Murphy v. City of Alameda

Good Law
11 Cal. App. 4th 906·14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 329·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1438·92 Daily Journal DAR 16753·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10058
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 14, 1992A056245California2,436 words

Opinion

Opinion

Strankman, J.

Evidence Code section 669.5 requires that in any action challenging the validity of certain growth control ordinances, the city or county enacting the ordinance must bear the burden of proof that the ordinance is “necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare” of its population. The question in this appeal is whether section 669.5 is applicable in an action attacking a city charter amendment adopted by initiative and an ordinance implementing the amendment, both enacted before the effective date of the statute. We conclude that the statute applies, reverse the judgment, and remand for trial.

Factual and Procedural Background

In March 1973 the voters of the City of Alameda (the City) amended its charter with a policy declaration that no multiple dwelling units should be built in the City, except for the replacement of certain existing low-cost housing units and a proposed senior citizens low-cost housing complex. (Alameda City Charter, art. XXVI, §§ 26-1, 26-2.) The City Council implemented the charter amendment, which was commonly known as Measure A, by adding to the Municipal Code chapter 4 of title 11 (the ordinance). The ordinance defines the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.