Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2017

Home

July 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 14 Zoning Bulletin "ML-Light Industrial" when the parcel's use designation was "Commercial.") Later, still, the City called for a special election to submit the referendum to voters, yet then filed a legal action in court to have the referendum "nullified as legally invalid and removed from the ballot." Again, the City claimed that the referendum was invalid because, if the electorate rejected the 0-2131, it would "create an inconsistency between the zoning for the parcel and the general plan's land use designation for the parcel." The City argued that the electorate's referendum power could not be used to reject 0-2131, because the City's discretion with respect to the zoning of the parcel was preempted by § 65860's mandate that the parcel's zoning be consistent with City's general plan. The Superior Court granted the City's mandate petition, removing from the ballot the Coalition's referendum challenging 0-2131. The court found that the City had established the "invalidity" of the referendum by showing that "the current zoning in question is inconsistent with the City's General Plan — and therefore presumptively invalid." The court ordered that the referendum be removed from the ballot and that 0-2131 be certified "as duly adopted and effective immediately . . .." The Coalition appealed. The Coalition maintained that a referendum that seeks to prevent a zoning change from taking effect does not create an incon- sistency with a general plan's land use designation, but instead only maintains. the "preexisting status quo." DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court reversed and matter re- manded with directions. The Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California, held that voters could validly utilize the power of referendum to reject a city's ordinance that chooses the method of making a parcel's zoning consistent with a general plan. In so holding, the court agreed with the Coalition's argument and rejected the City's argument. Again, the City had argued that the electorate's referen- dum power could not be used to reject 0-2131 because the City's discretion with respect to the zoning of the parcel was preempted by § 65860's mandate that the parcel's zoning be consistent with the City's general plan. In rejecting that argument, the court emphasized that § 65860 did not require the City to adopt 0-2131. Rather, said the court, § 65860 "preempted [the] City from enacting a new zoning that was inconsistent with the general plan, but it did not preclude [the] City from exercising its discretion to select one of a variety of zoning districts for the parcel that would be consistent with the general plan." Accordingly; the court concluded that since the City retained that discre- tion, § 65860 did not preclude the electorate from exercising its referendum power to reject City's choice of zoning district in 0-2131. In other words, the court found that the electorate's exercise of its referendum power to reject or approve the City's attempt to select a consistent zoning for the parcel did not seek to enact anything but "simply continued that permitted maintenance of inconsistent zoning." Since the City could have selected any of a number of consistent zoning districts to replace the parcel's inconsistent zoning, § 65860 did not preclude the City or the electorate from rejecting the one selected by the City in 0-2131. See also: Referendum Committee v. City of Hermosa Beach, 184 Cal. App. 3d 152, 229 Cal. Rptr: 51 (2d Dist. 1986). 4 ©2017 Thomson Reuters