Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Z.B. ~ March 1995 -- Page 5 Citizen~ Against Overdevelopment (ICAO) submitted a referendum petition to repeal t~is zoning change. The icity sued ICAO, asking the court to declare the referendum petition invalid because it would create an inconsistency between the city's general plan ancl the zoning ordinance. The lrial court declared the referendum invalid. ICAO aPpealed. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the city. The !eferendum was invalid because, if adopted, the zoning would become inconsistent with the general plan. The general plan set up building intensity and popglation density standards for the company's development. A repeal of the zoniOg change would reclassify that land as unsuitable for immediate devel- opment. !Therefore, the plan and zoning ordinance would be incompatible, in violatio~i of the consistency ordinance. The qity was allowed to sue because ICAO's petition challenged the validity of .~, its consli~tency ordinance and its authority over this land~ The state zoning , statute s [:onsistency requirement applied to the city because the city adopted it by ordin~tnce. Whe~ read together, the California Constitution and government code allowed the city t~ pre-zone the company's land and require compliance with city ordi- nances, ~ven though it was not yet within the city limits. If and when the city annexed .the land, the zoning would become effective. Lesh~r Communications Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 802 P. 2d 317 (1990). deBottari v. City Council, 217 Cal. Rptr. 790 (1985). Zoning ~hange m Neighbors of Rezoned Property Say Ordinance Is Unconstitutional West~ood Forum Inc. v. City of Springfield, 634 N.E.2d 1154 (Illinois) 1994 Before 1984, a certain 93-acre lot in the city of Springfield, II1., was zoned for single,family residential use. The Property was vacant, and it was bordered by two re~sidential subdivisions and a' shopping plaza containing a bank, gro- cery storo~, retail store, fast-food rest~iurants, and office buildings. The fourth property b~ oundary was a road, on the other side of which was a neighboring village. In 19~4, the city rezoned the property. The areas that bordered the residen- tial subdivisions remained zoned for single-family homes. However, the center area of the[ property was zoned for multifamily residences, auditoriums, librar- ies, museums, and radio and television stations. The area near the shopping plaza wasizoned for nonretail business and office uses. After ihe rezoning, the center area of the property was built into a retire- ment com~nunity. In 1991, the city adopted a new comprehensive plan that proposed finishing a road from the neighboring village to one of the neighbor- ing resideOtial subdivisions. The latadowner, First National Bank of Springfield, contracted to sell the land to de~elopers for a variety of business, commercial, and reSidential uses.