Is The Era Of Ballot-Box Zoning Over?
- William Fulton
- Apr 17, 2023
- 5 min read
Updated: Jan 21
Like some 60 other cities in California, Davis has a voter-approved requirement that some development projects require a vote before they can move forward.
Four developers in Davis want their projects to go before the voters next year.
The Davis City Council has declined so far to move those ballot measures forward, saying the time is not right and they want to focus on a revenue measure instead.
Now, one of the developers, is invoking the builder’s remedy.
Is this the end of ballot-box zoning in California?
Ballot-box zoning – the practice of adopting land use legislation by initiative and often requiring a subsequent vote to approve future projects – was once a predominant feature of the California planning landscape. Beginning in the 1970s – and accelerating during the ‘80s and ‘90s – ballot-box zoning was a critical component of that era’s growth management regime. Such vote requirements were typically imposed in coastal cities such as Carlsbad and Costa Mesa, college towns such as Davis and San Luis Obispo, and affluent suburbs in inland California such as Redlands and Lodi. (For a history of ballot-box zoning trends from that period, check out the 2002 report that Solimar Research Group did here.)
Now, however, ballot-box zoning is running up against the recent state-level push to allow more housing production. And it may be that ballot-box zoning will lose.
As pressure to build more housing has mounted, some cities have looked for ways to deal with their longstanding voter-approval requirements. Already in Costa Mesa, voters have amended the ballot-box zoning requirement to exempt certain commercial and industrial property. But the big question that remains is whether the state’s aggressive housing production regime will pre-empt local voters’ power to restrict development via initiative.
Not all development projects are subject to the initiative process, of course. Only legislative matters can go on the ballot – not ministerial projects. For 40 years, however, the courts have ruled that this means any general plan amendment or zone change is a legislative matter and therefore can go on the ballot. (Conversely, as the Legislature has passed SB 35 and other laws allowing projects to move forward ministerially, that means such projects not only evade the California Environmental Quality Act but also the ballot.)
The Davis situation seems like to be the flashpoint for the issue. The recent story goes something like this:
Four different developers wanted to get on the ballot in 2024. But on April 11, the City Council decided it would not put those projects on the ballot next year. Councilmembers cited a lack of staff time – saying the planning department is understaffed – and a desire to focus instead on a revenue measure in 2024. “I do not think November 2024 is right for any of them,” said Councilman Bapu Vaitla.
But that’s not where the story ends. At the same time that the Davis City Council was considering whether to move any of the four projects to the ballot, the Department of Housing and Community Development was reviewing the city’s housing element. And on April 3, HCD wrote a letter that was somewhat encouraging – but nevertheless found the housing element to be out of compliance. In particular, HCD was critical of the fact that a mixed-use project known as University Commons had dropped its residential component, requiring the city to identify more possible locations for housing.
