Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek
802 P.2d 317, 277 Cal. Rptr. 1, 52 Cal. 3d 531 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning ordinance, whether enacted by a legislative body or by voter initiative, is invalid at the moment it is passed if it conflicts with the city's existing general plan. Such an ordinance cannot be considered an implicit amendment to the general plan unless the ballot materials clearly indicate an intent to amend the plan.
Facts:
- The general plan for the City of Walnut Creek was growth-oriented, explicitly designed to accommodate projected population growth.
- The general plan acknowledged that increased development would lead to greater traffic congestion, which drivers would have to accept.
- In November 1985, voters in Walnut Creek passed Measure H, a 'Traffic Control Initiative' that prohibited the construction of new buildings if traffic volume at key intersections reached a specific congestion ratio.
- At the time Measure H was passed, traffic volume at some of the designated intersections already exceeded the threshold that triggered the building moratorium.
- As a result of Measure H, the City of Walnut Creek imposed a moratorium on new construction for projects not already underway.
- The ballot materials for Measure H, including its title and the city attorney's analysis, did not state that the initiative was intended to amend the city's general plan.
Procedural Posture:
- Lesher Communications, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed a petition for a writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory relief in the trial court against the City of Walnut Creek.
- The trial court granted a peremptory writ of mandate, ruling that Measure H was invalid because it conflicted with the city's general plan.
- The City of Walnut Creek, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that although Measure H was inconsistent with the general plan, it should be construed as a valid amendment to the plan.
- The case was then brought before the Supreme Court of California for a final decision.
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 state planning law, which requires zoning ordinances to be consistent with a city's general plan, invalidate a voter-enacted initiative that conflicts with the general plan at the time of its passage?
Opinions:
Majority - Eagleson, J.
Yes. A voter initiative that functions as a zoning ordinance and is inconsistent with the city's general plan at the time of its adoption is invalid from the moment it is passed. The state's Planning and Zoning Law establishes the general plan as the charter for future development, to which all subordinate land use ordinances, including zoning ordinances, must conform. An initiative that conflicts with the general plan cannot be construed as an implied amendment to that plan unless the voters were given clear notice—in the title, summary, or other ballot materials—that they were voting to amend the plan. Here, Measure H was presented as a traffic control ordinance, not a general plan amendment. Because it was inconsistent with the growth-oriented policies of the general plan in effect at its passage, it was void ab initio, and subsequent amendments to the general plan cannot revive it.
Dissenting - Mosk, J.
The case should be dismissed as moot. The central legal controversy has been resolved because the City of Walnut Creek subsequently amended its general plan in 1989 to incorporate the provisions of Measure H, thus curing the inconsistency. By deciding the validity of an ordinance that has been superseded by a new, presumptively valid general plan, the majority is rendering an impermissible advisory opinion that fails to dispose of the actual ongoing controversy. The proper course is to allow any legal challenges to proceed against the 1989 general plan, rather than deciding a case that no longer presents a live controversy and provides no effective relief to the parties.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the supremacy of the general plan in California's land use regulatory hierarchy, establishing it as the foundational 'constitution' for local development. The ruling clarifies that the consistency doctrine applies equally to voter initiatives as it does to ordinances passed by a legislative body, preventing the use of initiatives to make piecemeal changes that undermine a city's comprehensive plan. By requiring clear notice to the electorate for an initiative to be considered a general plan amendment, the court protects the integrity of the planning process and ensures voters understand the full scope of their decisions. The case serves as a major check on the local initiative power in the context of land use planning.
