|
i_
<br /> • Writing A Defensible Growth 0/dinaurr (Continued) Twelve Major Objectives
<br /> Of Growth Management
<br /> 1. Preserve the character of the
<br /> community and promote commu-
<br /> nity• identity.
<br /> 2.Conserve agricultural land and
<br /> Managing growth does not mean stopping the period of its incubation,parties seeking preserve open space.
<br /> change or closing the doors to new res!- to evade the operation thereof should be
<br /> dents.Properly designed and implemented• permined to enter upon a course of con- 3.Encourage full utilization of ex-
<br /> struction which might progress so far as to !sting facilities.
<br /> a comprehensive growth management
<br /> system provides a framework that enables defeat in whole or in part the ultimate execu-
<br /> den of the ple4. Control development of new
<br /> local governments to balance and t More recently inAssociated Homebuilders areas to ensure coordination with
<br /> modate diverse and competing interests
<br /> while ensuring the quality of lifer expected v. City of Livermore", the California Su- existing and proposed facilities.
<br /> tr b2�y the citizens of this state.9 preme Court refused to invalidate a 5.Maintain or improve the level of
<br /> �'I7tis paper suggests an approach for moratorium enacted by initiative that pro- community services.
<br /> managing municipal growth that is most hibited all development until the city's
<br /> schools and infrastructure achieved spe- 6.Improve housing opportunities,
<br /> likely to survive judicial reguscrlation
<br /> tis cific standards. 'The court warned, how- increase diversity, and promote
<br /> 11 land use regulation is in some ever, that individual communities cannot better housing developments.
<br /> sense growth management has isolate themselves from the concerns of its 7.Avoid environmental problems.
<br /> long been recognized as a proper region and laid out a test for determining
<br /> exercise of the police power by the highest whether such measures are in fact a proper 8. Prevent sprawl.
<br /> courts of this state and nation.in 1926,the ...••exercise of the police power.13'Ihe regional 9. Promote aesthetics and pre-
<br /> United States Supreme Court, upholding welfare must be considered. serve historic or cultural features.
<br /> the zoning ordinances of the City of Euclid, o date, appellate courts have uphe a 10.Reduce traffic congestion and
<br /> Ohio stated: wide variety of growth management meas
<br /> rtil
<br /> recent years,urban life was compara-
<br /> tively
<br /> meas-
<br /> ures, such as timing and phasing", improve the road system.
<br /> ely simple;but with the great increase and downzoning'6, performance standards", 11. Promote public safety.
<br /> ncentration of population,problems have residential building caps",adequate pub
<br /> veloped, and constantly are developing, 18 12. Provide for flexibility to meet
<br /> ich require,and will continue to require, lie facilities ordinances and coastal zone
<br /> future needs.
<br /> ditional restrictions in respect to the use ; management 19
<br /> • d occupation of private lands in urban A few trial courts have invalidated local
<br /> mmunities.'° growth control initiatives as being in con- power 22 Exclusionary zoning has been
<br /> About the same time,California's highest sistent with the city's general plan20 or struck down in many states,including Cali-
<br /> court held that the City of Los Angeles preempted by state law21 or as having an f o ke all land use regulations,local growth
<br /> could prohibit construction while it devel- insufficient relationship to the police
<br /> oped a citywide comprehensive zoning or- • . management legislation must bear a rea-
<br /> inancefor the entire ciq'.The COtirtreCog it.Miller v.Board ojPublicWorks(1925)195Ca1.477, sonable relationship to a legitimate public
<br /> purpose. The highly publicized United
<br /> nized: 4% States Supreme Court case Nollan v. Cali-is a matter of common knowledge that a 12.(1976)18 CaL3d 582. - fortis Coastal Commission'-, nginter-
<br /> zoning plan of the extent contemplated in 13.The court articulated this three-step test 1)fore
<br /> the instant case cannot be made in a day. cast the probable effect and duration of the restriction; preted by some lower courts (wrongly,in
<br /> 2)identify the competing interests affected by the re- the opinion of these authors)as requiring a
<br /> Therefore,we may take judicial notice of the
<br /> striction;and 3)determine whether the restriction,in more direct relationship than actually re
<br /> fact that it will take much time to work out light of the probable impact,represents a reasonable quired by California courts?'
<br /> the details of such a plan and that obviously accommodation of the competing interests
<br /> it would be destructive of the plan if,during 14. Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo rowth management legislation
<br /> (1972)3 N.Y.2d 359.See also Dateline Builders,Inc.v. must not result in the taking of
<br /> 8.See generally D.allies&R.Freilich,Land Use at City of Santa Rosa(1983)146 Cal.App.3d 520. private property without payment
<br /> 795-900(1986). 15.Village of Belle Terre v.Boraas(1974)416 U.S.1.E of compensation.In First English Evangel!-
<br /> 9.The Las Angeles Times editorial also noted that 16.AssociatedHomebuildersv.City ofLivermore,(]976) cal Church of Glendale v. y of LOS
<br /> "(t)urning that trend around will take money and firm 18 Ca1.3d 582.
<br /> direction from Sacramento."Since 1970,state law has 17.Construction IndustryAssociation ofSonoma County' Angeles26,the United States Supreme Court
<br /> required the Governor to prepare a comprehensive v.City of Petaluma(1975)522 F.2d 897. held that where an ordinance deprives a
<br /> State Environmental Goal and Policy Report(Govern 18.Associated Homebuildersv.CityofLivermore(1976). _ landowner of"all use"of his/her property
<br /> meet Code§§65041.65049)presenting an overview of 18 Cal.3d 582. without justification, the Constitution re-
<br /> state growth and development, environmental goals 19.CEEED v. California Coastal Zone Conservation quires that compensation be paid from the
<br /> and objectives,new and revised state policies to imply Commission (1971)43 Cal.App.3d 306.
<br /> ment the goals,as well as intermediate-range plans and 20.Lesher Communications v. City of Walnut Creek 23.Southern Burlington City,Iv'AAC.P,v.Mt.Lau-
<br /> actionsdirectedtonaturalresources,human resources, (First Appellate District,Division 5,Civil No.A037865
<br /> Lau-
<br /> and transportation.The report must be revised and (August 2, 1988). In Lecher,the Court of Appeal re- rel Township(1975)336A.2d 713•appeal dismissed,423
<br /> transmitted to the Legislature(after prior review)every moved oral argument from the calendar and asked for U.S.808;Suffolk Housing Services v.Town of Brookhaven
<br /> four years. Government Code §65048.However,the further briefing as to whether the case was moot after (1987)70 N.Y.2d 122.511 N.E.2d 67.517 N.Y.S.2d 924;
<br /> Ret 1627,18
<br /> last report was submitted in 1978.See"Background the city amended its general
<br /> •
<br /> LEditmen.2d 830.b.Mulkey(1967)387 U.S.369.87 S.0
<br /> Paper onGrowth and Development Issues Facing Local 21.Life v. Lodi(Third Appe(late District,Civil No. 24.(]98 ) U.S. 107 S.Ct.
<br /> Governments" for October 20, 1988, Cal.Assembly 30000443.) 25.(19SSee Associated , 7 S.CL 3141.East bay v
<br /> Local Government Committee Hearing at p.23. 22.Marblehead v.City of San Clemente,Orange County CityWalnut Creek omeh1971)4i Cas of
<br /> 633.
<br /> 10.Village of Euclid.Ohio v.Ambler Realty Company Superior Court No.577043 and Building Industry Asso- of
<br /> 0 272elation v.SanJuan Capistrano. 26.(1987)482 U.S.304,107 S.Cl_.2378.
<br /> 10 (l9_6) U.S.365.38G387. p
<br /> LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
<br />
|