Lawndale Referendum Sought on Voter Approval of City’s General Plan

The Lawndale Planning Commission will ask the City Council to hold a citywide referendum in November on a much-debated ordinance that requires the city to submit its General Plan to a vote of the electorate.

The City Council is expected at its March 16 meeting to decide whether to put the controversial law, known as Ordinance 82, on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Ordinance 82 was adopted by the City Council in 1963 in response to a successful petition drive. It requires the city to seek voter approval for Lawndale’s General Plan, a formal document that sets forth the city’s development goals and development guidelines.

If there is a vote in November and Ordinance 82 is approved, the General Plan could go before the voters in April, 1990.

Although it was adopted in 1963, Ordinance 82 was never followed because the state attorney general’s office in 1974 issued an opinion stating that the law was unconstitutional. Relying on that opinion, the City Council in 1976 adopted the city’s first General Plan by a 4-1 vote. It did not go before the electorate.

In the past year, Lawndale activists Steve Mino and Herman Weinstein have challenged the 1974 state ruling, saying that a legal opinion cannot overturn a law adopted by initiative.

Mino and Weinstein urged city officials to seek a re-evaluation by the state. They were elated when, in December, state legal officials reversed themselves and issued a finding that the 1974 opinion was “erroneous.”

The December opinion, written by Deputy Atty. Gen. Rodney O. Lilyquist, has broad implications that could affect all development in Lawndale, according to City Atty. David J. Aleshire.

“Ultimately, we believe this issue must be resolved either through the courts or through the ballot box,” Aleshire said in a 15-page analysis prepared for the Planning Commission’s meeting Wednesday night.

The new opinion raises a number of significant legal and practical questions, including whether voters today would agree with the thrust of the 1963 petitions, Aleshire said. “It is unclear whether Ordinance 82, which was never voted upon (by the electorate), would reflect the political sentiments of Lawndale residents today,” he said.

Also at issue, Aleshire said, is whether Lawndale has a valid General Plan since it was not adopted by the electorate. State officials have declined to express an opinion on that, Aleshire said.

In his memo to the commission, Aleshire argued that the four-year time limit for residents to challenge the plan has expired. “Applicable statutes of limitations bar any challenges to the 1976 General Plan,” he said.

Mino, in an interview Thursday, said he supports the Planning Commission’s recommendation that Ordinance 82 be placed on the Nov. 7 ballot.

He said he does not oppose the plan itself, but believes residents should be able to vote on whether to adopt it. He said plan changes such as variances and zone exceptions are made too readily by the council, and should also be subject to a citywide vote.

City officials and residents generally agree that, as Aleshire said, the 1976 plan “is out-of-date and needs major revision.”

A series of hearings should be held to solicit public comment and help achieve community consensus on development goals, said Gary McDonald, chairman of the Planning Commission.

Revised General Plan

Regardless of the outcome on Ordinance 82--whether or not the General Plan is subject to voter approval--the city should proceed as rapidly as possible in updating the General Plan, McDonald said.

If the council puts Ordinance 82 on the November ballot and voters ratify it, a revised General Plan could be ready for voter consideration in April, 1990, McDonald said.

It could cost as little as $5,000 to put Ordinance 82 on the Nov. 7 ballot, which also will list local school district candidates, he said. But if each resident is to be provided a copy of the voluminous General Plan, the city’s costs could mount to as much as $200,000, he said.

The commission Wednesday ducked the question of whether amendments to a future General Plan, or to the General Plan adopted in 1976, should go to voters.

The recent state opinion said that Ordinance 82 does not contain a requirement for a citywide vote on plan amendments.

In an attempt to cover amendments, Aleshire drafted a proposed ordinance that would require a vote of the electorate on “major” plan changes, which he defined as those that would affect more than five properties or a substantial part of any portion of the plan.

But the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to reject the proposal. Now the City Council must decide whether plan amendments should be submitted to the electorate. This would be a cumbersome process that could drastically slow down development in Lawndale, Aleshire said.