Tuolumne Jobs & Small Bus. Alliance v. Superior Court of Tuolumne Cnty.
| Decision Date | 07 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. S207173.,S207173. |
| Parties | TUOLUMNE JOBS & SMALL BUSINESS ALLIANCE, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Tuolumne County, Respondent; Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Real Parties in Interest. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Herum Crabtree, Brett S. Jolley, Stockton; Dongell Lawrence Finney and John A. Lawrence, Los Angeles, for Petitioner.
Briggs Law Corporation, San Diego, Cory J. Briggs and Mekaela M. Gladden for CREED–21 as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Trevor A. Grimm, Los Angeles, Jonathan M. Coupal and Timothy A. Bittle, Sacramento, for Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent and Real Parties in Interest.
K & L Gates, Edward P. Sangster, Sacramento, Megan Cesare–Eastman, Daniel W. Fox, San Francisco, for Real Party in Interest Wal–Mart Stores, Inc.
Roger A. Brown, Sonora; Rutan & Tucker, Costa Mesa, John A. Ramirez, Robert S. Bower and Peter J. Howell for Real Party in Interest James Grinnell.
Richard Matranga, City Attorney, for Real Party in Interest City of Sonora.
Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai, San Francisco, Randy Riddle and Ivan Delventhal for League of California Cities as Amicus Curiae in behalf of Real Party in Interest City of Sonora.
Benbrook Law Group, Sacramento, Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay for Citizens in Charge as Amicus Curiae in behalf of Real Parties in Interest.
M. Reed Hopper and Anthony L. Francois for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae in behalf of Real Parties in Interest.
When a city council receives a voter initiative petition meeting Elections Code requirements, it must do one of three things: (1) adopt the initiative without alteration; (2) submit it to a special election; or (3) order an abbreviated report on the initiative. Upon receipt of the report, it must then either adopt the initiative or hold a special election. ( Elec.Code, § 9214.)1 Several cases have held that provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. ) do not apply to land use initiatives proposed by voters and adopted at an election. In such cases, the abbreviated report provided for in the Elections Code furnishes the exclusive means of obtaining environmental review. (See, e.g., DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 793–795, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 699, 889 P.2d 1019 (DeVita ); Stein v. City of Santa Monica (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 458, 461–462, 168 Cal.Rptr. 39 (Stein ).)
The question here is whether the result should be different if a city chooses to directly adopt a voter-sponsored initiative rather than hold a special election. The Court of Appeal distinguished between these two courses of action and held that a city may not adopt a voter initiative with potential environmental impacts unless it conducts a full CEQA analysis. The language and legislative history behind the Elections Code statutes do not support this interpretation. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed.
The relevant facts are undisputed. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal–Mart) operates a 130,166–square–foot store in the City of Sonora (City). In 2007, Wal–Mart sought to expand its store by approximately 27,491 square feet. The new Wal–Mart "Supercenter" would sell groceries and be open 24 hours every day. In December 2009, the City circulated for public comment a draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the expansion. After a hearing, the City's planning commission unanimously recommended that the EIR be certified and the project approved.
Less than a week later, before the project was called for a vote, the City Council (Council) was served with a notice of intent to circulate an initiative petition. The "Wal–Mart Initiative" proposed to adopt a specific plan for the contemplated expansion. Its apparent purpose was to streamline approval for construction and operation of the Supercenter. The Council postponed its vote while the initiative petition circulated. The petition was ultimately signed by over 20 percent of the City's 2,489 registered voters.
On September 20, 2010, the Council ordered that a section 9212 report be prepared to examine the initiative's consistency with previous planning commission approvals for the Wal–Mart expansion. At its next meeting, the Council considered this report and countervailing arguments. After weighing its options, the Council adopted the ordinance.
The Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance (TJSBA) then sought a writ of mandate based on four causes of action. The petition's first claim, which is the subject of this appeal, asserted that the Council violated CEQA by adopting the ordinance without first conducting a complete environmental review. TJSBA also challenged the validity of the initiative itself, on the grounds that it conflicted with the City's general plan, improperly limited the City's legislative power, and was impermissibly administrative, rather than legislative, in nature.
Wal–Mart, the City, and initiative proponent James Grinnell demurred. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to all causes of action except TJSBA's claim that the initiative improperly conflicted with the general plan. TJSBA challenged these adverse rulings by writ petition in the Court of Appeal. That court granted the writ as to the first cause of action, holding that when a land use ordinance is proposed in a voter initiative petition, full CEQA review is required if the city council adopts the ordinance rather than submitting it to an election. It expressly disagreed with the only published authority on point, Native American Sacred Site & Environmental Protection Assn. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 961, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 146. We granted review.
This case explores the intersection between the constitutional power of voters to enact laws by initiative and the environmental review generally required for laws potentially having a significant environmental impact. Because we must decide a city government's obligations in adopting a land use initiative proposed by voters,2 we begin our analysis with the laws governing initiatives.
In 1911, Californians amended our Constitution, reserving to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum. ( Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1 ; Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 591, 135 Cal.Rptr. 41, 557 P.2d 473 (Associated Home Builders ).)3 Voter initiatives have been compared to a " ‘legislative battering ram ’ " because they " ‘may be used to tear through the exasperating tangle of the traditional legislative procedure and strike directly toward the desired end.’ " ( Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 228, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281.) In light of the initiative power's significance in our democracy, courts have a duty " ‘to jealously guard this right of the people’ " and must preserve the use of an initiative if doubts can be reasonably resolved in its favor. ( Associated Home Builders, at p. 591, 135 Cal.Rptr. 41, 557 P.2d 473 ; see Amador Valley, at p. 248, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281.)
The Legislature was authorized to establish procedures for city and county voters to exercise their right of initiative. ( Cal. Const., art. II, § 11 ; Associated Home Builders, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 591, 135 Cal.Rptr. 41, 557 P.2d 473.) It has done so. In contrast to statewide initiatives, which may be placed directly on the ballot, the Legislature created an indirect process for city and county initiatives. These can only be submitted to voters if they have been presented to, but not enacted by, the local legislative body. ( Thompson v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 555, 561, 225 Cal.Rptr. 640.) (Ibid., fn. omitted.)
The procedures for municipal voter initiatives are found in section 9200 et seq.4 Under section 9214,5 when a local body receives an initiative petition signed by at least 15 percent of the city's registered voters, it must: (1) adopt the initiative, without alteration, within 10 days after the petition is presented; (2) immediately submit the initiative to a vote at a special election; or (3) order a report pursuant to section 9212. The report may examine the proposed initiative's effects on land use, infrastructure, and "[a]ny other matters the legislative body requests" be included. ( § 9212, subd. (a)(8).) If ordered, the report must be prepared and presented within 30 days after the petition was certified as satisfying the signature requirement. ( § 9212, subd. (b).) Within 10 days after receiving the report, the legislative body must either adopt the ordinance or order an election pursuant to section 9214(b). ( § 9214(c).)
It is well established that CEQA compliance is not required before a legislative body submits an initiative to voters under section 9214(b). (See DeVita, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 793–795, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 699, 889 P.2d 1019 ; Stein, supra, 110 Cal.App.3d at p. 461, 168 Cal.Rptr. 39.) The question here is whether the result should be different in the direct adoption context. That is, must the legislative body obtain full CEQA review before it may directly adopt a voter initiative under section 9214(a) ? The answer is no. Because CEQA review is contrary to the statutory language and legislative history pertaining to voter initiatives, and because policy considerations do not compel a different result, such review is not required before adoption of a voter initiative. A section 9212 report is the exclusive means for assessing the potential environmental impact of such initiatives.
To continue reading
Request your trial