DeVita v. County of Napa

• Decision Date: 06 March 1995
• Docket Number: No. S037642,S037642
• Citation: 889 P.2d 1019,38 Cal.Rptr.2d 699,9 Cal.4th 763
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 889 P.2d 1019 Richard M. DeVITA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF NAPA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Page 699

38 Cal.Rptr.2d 699

9 Cal.4th 763, 889 P.2d 1019

Richard M. DeVITA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF NAPA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. S037642.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

March 6, 1995.

Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong, Mark L. Armstrong, Patricia E. Curtin and Charles A. Klinge, Danville, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, Stanislaus, E. Vernon Seeley, Asst. County Counsel, Victor J. Westman, County Counsel, Contra Costa, Ronald A. Zumbrun, James S. Burling, Edward J. Connor, Jr., Sacramento, Nossaman, Gunther, Knox & Elliott, Alvin S. Kaufer, Winfield D. Wilson, Los Angeles, Morrison & Foerster, David A. Gold, Arturo J. Gonzalez, R. Clark Morrison, J. Michael Stusiak, Gregory B. Caligari, Walnut Creek, Latham & Watkins, Robert K. Break, Allen D. Haynie and David A. Twibell, Costa Mesa Robert Westmeyer, County Counsel, Margaret Woodbury, Chief Deputy County Counsel, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Mark I. Weinberger, Rachel B. Hooper and Christy H. Taylor, San Francisco, for defendants and respondents.

[889 P.2d 1023] as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiffs and appellants.

Susan L. Goodkin, Ventura, Roy Gorman, Oakland, Daniel P. Selmi, Los Angeles, Myers, Widders & Gibson and Katherine E. Stone, Ventura, as amici curiae on behalf of defendants and respondents.

MOSK, Justice.

In November of 1990, the voters of Napa County enacted Measure J, an initiative that amends the land use element of the county's general plan to preserve agricultural land. Measure J made the redesignation of existing agricultural land and open space essentially conditional on voter approval, with certain exceptions, until the year 2021. The questions before the court are whether a county's general plan can be amended by an initiative of the county's electorate acting pursuant to article II, section 11 of the California Constitution, and whether the electorate can properly impose the 30-year voter approval requirements provided in Measure J. We conclude that the statutory provisions governing local planning, Government Code sections 65100-65763 (planning law), do not prohibit the exercise of the initiative power to amend the land use element of a general plan. Moreover, Elections Code section 9111 ¹ specifically allows for such amendment. We further find no statutory or constitutional defect in Measure J's voter approval provisions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal upholding Measure J.

I. FACTS

The material facts are not in dispute. County voters approved Measure J at the November 6, 1990, election. By its terms, the initiative confirms and readopts, until the year 2021, existing portions of the land use element of the general plan that designate land as either "Agricultural, Watershed and Open Space" or "Agricultural Resource" land (agricultural land). Moreover, Measure J readopts certain general plan policies regarding minimum parcel size and maximum building densities. Measure J also adds a new subsection 9 to the "Land Use Element," providing that until December 31, 2020, the provisions of the general plan and map readopted by Measure J can be amended only on a vote of the people, except that the land can be redesignated: (1) in conjunction with its annexation to a city; (2) after the board of supervisors makes certain specified findings, including that the land is physically unusable for agriculture, that it is unlikely to be annexed in the future, and that the proposed use of the land is compatible with agriculture; (3) to accommodate the siting of a solid waste disposal facility; or (4) to avoid an unconstitutional taking of property.

On March 6, 1991, Richard M. DeVita and four other Napa County residents, as well as the Building Industry Association of Northern California, a nonprofit association, and Security Owners Corporation, Inc., a California corporation (hereafter collectively plaintiffs), filed a complaint and petition for writ of mandate against Napa County and its Board of Supervisors (County) ² seeking a declaratory judgment that Measure J is invalid and a writ of mandate ordering the board of supervisors to cease enforcing the measure. The original complaint alleged, inter alia, that Measure J rendered the general plan internally inconsistent and that it violated state housing laws. When the case was tried in Napa County Superior Court, however, plaintiffs had abandoned all but two In its written decision, the trial court noted that there was "no evidentiary showing that the amendment either facially will result or as applied has resulted in any internal inconsistency between ... the amended Land Use Element ... and the other elements of the General Plan including the housing or circulation elements." The trial court then concluded that Measure J was a valid exercise of the initiative power, and denied plaintiffs all relief.

[889 P.2d 1024] claims: (1) that general plans could not be amended by initiative and (2) that the authority of future boards of supervisors to amend the general plan cannot be limited by mandatory voter approval requirements such as those found in Measure J. A hearing took place on June 12, 1992, with evidence received by way of stipulated facts and agreed-upon exhibits.

The Court of Appeal affirmed. It found that Elections Code section 9111 explicitly contemplated the amendment of general plans by initiative. The Court of Appeal also rejected various arguments by plaintiffs that the planning law had exclusively delegated the authority to amend the general plan to the board of supervisors. We granted review to resolve the important question of whether a general plan can be amended by initiative.

II. THE VALIDITY OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIATIVES

A. Statutory Framework and Case Law Background

We begin our discussion with a brief review of the planning law and its relation to the right of initiative. Although California law has prescribed that cities and counties adopt general or master plans since 1927 (Stats.1927, ch. 874, pp. 1899-1913), the general plan prior to 1972 has been characterized as merely an "interesting study," and no law required local land use decisions to follow the general plan's dictates. (City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521, 532, 160 Cal.Rptr. 907.) In 1971 several legislative changes were made to significantly alter the status of the general plan. For the first time, proposed subdivisions and their improvements were required to be consistent with the general plan (Gov.Code, § 66473.5 [formerly in Bus. & Prof.Code, § 11526] ), as were zoning ordinances (Gov.Code, § 65860). (Stats.1971, ch. 1446, §§ 2, 12, pp. 2855, 2858; City of Santa Ana, supra, 100 Cal.App.3d at p. 532, 160 Cal.Rptr. 907.) Moreover, charter cities were no longer completely exempted from the requirements of the planning law; these cities had to at least adopt general plans with the required mandatory elements. (Gov.Code, § 65700, subd. (a); Stats.1971, ch. 1803, § 2, p. 3904.) Thus after 1971 the general plan truly became, and today remains, a " 'constitution' for future development" (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540, 277 Cal.Rptr. 1, 802 P.2d 317 (Lesher Communications )) located at the top of "the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use" (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183, 203 Cal.Rptr. 401). ³

The general plan consists of a "statement of development policies ... setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals." (Gov.Code, § 65302.) The plan must include seven elements--land use, circulation, conservation, housing, noise, safety and open space--and address each of these elements in whatever level of detail local conditions require (id., § 65301). General plans are also required to be "comprehensive [and] long[ ]term" (id., § 65300) as well as "internally consistent." (Id., § 65300.5.) The planning law thus compels cities and counties to undergo the discipline of drafting Once a general plan is adopted, it may be amended by the legislative body (Gov.Code, § 65358, subd. (a)) ⁴ after undergoing a series of procedural steps (id., §§ 65351-65356). Government Code section 65351 provides that "[d]uring the preparation or amendment of the general plan, the planning agency shall provide opportunities for the involvement of citizens, public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings and any other means the city or county deems appropriate." Government Code section 65352 provides that, before the adoption or amendment of a general plan, the legislative body "shall" refer the proposed action to various public entities, although it also states that "[t]his section is directory, not mandatory...." Government Code sections 65353 and 65354 provide that the planning commission must hold "at least one" public hearing on any general plan amendment and makes its written recommendation to the legislative body. Government Code sections 65355 and 65356 then provide that the legislative body must hold at least one public hearing and by resolution either approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation. A role is also given in the general plan adoption and amendment process to the local planning agency, which is assigned the task to prepare, periodically review, and revise the general plan. (Id., § 65103, subd. (a).)

[889 P.2d 1025] a master plan to guide future local land use decisions.

The amenability of land use and planning measures, such as the general plan, to the power of initiative and referendum is not a novel issue in this state. We have held that zoning ordinances are subject to amendment by initiative (Arnel Development v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 516, 169 Cal.Rptr. 904, 620 P.2d 565; Associated Home Builders, Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) ...