AG critical of Pasadena housing law
Bonta says new city ordinance `denies residents opportunity to create needed additional housing'
Pasadena is facing scrutiny from California's top lawyer for a recently passed ordinance that seeks to mitigate the effects of a controversial housing law that went into effect at the start of the year.
The state's battle to ensure compliance with Senate Bill 9 continued Tuesday as Attorney General Rob Bonta sent a letter to the city that took issue with the passing of an emergency ordinance on Dec. 6. The ordinance, among other things, allows the city to broadly exempt existing areas from SB 9 requirements by declaring the areas “landmark districts,” Bonta said.
SB 9 looks to ease California's ongoing affordable housing crisis by allowing homeowners to build up to four residential units on a single-family lot, a measure that Bonta said is needed to address the most populous state's chronic housing and homelessness problems by increasing supply and affordability.
But Pasadena's ordinance “undermines SB 9 and denies residents the opportunity to create sorely needed additional housing, under the guise of protecting `landmark districts,' ” according to Bonta.
“This is disappointing and, more importantly, violates state law,” Bonta said in a news release Tuesday.
In an interview Tuesday, Mayor Victor Gordo took issue with Bonta releasing a public letter “without any prior conversation regarding the substance of our regulations and how they comply with the law.”
Gordo said the city's housing policy and production efforts have been progressive and responsive to the housing crisis.
“And we remain committed to doing our part to help address the state's housing issues,” Gordo said, acknowledging the attorney general's letter also recognized Pasadena's good-faith effort to always comply with the letter and the intent of SB 9.
“Our interpretation of SB 9 appears to differ from that of the attorney general's regarding historic and landmark districts,” Gordo said. “We will review the attorney general's letter and the statute further and promptly provide a written response.”
Bonta told Pasadena officials
in Tuesday's letter there is no such thing as a “landmark district” exemption under the state housing law. However, individual properties can be exempt if they are part of a landmark, historic property or historic district.
Those designations cannot be arbitrary and must be supported by substantial evidence, Bonta's letter said.
He contended that Pasadena's criteria, by contrast, are very broad and aren't linked to historical resources, so they potentially would include large areas of the city.
City leaders also erred by adopting the restrictions as an “urgency ordinance,” Bonta said. The city did not provide evidence that the state law would significantly harm public health or safety, Bonta said, let alone the required “substantial evidence of a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact.”
As a result, Bonta asked the city to repeal or amend its ordinance to comply with the new state law within 30 days but did not say what might happen if the city does not.
The letter is the second time Bonta has warned a city about an invalid SB 9-related ordinance. The Bay Area community of Woodside was the first. But the two communities are far from the only ones who have attempted to avoid the effects of the law that went into effect Jan. 1.
Last September, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments and the mayors of 27 cities in the San Gabriel Valley signed a letter urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto the bill.
In total, more than 150 cities opposed the law as it was being considered in the Legislature last year.
Bonta warned cities to “take seriously their obligations under state housing laws” while his office evaluates similar ordinances elsewhere.
“We will,” he said, “hold you accountable.”