Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 19 subdivision (a).) Under that provision of law, any change to a zoning ordinance that would make it inconsistent with the general plan is invalid. River Park Hospitality, Inc. ("River Park") owned property (the "Property") that was zoned "Industrial" in the City of Morgan Hill (the "City"). River Park sought to develop a hotel on the Property. In furtherance of that development, in November 2014, the City amended its general plan to change the land use designation of the Property from "Industrial" to "Commercial." The specific zoning designation of the property—"ML-Light Industrial" —remained unchanged by the alteration of the general plan. Later, in April 2015, the City Council approved a zoning amendment (the "Ordinance") to change the Prope- rty's zoning designation to "CG-General Commercial." Subsequently, on May 1, 2015, Real Party in Interest Morgan Hill Hotel Co- alition ("Hotel Coalition") —supported by over 4,000 signatures —petitioned for a referendum challenging the Ordinance. After the referendum was certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the City Council directed the City Clerk to discontinue processing the referendum because it "would enact zoning that was inconsistent with" the City's general plan. The City pointed to state law, which provides that county or city zoning ordinances must be consistent with the gen- eral plan of the county or city. (See Gov. Code § 65860.) The City argued that because state law prohibits local governments and electors from enacting a zon- ing ordinance that is inconsistent with a general plan, the referendum here was invalid since it effectively caused the zoning ordinance to conflict with the gen- eral plan. In June 2016, the City sued the Registrar of Voters for Santa Clara County and the City Clerk. The City asked the court to order the referendum removed from the ballot and to certify the Ordinance. Agreeing with the City that the referendum would "enact" an invalid zoning ordinance that was inconsistent with the City's general plan, the trial court ordered the referendum removed from the ballot. Hotel Coalition appealed. • The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. The Court of Appeals dis- agreed with the argument that referendums are always invalid if they reject a zoning ordinance enacted by the local government to bring a property's zoning into compliance with the local government's general plan. Rather, the Court of Appeals held that, "in cases where multiple available zoning designations could comply with the general plan," a referendum rejecting the zoning change is ac- ceptable because the city or county could adopt another zoning designation that would be consistent with the general plan within a "reasonable time." (City of Morgan Hill, at p. 43, 218 Ca1.Rptr.3d 276, quoting § 65860, subd. (c).) The Court of Appeals noted that while state law favored simultaneous modification of the general plan and relevant zoning provisions (Gov. Code § 65862), that preference was not a requirement. In fact, the court noted that state law provided that in circumstances where the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with a general plan by reason of amendment to the plan, "the zoning ordinance shall be amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended." The City and River Park appealed. Again, they argued that the referendum here would "enact" an invalid zoning ordinance that was inconsistent with the City's general plan in violation of state law (Gov. Code § 65680). © 2018 Thomson Reuters 9