AgdaPkt 2002-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

While pursuant to State law, a specific plan need be consistent with a general plan, this case renders no support to appellant in this matter as it does not address any consistency requirement between a city's general plan and its zoning ordinance. In the City of Walnut Creek case, an initiative measure limiting municipal growth was challenged for among other reasons, that it was inconsistent with the city's general plan. One of the factual issues decided by the California Supreme Court was to find that the voters had viewed the measure as a zoning ordinance. The Court then held that the measure was invalid as Walnut Creeks' zoning ordinance must be consistent with its general plan as required by State law. However, in this instance, this case does not support appellant's argument, as State law has provided that zoning ordinances of charter cities are not required to be consistent with their general plans. (See, Gov't. Code § 65803 attached hereto as Exhibit "F.") This was the specific holding of Garat v. City of Riverside (1991) 2 Cai.App.4th 259,280 where the validity of two zoning initiative measures adopted by the city were challenged. There, the court stated, "Do a charter city's legislative zoning enactments have to be consistent with the provisions of its general plan? In direct answer to the question, no---but a charter city may elect to be consistent." Absent an express adoption by the city of a zoning enactment/general plan consistency requirement, which Redwood City has not adopted, there is no consistency obligation. 6. Definitions of "Business Retail" and "Business Wholesale" are Vague, Ambiguous and Uncertain Appellant agues that as there is no clear standard as to businesses being either retail or wholesale, it must be permitted to conduct its business within the CBR district. Again, the difficulty with appellant's argument is that it attempts to prove too much. Whether a business neatly falls within the general definition of "retail" is not the basis for finding a particular land use to be permitted within the CBR district. Article 28 has specifically designated the retail uses to be located within the CBR district. Appellant, citing Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, next argues that staff cannot impose upon a business a condition that it be open to the general public in order for it to be a permitted use within the CBR district when the condition has not been published or otherwise made publicly known. The Hermosa Beach case is inapposite as there the court found that the city council, in executing its adjudicatory functions, did not provide for a fair hearing when its determination was based upon information of which the parties were not apprised and which they had no opportunity to controvert. Here, the City's Zoning Administrator has made known his position that while such a condition is not expressly stated within PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL Council. Innovations 7