Opinion ID: 1351609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: general plan amendment

Text: The Planning and Zoning Law provides for adoption or amendment (§ 65356.1) of a general plan, following notice and at least one hearing, by resolution of the local planning commission (§ 65352) and endorsement reflecting its approval by resolution of the legislative body. (§§ 65353, 65357.) The legislative body's approval must also follow at least one noticed public hearing. (§ 65355.) Nevertheless, because adoption of a general plan is a legislative act, the people's reserved power of referendum (art. II, § 11) has been held to be applicable ( Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 570-571 [205 Cal. Rptr. 801, 685 P.2d 1152]) and both the initiative and referendum powers have been held applicable to zoning ordinances ( Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 516-517 [169 Cal. Rptr. 904, 620 P.2d 565]; Friedman v. City of Fairfax (1978) 81 Cal. App.3d 667, 672, fn. 5 [146 Cal. Rptr. 687]) notwithstanding similar procedural requirements which apply to the legislative body. This court has never considered whether a general plan may be adopted or amended by initiative. Several amici curiae argue that, because compliance with the numerous substantive provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law can be achieved only by a legislative body, that law preempts the local initiative power. [7] (2a) We need not address that issue here because we conclude that Measure H was not offered as, and may not be construed as, a general plan amendment. The Court of Appeal recognized that the courts must resolve all doubts in favor of the people's exercise of the initiative power and uphold the validity of an initiative wherever it is possible to do so. (See Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 591 [135 Cal. Rptr. 41, 557 P.2d 473, 92 A.L.R.3d 1038].) It found no significance in the fact that Measure H was not described in its title or in other ballot measures as an amendment to the general plan, but agreed with the trial court that the specificity and self-executing nature of Measure H resembled a zoning ordinance rather than a general plan provision. The court then considered whether those features would have rendered Measure H invalid as part of a general plan, concluding that notwithstanding the purpose of the general plan as a constitution for future development, a specific and self-executing provision would be permissible in a general plan. The Court of Appeal recognized inconsistencies between Measure H and other provisions of the general plan, but reasoned that the inconsistencies could be remedied by setting aside the internally inconsistent element. The judiciary, it held, could require legislative correction of the inconsistencies because section 65754, subdivision (a), requires local government to bring a general plan into compliance with the law when a court determines that an element is internally inconsistent. Finally, the Court of Appeal considered the omission of any statement in Measure H advising the voters that the initiative would amend the general plan. That was not fatal, the court held, because the profound duty of the courts to `jealously guard' the initiative process, the will of the Walnut Creek voters cannot be thwarted based on such a hypertechnicality. We need not consider whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that the courts may compel legislative action to eliminate internal inconsistencies in a general plan when the inconsistency is created by an amendment to an existing, valid plan. This question need not be addressed because we disagree with that court's characterization of the absence of advice to the voters that Measure H would amend the general plan as a hypertechnicality. (3) Although the initiative power must be construed liberally to promote the democratic process [citation] when utilized to enact statutes, those statutes are subject to the same constitutional limitations and rules of construction as are other statutes. ( Legislature v. Deukmejian (1983) 34 Cal.3d 658, 675 [194 Cal. Rptr. 781, 669 P.2d 17].) The same is true when a local initiative is at issue. (4) We cannot at once accept the function of a general plan as a constitution, or perhaps more accurately a charter for future development, and the proposition that it can be amended without notice to the electorate that such amendment is the purpose of an initiative. [8] Implied amendments or repeals by implication are disfavored in any case ( Flores v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 171, 176 [113 Cal. Rptr. 217, 520 P.2d 1033]), and the doctrine may not be applied here. The Planning and Zoning Law itself precludes consideration of a zoning ordinance which conflicts with a general plan as a pro tanto repeal or implied amendment of the general plan. The general plan stands. A zoning ordinance that is inconsistent with the general plan is invalid when passed ( deBottari v. City Council (1985) 171 Cal. App.3d 1204, 1212 [217 Cal. Rptr. 790]; Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal. App.3d 698, 704 [179 Cal. Rptr. 261]) and one that was originally consistent but has become inconsistent must be brought into conformity with the general plan. (§ 65860.) The Planning and Zoning Law does not contemplate that general plans will be amended to conform to zoning ordinances. The tail does not wag the dog. The general plan is the charter to which the ordinance must conform. Therefore, we necessarily reject Walnut Creek's suggestion that an intent to amend the general plan may be inferred from the very inconsistencies which under the Planning and Zoning Law invalidate the ordinance. (2b) We also reject Walnut Creek's argument that because Measure H could function as a general plan amendment by setting out objectives, principles and standards for future development, thereby serving a general planning function, it may be considered such. Measure H, on its face, regulates land use. As such it resembles a zoning ordinance, not simply a statement of policy to govern future regulations. It does not identify an existing provision of the general plan that is to be amended by adoption of the measure, or state that it is an addition to the plan. Absent some basis in the title, the ballot summary, or elsewhere in the ballot materials to support a conclusion that the voters both understood that the purpose of Measure H was to amend the Walnut Creek general plan and that they intended to do so, Measure H cannot be deemed a general plan amendment. Whether adopted by the legislative body or the electorate, an ordinance that is not understood by that body as a general plan amendment does not become such retroactively by judicial fiat. Indulging in a presumption that, by the enactment of what appears to be a zoning ordinance, the voters intend to amend a general plan, would violate the clear legislative intent underlying the Planning and Zoning Law. Unrestricted amendments of the general plan to conform to zoning changes would destroy the general plan as a tool for the comprehensive development of the community as a whole. ( deBottari v. City Council, supra, 171 Cal. App.3d 1204, 1212.) The dispositive question, therefore, is whether a basis exists for concluding that the voters of Walnut Creek intended to amend the general plan by adopting Measure H. Since we cannot presume the existence of such intent, it must be found, if it exists, in the ballot measure itself or the explanatory material in the ballot pamphlet. Notice of the purpose of a local initiative should be given in the title and ballot summary. Article II, section 11, reserved the local initiative power, but in so doing specifies that the power is to be exercised under procedures that the Legislature shall provide. The constitutional provision has been implemented in division 5 of the Elections Code, commencing with section 4000. The statutory provisions repeatedly emphasize the importance of notice to the voters of the purpose of an initiative ordinance. The Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition must include a statement of purpose. (Elec. Code, § 4002.) The statement of purpose must be included in the published and posted notices of intent to circulate. (Elec. Code, § 4003.) The city attorney must prepare a ballot title and summary of the proposed measure expressing its purpose. (Elec. Code, § 4002.5.) Similar provisions apply to statutory initiatives. (Elec. Code, §§ 3501, 3503, 3507.) (5) Their purpose, like that of the predecessor requirements of the Constitution and the Political Code (see Vandeleur v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal.2d 71 [82 P.2d 455]), is to inform the voters in order to protect the electorate from imposition by disclosing the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure. ( Epperson v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal.2d 61, 70 [82 P.2d 445].) [9] Adequate notice is crucial in this context if the purpose of the Planning and Zoning Law is to be achieved by creating and maintaining a general plan that is an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies (§ 65300.5) and a basic land use charter governing the direction of future land use in the city. ( City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal. App.3d 521, 532 [160 Cal. Rptr. 907]. See also, Wallace v. Zinman (1927) 200 Cal. 585, 593 [254 P. 946, 62 A.L.R. 1341]: If an amendment of the constitution were intended, [former section 1 of article IV] requires steps to be taken that will apprise the voters thereof so that they may intelligently judge of the fitness of such measure as a constituent part of the organic law.) (6) (See fn. 10.) As the Court of Appeal recognized, far from becoming part of an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies, the addition of Measure H to the Walnut Creek general plan would have created impermissible inconsistencies in that plan. [10] (2c) The title and ballot summary are relevant to construction of Measure H since they did not inform the voters that the purpose and effect of Measure H would be amendment of the general plan. Measure H imposed a building moratorium, a matter that is properly the subject of a zoning ordinance. ( Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore, supra, 18 Cal.3d 582.) Its provisions gave no notice to the voters that the measure was anything more than an ordinance limiting development. The title, Traffic Control Initiative, was even less informative than the text of the measure since traffic control was nothing more than a potential by-product of the building moratorium for which the measure actually provided. The analysis of Measure H prepared by the city attorney informed the voters that existing law permitted construction consistent with the general plan, zoning ordinance and building code, and that Measure H would change existing law by prohibiting construction under the specified circumstances. The analysis therefore informed the voters only that the adoption of Measure H would change the existing law that permitted construction consistent with the general plan, not that it would amend the general plan itself. (7) We agree with the Court of Appeal that the court must, wherever possible, construe an initiative measure to ensure its validity. Basic to all statutory construction, however, is ascertaining and implementing the intent of the adopting body. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1859; Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Pol. Practices Com. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 744, 764 [799 P.2d 1220]; Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [335 P.2d 672].) Absent ambiguity, we presume that the voters intend the meaning apparent on the face of an initiative measure ( Burger v. Employees' Retirement System (1951) 101 Cal. App.2d 700 [226 P.2d 38]) and the court may not add to the statute or rewrite it to conform to an assumed intent that is not apparent in its language. ( People v. One 1940 Ford V-8 Coupe (1950) 36 Cal.2d 471 [224 P.2d 677].) (2d) No basis exists for believing that the voters viewed Measure H as anything other than an ordinance in the nature of a zoning ordinance. Therefore, assuming, but not deciding, that the voters may amend a general plan by initiative, Measure H cannot be deemed a general plan amendment.