Capital Assets Financial Services owned twelve acres of property within the City of Saratoga Springs. In 2012, Capital Assets asked the city council to rezone its property from a low density to a medium density residential zone so that it could develop the land into seventy-seven “mansion style town homes.” The city council granted the request by enacting an ordinance rezoning the twelve acres of property. In response, a group of citizens circulated a petition to reverse the ordinance. After obtaining the required signatures, the group submitted the petition to the City and requested that the issue be placed on the ballot as a referendum. The city recorder determined that the petition complied with the requirements of Utah Code section 20A–7–601 and agreed to place it on the ballot.
Capital Assets then brought declaratory judgment action against city seeking determination that site-specific zoning action was not legislative action subject to referendum. The District Court entered judgment in favor of Capital Assets. Objectors petitioned for writ of extraordinary relief.
The Supreme Court of Utah held that:
- Statute permitting voter to challenge refusal to accept referendum petition applied;
- Petition for extraordinary relief was appropriate avenue for review; and
- Site-specific rezoning was legislative action subject to referendum.
Site-specific rezoning was legislative action, rather than administrative action, subject to referendum. Site-specific zoning effectively established a new law, and did not just implement one already in existence, as rezoning required the weighing of broad, competing policy considerations and resulted in a law of general applicability.