Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 18 <br />showed that legislative intent was to subject local initiatives to environ- <br />mental review under §§ 9111 or 9212 but not CEQA. <br />See also: DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d <br />699, 889 P.2d 1019 (1995). <br />Case Note: <br />The court noted that "[i]t is well established that CEQA compliance is not <br />required before a legislative body submits an initiative to voters [i.e., adopted at <br />an election] under § 9214(b). " <br />Case Note: <br />TJSBA had argued that direct adoption of a voter initiative without prior CEQA <br />review offended public policy as developers could potentially use the initiative <br />process to evade CEQA. The court rejected that argument, saying such concerns <br />were to be addressed by the Legislature and that voters had statutory remedies <br />(including referendum) if direct adoption of an initiative resulted in the enact- <br />ment of an undesirable law. <br />Procedural Requirements- <br />Residents seek to repeal zoning <br />a endments via initiative and <br />referendum <br />City contends initiatory process does not <br />apply to the adoption, amendment, or repeal <br />of individual zoning ordinances <br />Citation: In re Arnold, 2014 WL 3778188 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi <br />2014) <br />TEXAS (07/29/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether amend- <br />ments to prior zoning ordinances can be the subject of a referendum under <br />Texas law. <br />The Background/Facts: The Ingleside City Council (the "City <br />Council") enacted two sets of zoning amendments, which amended four <br />zoning ordinances and changed the zoning for certain real property. <br />Subsequently, five residents (the "Residents") sought public vote to <br />repeal the zoning amendments via initiative and referendum. City <br />2014 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />