![]() ![]() However, SB 10 wouldn’t apply to “any local restriction enacted or approved by a local voter initiative that designates publicly owned land as open-space land … or for park or recreational purposes,” according to the bill. “If the ordinance supersedes any zoning restriction established by a local voter initiative, the ordinance shall only take effect if adopted by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body,” the bill states.Ĭritics say these city ordinances wouldn’t require environmental analysis and could override local city zoning, state CEQA laws, and a city’s general plan.Ĭalifornia’s constitution allows voters to use initiatives to protect land areas such as shorelines, canyons, urban boundary lines, historic districts, and single-family neighborhoods from unwanted development projects. ![]() ![]() Scott Wiener (D-SF), Senate Bill 10 (SB 10) would allow cities to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel of land for up to 10 units of housing if it’s in a transit-rich or jobs-rich area or has other specific qualifications. He gives his opinion on local issues weekly.IRVINE, Calif.-A bill moving through California’s legislature would allow city councils to override some zoning restrictions established by citizen-approved ballot measures in order to attempt to address the “severe shortage of housing at all income levels in this state,” states the bill. Jim Drummond is a longtime Yorba Linda resident. The 2,039-unit number for the prior 2008-13 period was similarly apportioned to include all income levels: 230 extremely low, 230 very low, 371 low, 412 moderate and 796 above moderate. Thus, the 669-unit allotment for the 2014-21 planning period includes 80 for the extremely low-income category, 80 very low income, 113 low income, 126 moderate income and 270 above-moderate income. The state-assigned housing numbers for Yorba Linda identify needs at all income levels, not just for low-income households as often stated. Nobody submitted statements against either measure, though Measure I is now under widespread attack. Measure H passed 8,477 to 5,474, and Measure I won 7,400 to 6,464, an endorsement coming from just 17 percent of registered voters.Ĭouncil members signing ballot arguments for Measure H were John Anderson, Tom Lindsey, Nancy Rikel and Jim Winder, while Anderson, Lindsey and Winder signed the arguments for Measure I. Indeed, only 14,547 Yorba Lindans cast ballots in the 2012 June primary, while 35,164 voted in November, a historically consistent ratio. Measure H would rezone two Savi Ranch parcels totaling six acres to allow up to 180 units, and Measure I would rezone nine westside properties totaling some 40 acres to allow up to 770 units. So, Measure H and Measure I were readied for a vote, with council choosing a June 2012 election over a November ballot, though the latter would have met state requirements. ![]() In this city, a public vote on major zoning changes is required under Measure B, adopted in 2006. The state’s mandate, of course, is that cities provide opportunities for the construction of affordable housing through amenable zoning rules, which usually means allowing higher densities on available vacant land. This and future columns will present pertinent information on events that led to the current conflict and demonstrate how an effort to satisfy a state mandate created so much turmoil. Much of Yorba Linda’s current political ruckus can be traced back to decisions the City Council made in late 2011 and early 2012 regarding two measures placed on the June 2012 primary election ballot – decisions that resulted in a fateful number of unintended consequences.Īnd the present campaign-style rhetoric surrounding those two-year-old council choices obscures central facts bearing on the city’s high-density and affordable housing debates. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |