Huntington Beach residents to vote on ballot measure opponents say is designed to circumvent state housing mandates

Huntington Beach city council members voted Monday night to put a charter amendment on November’s ballot that opponents say would allow officials to cite environmental concerns in trying to fend off state housing mandates.

The language on the ballot measure states that “city planning and zoning is a local municipal affair beyond the reach of state control or interference, a local activity reserved for the city and its people, not the state.” If approved, the new law would require residents to vote on any "city-initiated" change to the city's zoning or general plan that could negatively affect the environment.

The ballot measure will not affect private property development.

How we got here

The measure was proposed, at least in part, as a way to try and circumvent state housing mandates. California requires cities to plan for a set number of housing units, including affordable housing. A San Diego Superior Court judge ruled earlier this year that Huntington Beach has to comply with the state housing mandate.

Keep up with LAist.

If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.

Subscribe

Opponents vs Proponents

Supporters, including the council majority, said the ballot measure was needed because some environmental laws are superseded by the state housing mandates.

Councilmember Casey McKeon said this ballot measure stemmed from when the majority of the council was voted in last year and were then “forced to zone for the state mandated 13,368 housing units.”

“I personally believe it's too important to be left up to a majority of four council members and so this proposal...puts it back into the hands of the residents and voters who this will affect,” he said.

Councilmembers Natalie Moser, Dan Kalmick and Rhonda Bolton, who did not attend the meeting, said in a statement that the special Monday night meeting was hastily arranged after a holiday weekend and the charter amendment itself was “poorly drafted and likely unenforceable suggesting its true aim is to evade state housing laws.”

The charter amendment, they added, could result in the city incurring “$600,000 monthly fines for noncompliance with state housing law” and that the legacy of the amendment could mean “the city's fiscal insolvency.”

During the meeting, some residents spoke out against the charter amendment, adding that requiring the public to read through environmental reviews is “unrealistic and burdensome.”