Opinion ID: 1160049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutionality of Evidence Code Section 669.5 as Applied to Initiative Ordinances

Text: (6a) Having found that Evidence Code section 669.5 applies to initiative measures, we must examine the constitutionality of such application. One might argue that section 669.5 is unconstitutional because legislation which permits council action but effectively bars initiative action may run afoul of the 1911 amendment [to the California Constitution which reserves the right of initiative on behalf of municipal voters]. ( Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 595.) (7) The 1911 amendment to the California Constitution, which provides for the initiative and referendum, [d]rafted in light of the theory that all power of government ultimately resides in the people, ... speaks of the initiative and referendum, not as a right granted the people, but as a power reserved by them. Declaring it `the duty of the courts to jealously guard this right of the people' ( Martin v. Smith (1959) 176 Cal. App.2d 115, 117 [1 Cal. Rptr. 307]), the courts have described the initiative and referendum as articulating `one of the most precious rights of our democratic process' ( Mervynne v. Acker [1961] 189 Cal. App.2d 558, 563 [11 Cal. Rptr. 340]). `[I]t has long been our judicial policy to apply a liberal construction to this power wherever it is challenged in order that the right be not improperly annulled. If doubts can reasonably be resolved in favor of the use of this reserve power, courts will preserve it.' ( Mervynne v. Acker, supra, 189 Cal. App.2d 558, 563-564; Gayle v. Hamm [1972] 25 Cal. App.3d 250, 258 [101 Cal. Rptr. 628].) ( Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 591, fn. omitted.) (6b) The 1911 amendment stated that This section is self-executing, but legislation may be enacted to facilitate its operation, but in no way limiting or restricting either the provisions of this section or the powers herein reserved. (Former Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.) (8) Referring to Associated Home Builders, we stated in Legislature v. Deukmejian (1983) 34 Cal.3d 658, 674-675 [194 Cal. Rptr. 781, 669 P.2d 17], that: That case did not hold ... that the power of initiative is not subject to the same limitations as is legislative action. Rather ... the court reaffirmed the understanding that the power of the people through the statutory initiative is coextensive with the power of the Legislature.... The court warned that a statute which made compliance with procedural requirements a prerequisite to enactment of local ordinances would be constitutionally suspect if applied to preclude enactment by initiative of an ordinance on a subject on which the city council could legislate. That decision does not, therefore, support the argument that the people may enact a statute which the Legislature has no power to enact. (6c) It does not appear that section 669.5's effect on initiative measures could be described as effectively barring initiative action. Section 669.5 places no procedural barriers on the ability of the electorate to legislate through the power of initiative. Section 669.5 simply requires that, if the electorate exercises its initiative power, the local government must bear the burden of showing that the ordinance is reasonably related to the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare of the affected population. Amicus San Clementeans for Managed Growth argues that section 669.5 substantially impairs the ability of the people to exercise initiative power because the proponents of the initiative would not have an effective way to defend it. Despite the fact that the city or county would have a duty to defend the ordinance, a city or county might not do so with vigor if it has underlying opposition to the ordinance. Furthermore, the proponents of the initiative have no guarantee of being permitted to intervene in the action, a matter which is discretionary with the trial court. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 387.) This argument would have merit if intervention was unavailable. But when a city or county is required to defend an initiative ordinance and, because of Evidence Code section 669.5, must shoulder the burden of proving reasonable relationship to public health, safety or welfare, we believe the trial court in most instances should allow intervention by proponents of the initiative. To fail to do so may well be an abuse of discretion. Permitting intervention by the initiative proponents under these circumstances would serve to guard the people's right to exercise initiative power, a right that must be jealously defended by the courts. (See Martin v. Smith, supra, 176 Cal. App.2d at p. 117.) City suggests that local governments might not be able to bear the burden of proof needed to sustain an initiative measure because they would not possess the necessary planning data. This suggestion largely ignores the reality of land use planning in this state. For example, prior to its adoption, Measure A was debated at public forums and in the newspapers. Over $107,000 was spent by proponents and opponents of Measure A in the campaign. The information generated by such campaigns can serve as data for the local government to use in defending the ordinance. In addition, cities are required by state law to develop a housing element as part of a general plan. This process develops additional and substantial data concerning housing within the city and the general area, all of which is readily available to the local government. Evidence Code section 669.5 will not impede the adoption of growth control ordinances. It simply shifts to the local government the burden of proving that the growth control ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare if the ordinance is challenged. Because local government is capable of carrying out the requirement of section 669.5, whether or not the growth control ordinance originated as an initiative measure, we conclude that no unconstitutional impediment of the initiative process occurs.