Denham, LLC v. City of Richmond
volume_reporter_page_placeholder (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An amendment to a city's general plan, whether enacted by initiative or a legislative body, is invalid if it creates an internal inconsistency between different mandatory elements of the plan. When such an inconsistency is found, the proper remedy is to order the city to bring its general plan into compliance, not to invalidate the amendment itself.
Facts:
- Denham, LLC, Nikta, LLC, and Gray1 Forest Green, LLC owned property in the hills of Richmond, California.
- The City of Richmond's General Plan 2030 designated this property as 'Hillside Residential,' a classification allowing for single-family and multi-family housing at a density of up to five dwelling units per acre.
- A voter initiative, the 'Richmond Hills Initiative,' was proposed to amend the general plan by limiting development in the Richmond Hills area, which included the plaintiffs' properties.
- The initiative specifically amended the open-space element of the general plan to prohibit all residential development in the designated area.
- The initiative did not, however, amend the text or maps of the land use element, which continued to classify the affected properties as 'Hillside Residential.'
- The City Council of Richmond voted to adopt the initiative without alteration.
Procedural Posture:
- Denham, LLC, and Nikta, LLC, filed a petition for a writ of mandate against the City of Richmond in the Contra Costa County Superior Court (trial court).
- Gray1 Forest Green, LLC, intervened in the action as a petitioner.
- The Sierra Club intervened to defend the initiative.
- The trial court found the initiative created an impermissible inconsistency and entered a judgment issuing a writ of mandate that directed the City to vacate its adoption of the initiative.
- The Sierra Club appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a voter-enacted initiative that amends a city's general plan to prohibit residential development in a specific area create an impermissible internal inconsistency when the plan's land use element continues to designate that same area for residential use?
Opinions:
Majority - Tucher, J.
Yes, the initiative creates an impermissible internal inconsistency in the City's general plan. Under California Government Code § 65300.5, a general plan must be an 'integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.' Here, the initiative amended the open-space element to prohibit residential development, while the land use element continued to explicitly permit residential development on the very same property through the 'Hillside Residential' designation. These provisions are in direct conflict. The court rejected the argument that precedence clauses within the initiative could resolve this conflict, citing Marblehead v. City of San Clemente for the principle that no single element of a general plan may take precedence over another. Because different elements of the amended plan describe incompatible uses for the same property, the plan is impermissibly inconsistent.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strict requirement for internal consistency within a California municipality's general plan, extending the rule to amendments passed by voter initiative. It clarifies that drafting shortcuts, such as 'precedence clauses' that attempt to make one plan element superior to another, are invalid for resolving conflicts. Significantly, the court distinguished the remedy for internal plan inconsistency from the remedy for a zoning ordinance that conflicts with a general plan. Instead of voiding the democratically enacted initiative (which would be the remedy for a conflicting zoning ordinance), the court mandated that the city must cure the defect, thereby preserving the initiative's intent while forcing the city to create a coherent, legally compliant planning document.
