Hello fellow Mustang alumni,

Unless you have a minor in CRP, I have never met a LARC that has any idea about the planning process outside of anecdotes, and that's what I wished CAED did more of. Integrating our allied professions.

A referendum is "the power of the electors to approve or reject statues or parts of statutes..." Cal. Const. Article II 9(a). The power of a referendum only applies only to NEWLY enacted legislation and is subject to constitutional limitations. In local government respects, they are used to reject an ordinance or resolution that has been RECENTLY passed (30 days before they take into effect). Also, they can't contradict state law.

Have you seen your city's general / specific plan? Have you read your land use matrix? Probably not. I don't expect the average individual to do. That's partially why public planners exist. But unless I see specific language allowing for that specific type of development you are talking about to occur, your statement is considered a pretty uncredible NIMBY argument. In fact, Mission Hills is a very wealthy neighborhood of sfh next to the downtown specific plan area, from what i recall. This means that the neighborhood will eventually become high density over time. It was designated as a Tier 1 in respect to the housing solutions portion of the city's complete communites approach. THIS ITSELF WAS A PRODUCT OF AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS.

Those local ordinances you mention are an extent to comply with SB10, which is a state mandated statute. There has been recent debate within the planning field here whether or not the state is overreaching in its power. I'm on the side that it is. HOWEVER, we have had an official housing crisis for the past decade. If cities try to designate "historical neighborhoods" for the sake of blocking high density development (especially wealthy places that want to keep the poors out), then they get what's coming to them with current state law. However, well planned places will integrate a plethora of intensity of land uses well, even if they're "historical neighborhoods".

You're right to an extent of the overreaching power of the state and the lack of public participation in planning. It's a problem as commissions are overrepresented by a rich minority and public hearings are only being visited by landowners or old, advantaged individuals.

https://www.sandiego.gov/complete-communities

Well yeah, you don't mess with ALUPs or the airport land use commission. That's just dumb and a waste of time. Also, they take so long to respond, sometimes worse than coastal commission. OH and if your project will require a CDP and is within an ALUP area...

Hohoho, you should see the communication between them and the airport land use commission...

This title is clickbait. Builder's Remedy just allows for the project to be considered ministerial instead of discretionary, meaning it doesn't need to go to a commission or council hearing.

It still has to go through CEQA if it meets the definition of a project. Also, it may need to go through local planning standards depending on the degree of which the housing element is out of compliance.

Don't get me wrong, still saves headaches for the developer (assuming they can pencil out a project that meets the requirements), but it isn't a playground for them.

Source: I am a CA planner currently updating a housing element.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10/Builders-Remedy-and-Housing-Elements.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxnqzj2q39AhWiL0QIHf_8BsUQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0H3eHVXn2U4ogU7HC9k1uY

https://www.allenmatkins.com/real-ideas/a-developers-guide-to-the-builders-remedy.html

https://www.planetizen.com/news/2022/11/119527-court-ruling-setback-californias-builders-remedy

It's called Builder's Remedy, and it just means the project will be passed ministerially instead of going through a discretionary review. It still has to follow the regulations of the city, which includes height and density. However, developers are aloted 3 density bonuses if they meet the percentage of affordable housing required by the state.

This comment right here is why as a CA planner, I hate ballot box planning. Non professionals voting on matters that they dont have time to understand that become non caring the moment it gets passed.

This is such a mischaraterization of the current SD land use regulation and general plan that I'm assuming you live somewhere like Chula Vista or Oceanside.

It's not even a referendum. You're referring to an initiative!!!

NOooOo ThEy brInG in NoN FaMly OrieNted PeoPle!! (Aka minorities and poor).

I get these comments as a planner so often it just becomes sad.

Also, for some reason, a lot of commenters will say the project itself is financially unfeasible. I bet those people wouldn't even know how to read a simple 10-year pro forma.

Dublin really pissed off their neighbors in doing so (looking at you, Livermore) because all the cities surrounding it wanted to stay small.

We already have in CA. The Natural Resources Board (NRB) determines the minimum level of water needed to flow out to support ecosystems that require them (ex. steelhead trout). Some coastal communities that stupidly rely on coastal creeks and other limited riparian habitats for water have a limit to how much water they can draw from sources.

Source: public planner that deals with the NRB frequently.