Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 19 referendum. With regard to the latter possibility, the court noted that although an initiative instituting an invalid zoning ordinance cannot be used to alter a general plan, the court had not yet addressed the issue of whether § 65680 would require invalidation of a referendum where a county or city cannot change the zoning ordinance, but can alter the general plan to comply with the referendum and § 65680. Given those "unresolved questions," the court remanded to the trial court for it to determine "whether existing alternative zoning designations would be vi- able for the [P]roperty post[ -]referendum, and if not, what would prevent the City from creating a new zoning designation that would be consistent with both the general plan and a successful referendum." The court noted that, if there was "at least some avenue for the City to change the zoning ordinance to comply with the general plan within a reasonable time, the referendum must go forward as there has been no `clear showing of invalidity.' " Case Note: In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court of California found "no sign" that the California Legislature contemplated preemption of local electors' referendum power ap- plication against objectionable zoning ordinance alterations. Case Note: In remanding the matter to the trial court, the Supreme Court of California noted that, "[i]f necessmy, the trial court may also address whether a referendum can be invali- dated where the City has the ability to amend the general plan in order to conform the plan to the zoning designation that the referendum would leave in place." Case Note: In its holding here, the Supreme Court of California disapproved of the reasoning in the related decisions in deBottari v. City Council, 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 217 Cal. Rptr. 790 (4th Dist. 1985) (disapproved of by, City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey, 5 Cal. 5th 1068, 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 835, 423 P.3d 960 (Cal. 2018)) and City of Irvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment, 25 Cal. App. 4th 868, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 797 (4th Dist. 1994) (disap- proved of by, City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey, 5 Cal. 5th 1068, 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 835, 423 P.3d 960 (Cal. 2018)). Zoning News from Around the Nation CALIFORNIA In late August 2018, the California State Senate passed AB 2923, which would give the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (`KART") the authority to cre- © 2018 Thomson Reuters 11