35 Cal. App. 5th 362
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Huntington Park, a small dense general-law city in Los Angeles County, received multiple inquiries and meetings about establishing charter schools but had no pending conditional use permit (CUP) applications.
- The city requires CUPs for charter schools but had no development standards for them in its municipal code.
- City staff reported traffic, parking, and noise impacts in neighborhoods where several schools cluster; a traffic task force had been created.
- In Sept. 2016 the City enacted a 45-day urgency moratorium (ordinance 2016-949) on establishing/approving charter schools under Gov. Code § 65858; in Oct. 2016 it extended the moratorium (ordinance 2016-950).
- The California Charter Schools Association petitioned for writ of mandate challenging the ordinances under § 65858, CEQA, and preemption; the trial court denied relief and the Association appealed.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether the city’s findings of a “proliferation” or “numerous inquiries and requests” for charter schools satisfied § 65858(c)’s requirement of a “current and immediate threat.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 65858(c) required an imminent/actual entitlement approval (a current and immediate threat) to justify an interim urgency moratorium | Mere inquiries, meetings, and requests do not show an imminent approval; § 65858(c) requires that approval of an entitlement be imminent | The city argued that a pattern of inquiries/proliferation and existing impacts justified a current and immediate threat without pending applications | Held: § 65858(c) requires more than preliminary inquiries; mere inquiries/requests are insufficient to show a current and immediate threat, so the ordinance was invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. Superior Court, 72 Cal.App.4th 1410 (1999) (interprets § 65858(c) to require imminent approval of an entitlement; mere processing or preliminary inquiries are insufficient)
- Crown Motors v. City of Redding, 232 Cal.App.3d 173 (1991) (approving ordinance where a use permit approval was imminent, supporting that imminence is the relevant inquiry)
- 216 Sutter Bay Associates v. County of Sutter, 58 Cal.App.4th 860 (1997) (explains general purpose of § 65858 to allow interim controls when immediate development threats exist)
- Selinger v. City Council, 216 Cal.App.3d 259 (1989) (distinguishes circumstances where an application was already effectively approved, showing urgency present when approval is imminent)