California Charter Schools Assn. v. City of Huntington Park

Summary

The City of Huntington Park enacted and extended an urgency ordinance 2016-950 under the authority of Government Code Section 65858 that imposed a temporary moratorium on the establishment of new charter schools within its borders. The ordinance contained Huntington Park's findings that a "current and immediate threat" to public health, safety, and welfare existed because Huntington Park had received "numerous inquiries and requests for the establishment and operation of charter schools" that may be incompatible with current land uses and the general plan. The California Charter Schools Association (Association) petitioned for writ of mandate seeking an order directing Huntington Park to invalidate approval of the ordinance. The trial court entered judgment denying the petition.

Reversed. Under Section 65858, "[T]he legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless the ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare." The Association contended no current and immediate threat of a new charter school application approval existed to justify the use of the police power, with the result that Huntington Park exceeded its authority in adopting the ordinance. "Current and immediate threat means that the approval of an entitlement or use is imminent, and so mere inquiries, requests, and meetings about a use do not meet the definition." Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. Superior Court. This court found that if processing a filed application does not pose a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare because no rights will vest imminently, then mere inquiries, requests, and meetings, preliminary to submitting a conditional use permit application, cannot possibly present that threat. Thus, ordinance 2016-950 was not valid under Section 65858.

— Natalie Avedisian