Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I z.g, April 25, 1997 -- Page 5 court to declare the .referendum results invalid. Since the specific plan conformed to the general plan and received the council's approval, the owners argued, the voters' decision to reject the proposals was unreasonable. It claimed the rejection of the referendums exceeded the city's police powers and violated its right to due process and equal protection of the law. (Chandis also made other claims not discussed in this summary.) The court granted the city's request for judgment without a trial, and Chandis appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The referendum outcome was valid and had to be upheld. The city council's approval of a plan did not guarantee enactment, nor did it eliminate the possibility the voters might reject it, which they did in this case. If the voters were obligated to support every city council decision, the process of having referendums would be meaningless. Chandis' due process and equal protection rights were not violated. Dana Point had the power to restrict development for the city's best interests, and the referendum vote was a part of that process. There was also nothing to suggest that the voters' decision was unreasonable. The property's nature and location and the number of provisions governing it, combined with the numerous public hearings and revisions, suggested the Headlands development was far from a foregone conclusion. Though the council approved the plan, it was just as easy to understand why the voters rejected it. Besides, the referendum did not permanently prevent development of the Headlands -- it just rejected one specific plan for the property. Del Oro Hills v. City of Oceanside, 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 677. Beck Development Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 518. Ordinance - Can council pass resolution that contradicts zoning ordinance? Paciera v. Parish of Jefferson, 685 So.2d 333 (Louisiana) 1996 Paciera owned property zoned r~sidential S-1 in Kenner, La., where he planned to excavate clay and build a fish pond. In February 1995, the Jefferson Parish Council passed a resolution to conduct a study and consider whether to eliminate clay extraction and borrow pit operations in S-1 districts. The resolution also included a year-long moratorium on clay-extraction activities. Two months later, the council adopted the resolution. However, the final resolution contained language that contradicted both the original resolution and the zoning ordinance, and said no moratorium would be in place while the zoning study was conducted. Normally, zoning-ordinance changes would require, at the least, a public hearing before the planning advisory board. In October 1995, Paciera got a permit to install the fish pond. Though Paciera's main purpose was to build the pond, it involved clay extraction, and