What Happened to Local Control?
California has required every city to develop a plan to increase housing by a number determined by the state’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment. State law requires the City of South Pasadena to plan for 2,775 additional housing units during the 2021-2029 Housing Element cycle.
To meet the state mandate for increased housing, South Pasadena's Housing Element identified four areas for high-density housing development:
Downtown (portions of Mission and Fair Oaks Avenues)
Portions of Huntington Drive
The Ostrich Farm (Pasadena Avenue)
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviewed South Pasadena's plan and identified the city's existing 45-foot building height limit as an impediment to achieving the 2,775 housing unit goal within the designated areas. As a condition for certifying South Pasadena's Housing Element, HCD required the city to put the question of increasing the height limit to a vote among South Pasadena residents. Additionally, South Pasadena is under a Court Order from the lawsuit by Californians for Homeownership that also requires the city to put the height limit increase on the ballot.
Can We Fight This?
Several lawsuits have already been filed by cities attempting to fight back to retain local control and rules regarding housing development. In nearly all cases, the Courts have sided with the state and arguments by cities have generally failed. Legal counsel has advised the City Council that legal pathways to fighting the state are expensive and highly unlikely to succeed given the body of law in the area and similar recent court decisions.
The Back Story
California needs to build approximately 180,000 new homes annually to keep up with population growth, but in recent years, it has fallen short of this goal. The failure of California to meet its housing production targets has led to a range of significant consequences, from the affordability crisis to increased homelessness to demographic shifts with long-term demographic and economic implications. State housing mandates are requiring South Pasadena to do its part to create more housing in California. The city, like all other cities in California, is required to plan for new housing and facilitate private development activities.
On September 28, 2021, Governor Newsom signed a package of bipartisan legislation designed to help mitigate the impact of California’s housing shortage. The package of 31 affordable housing bills focused on cutting red tape and holding cities accountable for providing their fair share of housing.
Cities’ “fair share of housing” is determined by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). For the current eight-year planning cycle (2021-2029) South Pasadena was assigned a RHNA obligation of 2,067 housing plus a 708-unit buffer required by the Department of Housing and Community Development. The primary reason for this high number is South Pasadena’s A Line station and access to bus transit lines.
The city is required to show the state how it will meet its RHNA obligation through the Housing Element of its General Plan. The Housing Element contains the necessary housing programs and strategies to meet the RHNA obligation and provide housing opportunities like affordable housing for individuals, middle- and working-class families, and seniors.
The city was required to adopt a compliant Housing Element by October 15, 2021. Compliance is determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD.) After cities submit their Housing Elements, HCD reviews them for compliance with state law. This process can take several months and often involves back-and-forth between the city and HCD. After five years of back-and-forth, South Pasadena received its certification letter from HCD on July 29, 2024.
Maintaining certification avoids rezoning across the city and reduces the risk of non-confirming development i.e. “Builder’s Remedy:” a legal tool developers use to bypass local zoning and General Plan requirements. Additionally, if the Housing Element is decertified, there are significant consequences for the city, including penalties of up to $100,000 per month, loss of access to grant funding for programs like homeless services and street repair, and the loss of local permitting control.