Krejci v. City of Saratoga Springs
322 P.3d 662
Utah2013Background
- Capital Assets Financial Services owns about 12 acres in Saratoga Springs and sought a rezoning from low to medium density to develop 77 townhomes.
- The city council granted the rezoning; a citizens’ referendum petition was circulated and placed on the ballot after the city recorder found it valid under Utah Code section 20A-7-601.
- Capital Assets sued in the Fourth District challenging the referendum as an improper use of executive/administrative power rather than legislative action.
- The district court held the site-specific rezoning administrative and enjoined ballot placement; the city removed the referendum.
- Petitioners sought an extraordinary writ under Utah Code 20A-7-607(4)(a); Capital Assets moved to intervene and defended the district court’s ruling.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted intervention, accepted the petition, and ordered the city to place the referendum on the November 2013 ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of 20A-7-607(4)(a) to post-order refusals | Petitioners argue the statute covers all refusals by a local clerk, even after a court order. | Capital Assets contends the statute does not apply when the basis is a court-directed action or exception. | Statute applies to all refusals; petitioners may seek extraordinary relief. |
| Standing to seek extraordinary relief without district court intervention | Petitioners had no opportunity to appeal and should be permitted to seek relief directly. | Capital Assets argues lack of intervention precludes standing to press the writ. | Outsiders may seek extraordinary relief where no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy exists. |
| Whether site-specific rezoning is legislative or administrative | Site-specific rezoning creates generally applicable law and weighs broad policy factors, thus legislative. | Previous precedents treated site-specific rezoning as administrative and non-referable. | Site-specific rezoning is a legislative act subject to referendum. |
| General applicability and weighing of policy in determining legislative character | General applicability and broad policy weighing indicate legislative function under Carter. | The action resembles administrative decisions like variances and CUPs. | Rezoning creates generally applicable law and involves broad policy weighing; legislative in nature. |
| Effect of Carter and overruling Bird/Wilson on site-specific rezoning | Carter supports treating rezoning as potentially legislative; Bird/Wilson are outdated. | Bird/Wilson remain controlling precedent. | Bird v. Sorenson and Wilson v. Manning are overruled; site-specific rezoning can be legislative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Lehi City, 269 P.3d 141 (Utah, 2012) (defines legislative power and hallmarks; distinguishes legislative vs. executive actions)
- Carter v. Lehi City, 2012 UT 2 (Utah Supreme Court, 2012) (analysis of site-specific zoning and bright-line rules)
- Bird v. Sorenson, 394 P.2d 808 (Utah, 1964) (site-specific rezoning treated as administrative (overruled))
- Wilson v. Manning, 657 P.2d 251 (Utah, 1982) (upheld administrative treatment of certain zoning decisions (overruled))
- Society of Professional Journalists v. Bullock, 743 P.2d 1166 (Utah, 1987) (concerns standing and potential for writs to bypass appeals)
- Carpenter v. Riverton City, 103 P.3d 127 (Utah, 2004) (discusses limitations on extraordinary writ when other remedies exist)
- Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313 (Supreme Court, 1971) (due process principles on preclusion and standing)