SAUSALITO, Calif. – In a move that could echo across the state, Sausalito voters will decide this fall whether future upzonings required to meet state housing mandates should be subject to voter approval.
The results could have far-reaching implications — not only for Marin County but also for cities like Davis, which is currently debating whether to amend its own growth control law, Measure J/R/D.
The Sausalito vote arrives at a pivotal moment in California’s housing policy battles. Both Sausalito and Santa Cruz have placed housing measures on the ballot this November — unusual in an off-year election, highlighting how local control continues to collide with statewide housing goals.
The outcome could also test the resolve of Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office has increasingly pursued cities that fail to comply with housing mandates.
In Sausalito, two measures — J and K — would determine whether the city can achieve compliance with the state’s Housing Element Law, which requires planning for 724 new units by 2031. Measure J would rezone a dozen parcels in the commercial district, while Measure K would rezone a portion of Martin Luther King Jr. Park to allow for a 50-unit affordable housing complex for seniors.
The measures have divided the community.
“MLK Park is unique and cannot be easily replaced,” said Joe Penrod of the opposition group Build Smart Sausalito. “It is not just an open space. It is a community hub. It features two school campuses that are significant sources of revenue for the city. It has a children’s playground, a track and sports facility, including the only baseball diamond left in the city. … Measure K threatens all of this.”
Mayor Joan Cox, who recused herself from the City Council vote but is supporting Measure K through the campaign Sensible Housing Sausalito, rejected that claim.
“The only portion of MLK property affected by Measure K is an existing nonconforming use: a dilapidated office building which houses certain commercial tenants who will be relocated at city expense,” Cox said. “Measure K preserves all other existing uses of MLK Park: the tennis courts, the basketball courts, the pickleball courts, the ball field, the existing school uses, the dog park and the existing parking uses.”
Vice Mayor Steven Woodside said the MLK parcel is the city’s only realistic site for affordable housing. “This is the only way we can have 50 units of affordable housing,” Woodside said, noting that privately owned sites could not be compelled to include affordable units.
But Penrod argued that the plan carries serious risks.
“The city could decline that partnership and they would be sued by YIMBY and all the other developers in town for obstructing their own housing element, potentially leading down the path to the builder’s remedy for the city of Sausalito,” he said.
Woodside countered that such fears were unfounded. “A private developer cannot force the city to violate those restrictions that the voters have already imposed on this site,” he said. “That’s why we’re going to the voters for a maximum of 50 units. End of story. If we’re sued, we will defend and we will win.”
If either measure fails, Sausalito could face fines or enforcement action from the state Department of Housing and Community Development.
The Attorney General’s office has also made clear that “local control” does not override state housing law — a warning that has already materialized in lawsuits against cities like Huntington Beach and La Cañada Flintridge.
Cox added that the city evaluated other sites but found them unsuitable due to environmental or ownership barriers.
“The city has not yet done environmental studies to determine if those parcels are free of shipyard pollutants,” she said. “That’s one reason those sites were not in the city’s latest housing plan. Another was that they are privately owned, which means there’s no guarantee the dwellings would be affordable.”
Meanwhile, in Santa Cruz, voters face two competing housing measures.
Measure B, backed by the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors, would create a parcel tax and a 0.5 percent transfer tax on property sales above $4 million. Measure C, sponsored by Housing Santa Cruz County, proposes a higher parcel tax and a progressive transfer tax beginning at $1.8 million. Both measures aim to fund affordable housing and homelessness prevention.
Elaine Johnson, executive director of Housing Santa Cruz County and a leader in the Measure C campaign, said the measure is about both building and preserving homes. “It’ll house people and keep people housed,” Johnson said. “We know it’s gonna build housing, right? But it’s also gonna prevent people from losing housing.”
Victor Gomez, representing the realtors’ group behind Measure B, said their proposal offers voters a less costly option.
“We’re giving [voters] another option, right?” he said. “We’re saying, ‘Hey, if you don’t wanna get taxed this much, but you support the construction of affordable housing, you could go with Measure B.’”
Critics, however, say Measure B was crafted to confuse voters and undermine Measure C.
UC Santa Cruz sociology professor Steve McKay called it “an element of democracy used against democracy,” arguing that Measure C’s passage would signal to the state that Santa Cruz is serious about addressing its housing crisis.
For Davis, where city leaders are actively exploring potential amendments to Measure J/R/D, the Sausalito vote could serve as a cautionary tale.
Measure J/R/D requires voter approval for any housing development on agricultural land annexed into the city, a rule that has effectively limited Davis’s housing supply since its inception in 2000.
The City Council recently discussed whether to modify or reform the law to allow the city to meet its state-mandated housing goals without triggering the builder’s remedy or risking state enforcement.
If Sausalito’s voters reject upzoning measures that are necessary for compliance, it could trigger the same legal and political tensions now looming in Davis — between local democracy and state housing obligations.
Should Attorney General Bonta move against Sausalito, it would signal how far the state is willing to go to override local voter control in the name of housing production.
The results in Sausalito, Santa Cruz, and Davis’s upcoming deliberations may ultimately define the next chapter of California’s housing wars — testing whether the state’s push for equity and affordability can withstand decades of local resistance to growth.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Categories: Breaking News Housing Opinion State of California Tags: Affordable Housing California Attorney General Rob Bonta Measure J/R/D Measure K Santa Cruz housing Sausalito housing