A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge upheld the City of Morgan Hill’s bid to keep a citizen-initiated zoning measure off the June 7 ballot.
In a March 24 hearing, Judge Theodore Zayner heard arguments from the city and the Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition, the party that submitted a petition demanding the city council repeal its previous decision to zone a 3.39-acre parcel on the southeast corner of Madrone Parkway and Lightpost Way from Industrial to General Commercial. The petition, which was certified by City Clerk Irma Torrez in May 2015, contained the signatures of more than 4,000 Morgan Hill voters.
“The Court decided against the voters today,” MHHC attorney Asit Panwala wrote in a March 29 email to the Times, shortly after the judge issued his written decision.
Panwala added that on April 1 the MHHC, which represents six hotels in Morgan Hill, filed a notice of its intent to appeal Zayner’s decision.
The MHHC has argued that changing the property’s zoning, which has been zoned Industrial for several years, would deprive the local economy and residents of an opportunity to benefit from a future development that could bring high-paying jobs to Morgan Hill.
They also fear that the Madrone Parkway property’s owner—Riverpark Hospitality—will create a glut of hotel rooms in the struggling market by fulfilling its plan to build a new 149-room hotel on the site.
A string of council decisions that started in March 2015 with the 3-2 rezoning vote led to the current litigation. Riverpark Hospitality requested the rezoning. Prior to that decision, in November 2014, the council changed the property’s General Plan land use classification from Industrial to Commercial.
The MHHC circulated its petition asking the council to either repeal the March rezoning decision or put the question up to the voters. When presented with the petition and asked to make a decision in July 2015, the council declined to repeal the zoning or place it on a ballot, based on the advice of then-City Attorney Renee Gurza.
Then in January 2016, the MHHC sued the city for violating the state elections code by rejecting the certified, voter-initiated petition.
In February 2016, Interim City Attorney Gary Baum revisited the council’s original rejection of the petition. He recommended the council approve a ballot measure asking the voters if they wanted the Riverpark property to retain its original Industrial zoning, but at the same time challenge the measure in court.
The March 24 hearing was the deciding venue on that legal tussle over the measure, which became known as Measure D. If Judge Zayner’s decision withstands the MHHC’s appeal, the measure will not appear on the June 7 ballot.
The city’s legal representatives—including Gurza and Baum—have maintained that keeping the Riverpark property in its original Industrial zoning would be illegal because it would make the zoning inconsistent with the city’s General Plan.
The judge agreed, citing the 1985 case deBottari v. City Council as the precedent. Baum cited the same case in his argument supporting the city’s position.
“Were the voters to consider and approve (the General Commercial zoning), previously passed by the City Council, there would be no conflict as the proposed zoning would be consistent with the General Plan,” reads Zayner’s ruling in part. “However, were the voters to reject the ordinance, that would leave in place an inconsistent—and legally invalid—zoning designation.”
The MHHC and its attorneys argued that the city could have zoned the property another type of commercial other than General Commercial, which is the only designation in the Morgan Hill zoning code that allows a hotel. Another type of commercial use would have permitted a development that brings even more jobs and revenue to the local economy, according to the MHHC.
“It is very clear that the city took (its) position because they fear a lawsuit from the developer,” Panwala said. “I frankly don’t understand how the developer could possibly have a suit…(No) permits had been issued and certainly there could not have been an expectation that he would be able to build a hotel on industrial land when he bought it.”
The MHHC filed an appeal with the Sixth District Court of Appeal. “We feel the voters should be able to vote on this measure,” Panwala said.
