Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2018

Home

October 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 19 Zoning Bulletin On the other hand, Hotel Coalition argued that local electors can exercise their referendum power without conflicting with state law (Gov. Code § 65680), "at least where the local government could have chosen to comply with the gen- eral plan through other zoning designations." DECISION: Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed, and matter remanded. Agreeing with Hotel Coalition, the Supreme Court of California held that the people of a county or city can challenge by referendum a zoning ordinance that would bring the ordinance into compliance with the general plan of the county or city —at least where the local government has other means available to make the zoning ordinance and general plan consistent. In so holding, the court noted that California law —Gov. Code § Section 65860, subdivision (c)—contemplates some temporary inconsistency between the zoning ordinance and the general plan for a "reasonable time" when the general plan is modified. The court found that "[a] referendum simply keeps that inconsistency in place for a certain time —until the local government can make the zoning ordinance and general plan consistent in a manner acceptable to a majority of voters" Thus, held the court, "a referendum can invalidate a zoning ordinance amendment approved by a local jurisdiction to achieve compliance with a general plan amendment, where other general -plan - compliant zoning designations are available that would be consistent with a successful referendum." The court so found, concluding that, in such a case, the local jurisdiction would likely be able to change the zoning ordinance to comply with the general plan and the referendum within a reasonable time. Still, the court recognized that, in this particular case, it was "not clear" whether the City could use other available zoning designations for the Property that would be consistent with the general plan and a successful referendum. The City and River Park had argued that it was impossible for the City to comply with the general plan and a successful referendum. They argued that implement- ing a commercial zoning designation prohibiting hotels from being built on the Property would comply with the City's general plan but not the referendum. Alternatively, they argued that no commercial designation was available for the Property that prohibited hotel use. Such an impossibility in harmonizing the general plan and referendum would, they argued, trigger a one-year delay in implementing any commercial zoning designation under the state Elections Code § 9241. (Section 9241 states that if a referendum is successful, "the ordinance shall not again be enacted by the legislative body for a period of one year after the date of its . . . disapproval by the voters.") The City and River Park contended that the referendum would thus be invalid because a one-year delay would not comply with Government Code § 65680's "reasonable time" requirement. Understanding that argument, the court said it would only be an issue to resolve if the City and River Park had, in fact, shown it would be impossible for the City to comply with the general plan and a successful referendum, thus trig- gering the Elections Code one-year delay. But the court found that the City and River Park had failed to make such a showing. The court found is may still be possible for the City's general plan and the referendum to be harmonized — perhaps with one of the City's other commercial zoning designations applied to the Property and/or with City alteration of its general plan in response to the 10 © 2018 Thomson Reuters