Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee v. Jumpers, LLC
122 Nev. Adv. Rep. 7, 122 Nev. 53, 128 P.3d 452 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A voter-approved growth initiative, if functioning as a zoning ordinance, is presumed valid and must substantially comply with a county's master plan, meaning it must be compatible with and not frustrate the master plan’s overall goals and policies, even if it is not in perfect conformity with every single provision.
Facts:
- The Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee (SGIC) formed to qualify an initiative to limit residential growth in Douglas County, Nevada, to ensure sustainable, managed development.
- The Sustainable Growth Initiative (SGI) was submitted and approved for the November 2002 ballot, proposing an amendment to the county's development code to limit new dwelling units to 280 per year, exclusive of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) area, except in disaster emergencies.
- The SGI passed with 53.22 percent of the total vote in November 2002.
- Several parties, collectively referred to as Jumpers, immediately filed an action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the SGI.
Procedural Posture:
- Immediately after the SGI passed, several parties (collectively Jumpers) filed an action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against Douglas County and the SGI.
- The Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee (SGIC) was permitted to intervene in the action.
- The district court granted Jumpers' application for a temporary restraining order against the SGI.
- Several other plaintiffs also filed actions against Douglas County seeking to enjoin the SGI's enactment; these actions were stipulated to be consolidated.
- The parties stipulated to bifurcate specific issues—the SGI’s consistency with the Master Plan, its facial validity, and implementability without violating state law—to be heard first on summary judgment.
- The district court heard the summary judgment motions in February 2003.
- The district court found the SGI inconsistent with the Douglas County Master Plan, granted summary judgment in favor of Jumpers and Douglas County, and denied the SGIC’s summary judgment motion, holding the SGI void ab initio.
- The district court also issued an advisory opinion that the SGI could not be implemented without violating Nevada Constitution Article 19 or NRS Chapter 295, as any county adoption would entail amending it.
- The district court certified its summary judgment order as final pursuant to NRCP 54(b).
- The SGIC moved for clarification on the constitutionality and amendment issues, which the district court denied, reiterating that the SGI's inconsistency with the Master Plan rendered the constitutionality issue moot.
- The SGIC appealed all three issues (Master Plan compliance, constitutionality, and need to amend the SGI) to the Supreme Court of Nevada, while Syncon Homes (Syncon) and Douglas County Building Industry Association (DCBIA) cross-appealed certain issues.
- Douglas County objected to parts of the appeal and cross-appeals, arguing jurisdictional defects, and moved to dismiss the appeal.
- The Nevada Supreme Court required the parties to show cause to correct jurisdictional defects, leading the district court to enter an amended order incorporating its prior summary judgment and clarification orders, reaffirming its basis for granting summary judgment, and declaring the constitutionality and amendment issues moot.
- Following the district court’s amended order, the Nevada Supreme Court denied Douglas County’s motion to dismiss and allowed the appeal to proceed.
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-approved initiative that limits annual residential dwelling units substantially comply with the county's master plan and is it facially constitutional, such that a district court's summary judgment finding of inconsistency and invalidity should be reversed?
Opinions:
Majority - Rose, C. J.
Yes, the voter-approved Sustainable Growth Initiative (SGI) substantially complies with the Douglas County Master Plan and is facially constitutional, thus reversing the district court's summary judgment. The court noted that while a zoning ordinance (which the SGI functions as) must be in substantial agreement with the master plan, it does not need to be in perfect conformity with every master plan policy. The relevant inquiry is whether the ordinance "is compatible with, and does not frustrate, the [master] plan’s goals and policies." The SGI's objective to control growth at approximately a 2 percent annual increase aligns with the Master Plan's recommended growth rate of 2 to 3.5 percent and its overall goals to enhance quality of life, protect natural resources (like water), and ensure orderly development. Despite specific inconsistencies cited by the district court, such as not explicitly tying the cap to hydrological studies or a capital improvements plan, the SGI's general aim to conserve resources and manage growth is consistent with the Master Plan's broader vision. Furthermore, the court found the SGI facially constitutional because its 280-unit cap was not arbitrarily derived (calculated from a 2% growth rate based on census data) and bore a rational relationship to legitimate state interests, such as protecting water resources and preserving the rural character of the community, consistent with established precedent that a zoning ordinance is presumed valid and unconstitutional only if 'clearly arbitrary and unreasonable.' The court also held that the SGI would not necessarily require amendment within three years, as the county could allocate the permits or offer incentives without altering the initiative itself.
Dissenting - Parraguirre, J., with whom Becker, J., agrees
No, the Sustainable Growth Initiative (SGI) is inconsistent with the Douglas County Master Plan and should be declared void. While acknowledging the importance of the initiative process, the dissent argues that the SGI disregards the comprehensive nature of the Master Plan by focusing solely on limiting growth, leading to unintended negative consequences. First, the SGI's rigid 280-unit cap, while initially within the Master Plan's recommended 2-3.5% growth rate, will cause the actual growth rate to fall below 2% in subsequent years as the population base grows, creating a glaring inconsistency. Second, the SGI frustrates the Master Plan's goal of maintaining an adequate supply of affordable housing, as fundamental economic principles dictate that drastically reducing the number of available housing permits (by almost 50% from the average) will increase housing prices. Third, the SGI fails to address the Master Plan's requirement for providing housing for senior citizens and the disabled, as it makes no provision for allocating permits to these specific needs amidst rising prices and reduced supply. Fourth, the SGI's lack of assurance for timely development of parcels risks crippling the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, which is crucial for preserving open space and preventing urban sprawl as envisioned by the Master Plan. Fifth, the SGI violates the Master Plan's procedure for enacting permit allocation systems by failing to adopt a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) beforehand. These inconsistencies, combined with the three-year prohibition on amending an initiative, make the SGI unworkable and incompatible with the Master Plan's comprehensive objectives.
Analysis:
This case underscores the delicate balance between direct democracy through voter initiatives and comprehensive land-use planning by local governments. It establishes a precedent for how courts should evaluate the 'substantial compliance' of such initiatives with existing master plans, emphasizing that flexibility and alignment with overall goals are more critical than perfect, line-item conformity. The ruling reinforces the presumption of validity for zoning enactments and the high bar for declaring them unconstitutional, particularly when they serve legitimate state interests like resource conservation and character preservation. Future cases will likely cite this decision when assessing the validity of similar growth control measures, requiring parties challenging such initiatives to demonstrate noncompliance to an extent that 'frustrates' the master plan's core vision, especially at the summary judgment stage.
