DeBottari

DeBottari v. City Council

Good Law
171 Cal. App. 3d 1204·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2494·217 Cal. Rptr. 790
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 6, 1985E001608California2,645 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rickles, J.

Defendant Norco City Council (council) refused to submit a properly certified referendum petition to the voters on the ground that repeal of the challenged ordinances would result in a legally invalid zoning scheme. Plaintiff Louis A. deBottari, a resident and qualified voter of Nor-co, filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Riverside County to command the defendant either to repeal the ordinances or place the issue before the electors of Norco. The trial court entered judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The Attorney General appears as amicus curiae on behalf of plaintiff.

Considered together, the contentions of plaintiff and the Attorney General (hereinafter referred to jointly as plaintiff) are (1) that council had a mandatory duty either to repeal the ordinances or submit the issue to the voters, and (2) that council has failed to establish the “compelling showing” necessary to justify preelection judicial interference.

Facts

Howard Hanzlik (real party in interest) applied for a general plan amendment and zone change for certain property located in the City of Norco. The general plan amendment…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.