Court rulings on local efforts to manage growth by initiative and referendum in California

Driker, 1990, Managing growth in Oakland county and southeastern Michigan, Planning and Zoning News, Vol 8, 7 Orman, 1984, Ballot-box planning: the boom in electoral land-use planning, Vol 25, 1 Glickfeld, 1987, Trends in local growth control ballot measures in California, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol 6, 111 Glickfeld, 1987, Trends in local growth control ballot measures in California, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol 6, 113 Fulton, 1989, As growth problems cross local boundaries, more states begin to act, Planning and Zoning News, Vol 7, 17 Orman, 1984, Ballot-box planning: the boom in electoral land-use planning, Vol 25, 1 Glickfeld, 1987, Trends in local growth control ballot measures in California, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol 6, 111 Melious, 1988, Growth management by local initiative: “grass roots” planning in California, Land Use Law and Zoning Digest, Vol 40, 3, 10.1080/00947598.1988.10395129 Curtin, 1989, Growth management by the initiative in California: legal and practical issues, The Urban Lawyer, Vol 6, 491 Caves, 1990, Determining land use policy via the ballot box: the growth initiative blitz in California, Land Use Policy, 70, 10.1016/0264-8377(90)90056-5 Orman, 1984, Ballot-box planning: the boom in electoral land-use planning, Vol 25, 1 Melious, 1988, Growth management by local initiative: “grass roots” planning in California, Land Use Law and Zoning Digest, Vol 40, 3, 10.1080/00947598.1988.10395129 Caves, 1990, Determining land use policy via the ballot box: the growth initiative blitz in California, Land Use Policy, 70, 10.1016/0264-8377(90)90056-5 Orman, 1984, Ballot-box planning: the boom in electoral land-use planning, Vol 25, 2 Caves, 1990, Determining land use policy via the ballot box: the growth initiative blitz in California, Land Use Policy, 70, 10.1016/0264-8377(90)90056-5 Cronin, 1980, Initiatives and referendum: the pros and cons of popular initiatives, 69 Cronin, 1980, Initiatives and referendum: the pros and cons of popular initiatives, 69 Buck, 1980, Eastlake, v Forest City enterprises: a comment, 91 Settle, 1983, Washington Land Use and Environmental Law and Practice, 34 Glenn, 1980, State law limitations on the use of initiatives and referenda in connection with zoning amendments, 75 Glenn, 1980, State law limitations on the use of initiatives and referenda in connection with zoning amendments, 34 Buck, 1980, Eastlake, v Forest City enterprises: a comment, 91 Hartzer, 1980, Eastlake v Forest City Enterprises: a comment, 88 See the following cases for examples of court rulings that have employed the compatibility and characterization analyses to limit the use of initiatives and referenda to legislate local growth control: Dewey v Doxey-Layton Realty Co (1954/Supreme Court of Utah) 277 P.2d 805 for invalidation of an initiative on compatibility grounds; Kelly v John (1956/Supreme Court of Nebraska) 75 N.W.2d 717 for refusal to allow a referendum on characterization grounds; Bird v Sorensen (1964/ Supreme Court of Utah) 395 P.2d 808 for refusal to allow a referendum on characterization grounds; City of Scottsdale v Super/or Court (1968/Supreme Court of Arizona) 439 P.2d 290 for denial of the right to use an initiative on compatibility grounds; Smith v The Township of Livingston (1969/ Supreme Court of New Jersey) 257 A.2d 698 for prohibition of the right to rezone by initiative on compatibility grounds; Elliot v City of Clawson (1970/Michigan Court of Appeals) 175 N.W.2d 821 for refusal to permit a referendum on compatibility grounds; West v City of Portage (1974/ Michigan Court of Appeals) 221 N.W.2d 303 for denial of the right to utilize a referendum on characterization grounds; Leonard v City of Bothell (1976/Supreme Court of Washington) 557 P.2d 1306 for denial of the right to employ a referendum on both compatibility and characterization grounds. Dwyer v City Council of Berkeley, 200 Cal 505, 253 P. 932. Hurst v City of Burlingame, 207 Cal 134, 277 P. 308. San Diego Building Contractors Association v City Council of the City of San Diego, 13 Cal 3d 205, 529 P.2d 570, 118 Cal Rptr 146. San Diego Building Contractors Association v City Council of the City of San Diego, 13 Cal 3d 205, 529 P.2d 570, p 578. The majority opinion in San Diego did refer to ‘administrative’ zoning decisions such as the grant of a variance or the award of a conditional use permit as being adjudicatory in nature, p 574. Associated Home Builders of the Greater Eastbay, Inc v City of Livermore, 18 Cal 3d 582, 557 P.2d 473, 135 Cal Rptr 41. Associated Home Builders of the Greater Eastbay, Inc v City of Livermore, 18 Cal 3d 582, p 582. Arnel Development Company v City of Costa Mesa, 28 Cal 3d 511, 169 Cal Rptr 904, 620 P.2d 656. Arnel Development Company v City of Costa Mesa, 28 Cal 3d 511, p 514. Arnel Development Company v City of Costa Mesa, 28 Cal 3d 511, p 514. Arnel Development Company v City of Costa Mesa, 28 Cal 3d 511, p 523. Citing Hamer v Town of Ross (1963) 59 Cal 2d 776, 781 [31 Cal Rptr 335, 382 P.2d 375). See Arnel Development Company v City of Costa Mesa (1981) App, 178 Cal Rptr 723. deBottari v Norco City Council, 217 Cal Rptr 790. Building Industry Associatiion of Southern California, Inc v The City of Camarillo, 41 Cal 3d 810, 226 Cal Rptr 718 P.2d 68. Committee of Seven Thousand v The Superior Court of Orange County, 221 Cal Rptr 616, 247 Cal Rptr 362.