling Units);
•AB 881 (Processing Timelines, Ordinance Prohibitions and Triplexes);
•SB 13 (Owner-Occupancy Prohibitions and Fee Limitations);
•AB 1486 (Surplus Lands Act Process Amendments);
•SB 6 (Available Residential Land);
•AB 1255 (Surplus Public Land Inventor);
•AB 1483 (Housing Impact Fee Data Collection and Reporting);
•SB 744 (No Place Like Home Projects); and
•AB 1743 (Welfare Exemption)
At the core of these laws is the move to a “by right” model for housing development that cuts out
public participation and requires approval of development that fails to account for the resources
needed for those occupying the current and future housing in the communities they are located
in.
The result is an unfair and punitive unfunded State mandate which has created inconsistencies
in the planning processes and zoning laws, resulting in spot zoning, creating non-transparent
processes in planning from the general public, consolidating power in the State with no checks
and balances in the planning process, and also assuming one-size fits all regulations that do not
work well in communities that have sizable undeveloped lands like Lake Elsinore.
Examples of the impacts are discussed below.
State Interference with City’s Land Use Authority
Page 3 of 4
1
7
6
6
1. Erosion of Local Zoning Power
California has passed a series of laws (like SB 9, SB 10, and AB 2011) that limit local
governments' ability to:
•Restrict density (e.g., mandating that single-family zones must allow duplexes or more
units).
•Block or delay multi-family housing projects if they comply with objective zoning standards.
•Deny certain types of affordable housing even if local land-use plans have not been
updated.
Impact: Local governments have lost discretion over zoning, project approvals, and design
standards in many cases.
2. State Override of Local Plans
As mentioned above, cities must meet housing targets set through the RHNA process. If a city’s
Housing Element (a required part of its General Plan) is not compliant, the State can:
•Strip it of zoning authority through the “builder’s remedy”, allowing developers to bypass
local zoning laws entirely for certain projects.
•Penalize cities by cutting access to state housing funds or imposing fines.
Impact: This takes away leverage cities traditionally had to pace growth, maintain infrastructure
capacity, or preserve neighborhood character (design, landscaping, roadways, etc.).
3. Mandated Timelines and Streamlining
California laws have imposed strict deadlines and so-called “streamlining” measures, such as:
•SB 35: Requires cities that have not met their housing goals to streamline approval for
qualifying projects.
•CEQA exemptions for certain types of housing (e.g., infill affordable housing) limit cities’
ability to require full environmental reviews and its impacts to be mitigated on a community.
Impact: These timelines reduce the local ability to negotiate, revise, or deny projects, even when
there are infrastructure or community concerns.
4. Tension with Local Political Will
Housing mandates often conflict with local resident sentiment. As a result, local officials have:
•Delayed updates to housing plans
•Resisted density increases
•Challenged state mandates in court (e.g., Huntington Beach’s multiple lawsuits)
State Interference with City’s Land Use Authority
Page 4 of 4
1
7
6
6
Impact: This undermines the traditional democratic decision-making at the local level and can
deepen distrust between state and local governments.
Staff recommends the City Council consider a Resolution opposing the State’s mandates that
increasingly require nearly automatic approval of housing development with only limited
environmental review, resulting in unfunded impacts on public safety, municipal services, public
schools, and healthcare facilities.
By this Resolution, the City would also encourage all 482 California cities to oppose these
unfunded mandates and unrealistic goals set by the State and preserve local control.
Fiscal Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this action.
However, unfunded mandates thrust upon the City by the State limit the City's ability to provide
vital services to its residents and businesses. While this resolution does not have a direct fiscal
impact, the issue itself has a significant fiscal impact on the city's ability to govern itself.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Economic Development
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA INTERFERING WITH
THE CITY’S LAND USE AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, cities and counties in California value having local control over their land use
and services, including public safety; and
WHEREAS, local agencies adopt general plans and zoning codes to establish a blueprint
for future housing densities and the necessary infrastructure to plan for the growth outlined in the
general plan, as well as to provide a framework for the establishment of public facilities, including
parks, libraries, senior centers, other recreational amenities, and police and fire stations; and
WHEREAS, the State, through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process,
has mandated that cities update the Housing Element of their General Plan to demonstrate that
the city can accommodate the building of a set number of new dwelling units without regard to
the unique characteristics of a community; and
WHEREAS, the State of California, through the adoption of various laws, including:
• SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019);
• AB 1763 (Density Bonuses for 100 Percent Affordable Projects);
• AB 1485 (Reduced planning standards);
• SB 35 (Imposes Ministerial Approval Process);
• AB 101 (Housing Development and Housing 2019-20 Budget Act);
• AB 1783 (Farmworker Housing);
• AB 68 (Accessory Dwelling Units);
• AB 881 (Processing Timelines, Ordinance Prohibitions and Triplexes);
• SB 13 (Owner-Occupancy Prohibitions and Fee Limitations);
• AB 1486 (Surplus Lands Act Process Amendments);
• SB 6 (Available Residential Land);
• AB 1255 (Surplus Public Land Inventor);
• AB 1483 (Housing Impact Fee Data Collection and Reporting);
• SB 744 (No Place Like Home Projects); and
• AB 1743 (Welfare Exemption)
has imposed a “by right” model for housing development that cuts out public participation and
requires approval of development that fails to account for the resources needed for those
occupying the current and future housing in the communities they are located in. The result is an
unfair and punitive unfunded State mandate which has created inconsistencies in the planning
processes and zoning laws, resulting in spot zoning, creating non-transparent processes in
planning from the general public, consolidating power in the State with no checks and balances
in the planning process, and also assuming one-size fits all regulations that do not work well in
communities that have sizable undeveloped lands like Lake Elsinore.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this
reference.
CC Reso. No. 2025-____
Page 2 of 2
3
8
6
2
1
Section 2. The City is opposed to being mandated to approve the building of additional
housing units with limited environmental review and the unfunded imposition of increased impacts
to traffic, public safety and other municipal services, public schools, and healthcare facilities.
Section 3. The City hereby encourages all 482 California cities to oppose this unfunded
mandate of providing higher-density housing to meet unrealistic goals set by the State of
California by adopting this resolution under their own city’s name, and collectively meeting with
the Governor and legislators to reverse this mandate that will devastate municipal services
statewide and reduce the quality of life of all Californians.
Section 4. By adopting this resolution, California cities are united in preserving local
control and will pursue all available avenues to achieve that goal.
Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into
the book of original Resolutions.
Passed and Adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, this 22nd day of April 2025.
Brian Tisdale
Mayor
Attest:
Candice Alvarez, MMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2025-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California,
at the Regular meeting of April 22, 2025 and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Candice Alvarez, MMC
City Clerk