HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - July 15, 1987Measure A Task Force Chairman Ronald B. Thomas addressed
the Council regarding the preliminary report of the Measure
A Task Force and outlined the recommendations contained
therein. Mr. Thomas introduced other members of the Task
Force who were in the audience and responded to questions
regarding the subject as were posed by Council.
Council applauded the Task Force on its hard work and
dedication to this task.
Following discussion, on motion of Council Member Hinchman,
Reid second, Council accepted the report for filing and
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 15, 1987
PRELIMINARY REPORT
OF MEASURE A TASK
FORCE
Following introduction of the matter by City Manager
Peterson, Community Development Director Schroeder reminded
CC -2(j)
the Council that, towards the end of Council Member
CC -53(a)
Hinchman's term as Mayor, he appointed a ten member Task
CC -117
Force to make recommendations for an alternate to Measure
A, "The Green Belt Initiative". The Task Force has been
meeting on a regular basis for about a year and one-half
and, with the assistance of Ron Bass, a Consultant from
F
Jones and Stokes Associates, has come up with a series of
recommendations which will (1) control the rate of growth
and (2) outline the basis for a Growth Management System in
the Revised General Plan.
Measure A Task Force Chairman Ronald B. Thomas addressed
the Council regarding the preliminary report of the Measure
A Task Force and outlined the recommendations contained
therein. Mr. Thomas introduced other members of the Task
Force who were in the audience and responded to questions
regarding the subject as were posed by Council.
Council applauded the Task Force on its hard work and
dedication to this task.
Following discussion, on motion of Council Member Hinchman,
Reid second, Council accepted the report for filing and
C° UNCIL COMMUNICATI€):`t
T07 THE CITY COUNCIL DATE: NO.
FROM; THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICEJuly 15. 1987
SUBJECT.
PRELIMINARY REPORT OF MEASURE A TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council receive the report
on the recommendation of the Measure "A"
Task Force.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Towards the end of Councilman Hinchman's
term as Mayor, he appointed a ten member
Task Force to make recommendations for an
alternate to Measure "A" "The Green Belt Initiative The Task Force
has been meeting on a regular basis for about a year and one-half
and, with the assistance of Ron Bass, a Consultant from Jones and
Stokes Associates, come up with a series of recommendations which
will (I) control the rate of growth and (2) outline the basis for a
Growth Management System in the Revised General Plan.
These recommendations will be presented by the Task Force Chairman
Ronald B. Thomas.
resc ro er
Development Director
CITY COUNCIL
EVEL`r-N M OLSON. ;.favor
IOHN R. (Randv? SNIDER
Mayor Pro Tempore
DAVID M HINCHMAN
JAMES W. PINKERTON, Ir
FRED :M REID
CITY OF LODI
CITY F?ALL. 221 WEST PINE STREET
CALL BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
(209)334-5634
TE'_ECOPIER (70q)333-6795
July 21, 1987
THOMAS A. -PET i RSON
City Manager
ALICE M. REI:-MCHE
city Clerk
RONALD M. STEIN
Citv Attorney
Mr. Roger Stafford
Chairman
Lodi Planning Commission
801 South Mills Avenue
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Mr. Stafford:
Please be advised that the Lodi City Council at its regular meeting of
July 15, 1987 received the Preliminary Report of the Measure A Task
Force. A presentation regarding the report was made by Measure A Task
Force Chairman Ron Thomas.
Following discussion Council, by motion action, accepted the report for
filing and referred the matter to the Planning Commission.
Very truly yours,
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
AMR:JJ
cc: James B. Schroeder
Community Development Director
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.
1725 - 23rd STREET, SUITE 100 / SACRAMENTO, CA 95816
A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR LODI
Prepared for:
The Mayor's Task Force
on
Measure "A"
A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LOM
This document constitutes a growth management element of
the Lodi General Plan. Under Section 65303 of the California
Government Code, in addition to the seven mandatory elements, a
city may adopt optional elements to its general plan. The
growth management element is such an optional element. Optional
elements must be consistent with the remainder of the general
plan and, once adopted, have the same legal effect as mandatory
elements.
The growth management element consists of three parts: an
introduction and background; statements of goals and policies;
and an implementation program.
I. Introduction and Background
Importance of Agricultural Land in Lodi
Lodi is located in an agriculturally important area of
California's Central Valley. Agricultural land is the predomi-
nant land use surrounding the city with grapes being the key
crop (see Figure; 1). Agriculture contributes an important part
of Lodi's economy and provides residents wita scenic resources
immediately adjacent to the city limits.
Growth Control Prior to Measure A
Prior to August 25, 1981, the City of Lodi managed urban
growth by the allocation of storm drainage capacity. A limited
number of drainage retention basins and collection facilities
were designated in the General Plan. The capacity of the drain-
age system served as a limitation on the number of housing units
and other urban uses that could be developed. As new growth was .
proposed, additional drainage facilities were added to the plan.
Adoption of Measure A
Measure A, approved by the voters of Lodi on August 25,
1981 and adopted on September 1, 1981, is an ordinance which
amended the land use element of the City General Plan by remov-
ing from the Land Use Element any land that is not within the
corporate limits of the city. The ordinance effectively elim-
inated the city's planned urban growth area. The intent of
Measure A is to preserve and protect agricultural land, preserve
1
the scenic resources of the area, protect wildlife habitats and
natural resources, and to maintain the small -city character of
Lodi within the designated Greenbelt.
The boundaries of the Greenbelt lie between the outer
limits of the incorporated city and the outer limits of the
adopted sphere of influence. See Figure 2.
Measure A includes the following restrictions: Nonagricul-
tural development lying immediately adjacent to the designated.
Greenbelt area is permitted only after the City Council has
determined that such development would not interfere with pro-
ductive agricultural activities or that an adequate buffer zone
is implemented to ensure productive use of agricultural land.
In addition, no land within the Greenbelt can be annexed to the
city without an amendment to the city's Land Use Element of the
General Plan and approval by the majority of the people voting
in a city-wide election.
Land Use Decisions Under Measure A
Since 1970, Lodi has annexed approximately 1,660 acres of
land to the city. The enactment of Measure A in 1981 signifi-
cantly slowed the pace of annexations to the city. Table 1
shows the annual annexations to the city since 1970.
In addition to slowing the pace of annexations, Measure A
has had a significant effect on the types of projects for which
land has been annexed. Generally, the voters have turned down
single-family residential projects. Since Measure "A," only one
such project has been approved. The only other residential
project to be approved was a senior/adult housing project.
Table 2 shows the projects presented to the voters between 1982
and 1987 and the results of the elections.
Challenge to Measure A
On November 25, 1985, a committee known as Lodians In Favor
of Free Enterprise (LIFE) challenged Measure A, requesting a
court order that the City of Lodi cease administering and en-
forcing the measure. The petition alleged that the following
legal deficiencies existed in Measure A:
o Measure A interferes with state annexation laws.
o Measure A is an unreasonable exercise of police power.
o The enactment of Measure A causes the General Plan to
become invalid.
o Measure A does not provide for Lodi to meet its fair
share of regional housing needs.
3
-LEGEND-
VARCA Rcleivlcv FROM ,NF LO= OVIER-AL PLAN w,n..,..'i - - - - - --
fG DUE TO THE ADOPTION OF MEASURE A
FIGURE 2. CITY OF LODI URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
SOutce: Clty of Lool, Community Development Depellmenl 1581: Jones 6 Stokoo Aa tocialea, Irtc, 1986.
Year
Table 1. Annual Annexations to Lodi Since 1970
Number of
Annexations
Total Acres
Annexed
1970
6
154.05
1971
2
80.25
1972
5
73.61
1973
7
58.54
1974
6
151.34
1975
4
107.2
1976
2
54.8
1977
3
70.61
1978
2
98.9
1979
3
152.38
1980
5
225.44
1981
5
169.63
Measure A Enacted
1982
-0-
-0-
1983
-0-
-0-
1984
1
110.001'
1985
2
83.76 "
1986
3
2.196,
1987
2
6?.9
Total
56
1,66.0.06,:'
1 Noncontiguous public
land (wastewater treatment
plant and.
drainage basin) --no
vote was required.
5
Election
Year
1982
1983
1984
Table 2. Election Results Under Measure A
Project
No proposed
annexations
Ba' -ch
Sunwest
Batch/Mills
Sunwest
1985 Batch/Mills
Wine & Roses
Country Inn
Maggio
1986 Batch
Parkview Terrace
(Mills)
Maggio
Towne Ranch
Johnscn Ranch
Primary Proposed :Results of
Laud Use Acres Election
Single-family
100.0
Disapproved
residential
Single-family
54.65
Disapproved
residential
Single-family
120.0
Disapproved
residential
Single-family
54.65
Approved
residential
Single-family
120.0
Disapproved
residential
Bed and
2.196
Approved
breakfast inn
Industrial
37.6
Disapproved
Single-family
100.0
Disapproved
residential
Senior/adult
20.0
Approved
housing
Industrial
37.6
Approved
Single-family
78.3
Disapproved
residential
Single-family
30.6
Disapproved
residential
6
The Superior Court of California held that a city and its
voters cannot interfere with the annexation process, which had
been preempted by state law. The Court, therefore, ordered the
city to terminate the administration and enforcement of Mea-
sure A.
The city is currently appealing the Superior Court's deci-
s�.on. Measure F. is still in effect, however, and will be en-
forced by the city until the appeal is decided.
Creation of Task Force and Its Role
In April 1986, the mayor of Lodi convened a task force
comprised of 10 citizens who represented a wide spectrum of
viewpoints on Measure A. The charge to the Task Force was:
"To study and recommend to the Lodi City Council, unani-
mously if possible, a solution or solutions that would
guide and control growth with the intent to preserve and
enhance the aesthetic and economic qualities of the City of
Lodi."
To advise the task force in its work, the City retained the
services of the planning firm of Jones & Stokes Associates of
Sacramento. The task force has met monthly between May 1986 and
July 1987 and, with advice from Jones & Stokes Associates,
developed the growth management systems contained in the Ele-
ment.
The Need for Growth Control
The citizens of Lodi believe that uncontrolled growth leads
to the following problems:
o premature and unplanned conversion of agricultural land P,
F
o interference with productive agricultural activities
o stress on public services and facilities
o traffic congestion
o poorly designed development projects
o imbalance in the types of housing and cost of housing
produced
z
II. Goals and Policies
The goals of the citizens of Lodi in adopting this growth
management element are:
7
Stable Growth Rate
Goal. Lodi shall maintain a stable growth rate that enables
it to sustain the small-town quality of life that is charac-
terized by:
o an agricultural economic base;
o cohesive, well-maintained residential neighborhoods;
o the ability of residents to live close to their places
of work;
o ability of residents to travel from one side of town to
the other without experiencing serious traffic con-
gestion; and
o ability of public services to adequately serve new
development.
Policy. It is the policy of the City of Lodi to grow at a
rate not exceeding 2 percent per year. This Growth rate will be
implemented through a residential development allocation system
whereby a specified number of units of single-family and mul-
ti -family development is allocated each year.
Protection of Agricultural Land
Goal. Lodi shall encourage the preservation of agricultural
activities surrounding the City.
Policies
Greenbelt. The City of Lodi shall maintain a cont:.nu-
ous agricultural and open space Greenbelt around the urbanized
p&rt of the city to maintain and enhance the agricultural econo-
my and aesthetic quality of Lodi. The location of that
greenbelt shall be designated in the Land Use Element of the
Gene::al Plan.
Viable Agriculture. Land use decisions and the ap-
proval of development projects shall be made to encourage the
continuation of viable agricultural activity surroundingthe,
city.
Utility Extensions. City sewer and water facilities
shall not be extended to serve areas within the Greenbelt or
beyond.
Right -to -Farm Ordinance. City of Lodi shall study and
consider a "right -to -farm" ordinance by which agricultural land
shall be protected from nuisance suits brought by surrounding
land owners.
8
Implementation Program
Limitation on the Approval of New Development
Residential development projects of 5 units or greater,
with the exception of senior citizen housing projects, shall be
subject to the Lodi growth control program under which a limited
number of rousing allocations shall be approved each year. The
number of housing units approved shall be determined in accor-
dance with Table 3. Every year on June 1 the planning staff,
with the approval of the Planning Commission, shall reevaluate
and revise Table 1 to reflect current demographic assumptions
based on state Department of Finance anneal population statis-
tics.
The city council shall only approve residential development
projects for any fiscal year (July 1 - June 30) sufficient to
accommodate the number of units in columns 6 and 8 of Table 3.
Single-family and multi-fami_1 units shall be considered sepa-
rately. Applications for approval and allocation of residential
development projects shall be received between July 1 and Octo-
ber 1 each year. Projects shall be considered and allocations
awarded by the council between July 1 and October 1 of the
following year. The submittal of applications and review and
consideration of projects shall be in accordance with the sched-
ule shown in Figure 3.
Findings Required Prior to Approval of New Residential Develop-
ment Projects
IZ addition to any other findings required by state law or
local ordinance, the approval of residential development proj-
ects shall only be made if the following findings are made by
the council:
o The project applicant has demonstrated a commitment to
mitigating impacts to surrounding agricultural uses.
o The project is capable of being served adequately with
public facilities and services, including:
- sanitary sewers and collection facilities,
- water for domestic use and fire suppression and ancil-
lary facilities,
- storm drainage basins and collection systems,
- parks,
- police protection, and
9
CITY OF LODI - GROWTH RATE ANALYSIS (2 PERCENT)
I-----•----------------------------------------------------------
I
1
1 1
I
2
3
4
5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 I
I
I
I
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
SINGLE-
MULTI-
I
I I
TOTAL
SINGLE-
SINGLE,-
MULTI-
MULTI-
FAMILY
TOTAL SINGLE-
FAMILY
TOTAL MULTI-
TOTAL I
I
I POPULATION
POPULATION
TOTAL
UNITS/
FAMILY
FAMILY
FAMILY
FAMILY
ACRES
FAMILY ACRES
ACRES
FAMILY ACRES
ACREAGE I
I YEAR 1
28 GROWTH
-------------------
DIFFERENCE
UNITS/a
YEAR
UNITS/b
UNITS/YEAR
UNITS/c
UNITS/YEAR
NEEOF.D/d
NEEDED/YEAR
----------------------------------------------------
NEEDED/e
NEEDED/YEAR
NEEDED I
I (
1 1987
1 45,794
I
i
i I
1 1988
1 46,710
916
359
:359*
233
233'
126
126
47
47
10
10
I
57 I
1 I
1 1989
1 47,644
1,850
726
;:'36C
472
238;
254
128
94
48
21
11
(
115 1
1 1
3 `
1
1 1990 1
48,597
2,603
1,099
r39F
714
243;
385
131
143
49
32
11
175 1
1 1991 1
I
49,569
3,775
1,480
11962
248
518
233
192
50
43
11
236 1'
I
1 1992 1
50,560
4,766
1,869
389j?'
1,215
.253`
654
136'
243
51
55
11
298 1
1993
i 51,571
5,777
2,266
'1397:,
a
1,473
258
793
139'
295
52
66
12
361 1
I
1_994
1 52,603
6,809
2,670
`..40jt'
1,736
263:
935
142
347
53
78
12
1
425 1
1 1995
i
1 53,655
7,861
3,083
"la
2,004
268
1,079
144'
401
54
90
12
f
491 1
i
1 1996
I
1 54,728
8,934
3,504
'421y
2,277
274'
1,216
1471
455
55
102
12
558 1
1 1997
1 55,823
10,029
3,933
4291•.
2,556
279
1,376
.150;
511
56
115
13
626 I
I I
1 1998
1 56,939
11,145
4,371
4381
2,841
285`
1,530
t
153;
568
57
127
13
696 1
1 1999
1 58,075
11,284
4,817
147'
3,131
290`
1,686
1561
626
58
141
13
767 I
1 2000
1 59,239
13,445
5,273
4561
3,427
296
1,845
159'5
685
59
154
13
839 1 .
f
1 2001
1 620,424
14,630
5,737
165=
3,729
302
2,008
746
60
167
14
913 1
1 2002
1 61,633
15,839
6,111
174`
4,037
308
2,174
_1631
166
807
62
181
14
.989
314
2,343
269`
870
63
195
14
1,066 1
12003
I 62,865
17,071
6,695
483,
4,352
1 2004
1 64,123
18,329
7,188
493s
4,672
320'
2,516
173..
934
64
210
14
1,144 1
I I
1 2005
1 65,405
19,611
7,691
503a
4,999
327•';
2,692
.176`
1,000
65
224
15
I
1,224 1 .
1 2006
1 66,713
20,919
. 8,204
513
5,332
333.;
2,871
X180
1,066
67
239
15
1,306 1 ,
1 2007
1 68,047
22,253
8,727
}52
5,672
3401;
3,054
1$3
1,134
68
255
15
1,389 1
I---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
a Assumes 2,55 persons
-
per unit (State Department of
Finance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1987 estimates).
b Based
on 65 percent
split.
c Based
on 35 percent
split.
d Based
on 5 dwelling
units per acrle,
e Based
on 12 dwelling
units' per
acre..,'
W
FIGURE 3. SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALJACATIONS
APPLICATION RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION DETERMINATION CERA DRAFT PUBLIC FINAL PLANNING CITY CITY LAFCO FINAL
WINDOW DEVELOPMENT WINDOW OF I14ITLAL EIR REVIEW FIR COMMIES 101, COUNCIL COUNCIL ACTION MAP
OPENS APPLICATION CLOSES CCNPLETEHM STUDY COMPLETED PERIOD PREPA7UI) WARING HEARING RESIDENTIAL IF APPROVAL
SUBMITTED COMPLETED ENDS AND AND DEVELOPMENT NECESSARY
--------- REVIEW REVIEW ALLOCATIONS BPARC
PRELIMINARY GRANTED REVIEW
POINT
EVACJATION
JULY 1 JULY -SEPT OCT 1 NOV 1 DEC I MARCH I APRIL IS ' MAY I MAY -JUNE JUE>E-JULY JULY -SEPT
S
- fire protection.
o That Traffic and Circulation System is Adequate to Serve
the Proposed Project. The City of Lodi shall maintain
adequate traffic flow and circulation of the city road-
way network. Level of Service C or above shall be
considered adequate (see Appendix A for definitions of
the level of service C).
Multiple Year Applications
Applicants shall specify in their application(s) for res-
idential development project approval the year(s) for which they
are seeking allocation. The City Council may grant up to three
future year allocations as a part of a single project. Those
future alloca-.=ions shall, however, be subtracted from the number
of allocations available to applicants in applicable future
years.
III. Proiect Evaluation and Scorin
To aid the City Council in implementing the goals and
policies stated above, the City of Lodi shall include a point
evaluation and scoring system by which each project application
for of a new housing project shall be given a point rating
pursuant to the criteria stated below. A preliminary point
evaluation shall be made during the preparation of the Initial
Study required of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Points shall also be assigned during the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration process and
shall be included in those documents. In preparing such en-
vironmental documents, the city shall include sufficient infor-
mation to enable city staff and other appropriate departments to
make the point assignments required by this growth management
system. Scores given for each issue evaluated above shall be
clearly stated in a summary in the Draft EIR or, proposed Nega-
tive Declaration. Scores may be revised in response to public
review and any chanG,_s shall be identified in the Final EIR.
z
12
Criteria
(The evaluation criteria listed below have been developed
to be consistent with current city policies and state laws.)
A. Agricultural Land Conflicts
1. Project does not require conversion of
agricultural land
2. Project is adjacent to agricultural land
on one side
3. Project is adjacent to agricultural land
on two sides
4. Project is adjacent to agricultural land
on three sides
5. Project is surrounded by agricultural land
B. Onsite Agricultural Land Mitigation
1. Project needs no agricultural land mitigation
2. Adequate onsite buffer has been provided as
a part of site layout for all adjacent
agr_cuitural land
3. Onsite ,puffer provided as a part of site
layout for only part of project
4. No buffer between project and adjacent
agricultural land
C. Relationship to Public Services
1. General Location
a. Project abuts existing development on
four sides
b. Project abuts existing development on
three sides
c. Project abuts existing development on
two sides
d. Project abuts existing development on
one side
13
Score
10
7
5
3
0
10
7
5
0
10
-
7
3
r
e. Project is surrounded by undeveloped
land 0
2. Sewer
a. Project is located adjacent to existing
city sewer main trunk line
10
b. Project is within 0.25 -mile of existing
city sewer main trunk line
5
C. Project is more than 0.25 -mile from
existing city sewer main trunk line
0
3. Water
a. Project is located adjacent to existing
city water mains
10
b. Project is located within 0.25 -mile of
existing city water mains
5
C. Project is located more than 0.25 -mile
from existing city water mains
0
4. Drainage
4
a. Project is located adjacent to city
s
storm drainage collector lines
10
b. Project is located within 0.25 -mile
of city storm drainage collector
lines
5
t'
C. Project is located more than 0.25 -
mile from city storm drainage
collector lines
0
D. Promotion of Open Space'
Points shall be awarded on the basis of the
percentage of coverage of the total loss of
project area by roof area or paved areas on-
site (exclusive of streets).
F=
20% or less 10 points
�..,
30% or less 8 points
J 40% or less 6 points
50% 4 points
60% 2 points
_
X
70% or greater 0 points
5'
g
14
k
Y
Project owner shall submit an analysis of
the percentage of impervious surface of
the site
E. Traffic and Circulation: Level of Service
Points will be awarded depending on the
level of service on major thoroughfares serving
the project as computed during weekday peak
hour. Computation shall include traffic
resulting from the project
All thoroughfares operating at LOS A
All thoroughfares operating at LOS B
or better
All thoroughfares operating at LOS C
10
or better
6
All thoroughfares operating at LOS D
or better
4
All thoroughfares operating at LOS E
or better
2
All thoroughfares operating at LOS F
0
F. Traffic and Circulation: Improvements
1.
Project can be served by the existing street
system and will not contribute. to the need =for
any offsite improvements within 0.25 mile of
its boundaries.
10 -
2.
Project will contribute to the need for minor
offsite improvements (less than $50,000)
to mitigate potential impacts to a'less-than-
significant level.
7
3.
Project will contribute to the need for major
offsite improvements (greater than $50,000)
_
to mitigate potential impacts to a "less -than'-
significant level:
5;;
4.
No offsite improvements are available to
mitigate impacts to less than significant
levels.
0 -
G. Housing
I.
Low and Moderate Income Housing. A point credit
will be awarded in accordance with the following
=
schedule:
15
25% or more of units low and moderate 10
20%-24% 8
15%-19% 6
10%-14% 4
5%-9% 2
Less than 5% low and moderate or
no low and moderate housing proposed 0
H. Site Plan and Project Design --Bonus Points (These
criteria shall only apply to multi -family projects).
1. Landscaping. (SPARC Committee shall evaluate
and provide between 10 and 0 points.) 10
2. Architectural Design. (SPARC Committee shall
evaluate and provide between 10 and 0 points)
(These criteria shall only apply to multi-
family projects) 10
Findings Reauired Prior to Adoption of This Element
Prior to adoption of this Growth Management ELement and any
implementing ordinances, the city council must make the findings
required by the following provisions of state law:
o Government Code 65302.8
APPENDIX A
REQUIRED FINDINGS
GOVERNMENT CODE § 65363.6. 73mitation on construction of housing units; cousid-
oration; findings
In carrying out the provisions of this chapter, each county and
city shall consider the effect of ordinances adopted pursuant to this
chapter on the housing needs of the region in which the local juris-
diction is situated and balance these needs against the public sertice
needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental re-
sources. Any ordinance adopted pursuant to this chapter which, by
Its terms, limits the number of housing units which may be con-
structed on an annual basis shall contain findings as to the public
health, safety, and welfare of the city or county to be promoted by the
adoption of the ordinance which justify reducing the housing oppor-
tunities of the region.
(Formerly 165863.5. added by Stats.1979, c. 447, p. 3269. 11. Amended by
Stats.1980. e. 823, p. MI. 12. Renumbered l 65863:6 and amended by
Stat3.1981,c_714. j 193.)
GOVERNMENT CODE 65302.8. Adoption or am-ndment ct general plan element op -
crating to limit number of houshig units; findings
If a county or city, Including a charter city, adopts or amends a
mandatory general plan element which operates to limit the number
of housing units which may be constructed on an annual basis, such
adoption or amendment shaft contain findings which lustily reducing
the housing opportunities of the region. The findings shall Include
all of the following:
(a) A description of the city's or county's appropriate share of
the regional need for housing.
(b) A description of the specific housing programs and activities
being undertaken by the local jurisdiction to fulfill the requirements
of subdivision (c) of Section 65302.
(c) A description of low the public health, safety, and welfare
would be promoted by such adoption or amendment
(d) The fiscal and environmental resources available to the local
Jurisdiction.
EVIDENCE CODE 4 669.5. Ordinances limiting building permits or development of buildable iota for residential
purposes; impact on supply of residential units: actions challenging validity
(a) Any ordinance enacted by the governing body of a city, county, or city and county which
directly limits, by number. (1) the building permits that may be issued for residential construction or
(2) the buildable lots which may be developed for residential purposes, is presumed to have an impact
on the supply of residential units available in an area which includes territory outside the jurisdiction
of such city, county, or city and county.
(b) With respect to any action which challenges the validity of such an ordinance. the city, eonnty.
or city and county enact;ng such ordinance shall bear the burden of proof that such ordinanee is
necessary for the protection of the public health. safety, or welfare of the population of sueh,esty.
county, or city and county.
(c) This section does not apply to ordinances which (1) impose a moratorium, to protect the public
health and safety, on residential construction for a specified period of time, if, under the terms of the a
ordinance, the moratorium will cease when the public health or safety is no longer jeopardized by
such construction, or (2) create agricultural preserves under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
51200) of Part I of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code, or (3) restrict the number of
buildable parcels by limiting the minimum size of buildable parcels within a zone or by designating
lands within a zone for nonresidential uses.
- (d) :his section shall not apply to a voter approved ordinance adopted by referendum or initiative
prior to the effective date of this section which (1) requires the city, county, or city and county to
establish a population growth limit which represents its fair share of each rears statewide
population growth, or (2) which sets a growth rate of no more than the average population growth
rate experienced by the state as a whole.
17